Posted by
Steve on Sunday, December 23, 2007 2:07:44 AM
Some people and candidates, the more you hear about them, the more you like them. In the case of Mike Huckabee, the more you hear about him, the less you like him.
First, when he was granting clemency as a Governor of Arkansas, he listened more to his friends and fellow preachers than he did to the professionals. It was more important to be connected to a friend of Mike Huckabee than to be really reformed. That is a poor way to judge right and wrong. In some cases you will make correct choices. But, in many cases you will be wrong. I just read about the Field case. That is a case of a wealthy connected donor Field that was convicted after 4 DUI’s. He appealed to his friends, who were friends of Mike Huckabee, and got his release. Shortly after his release, he was picked up for DUI where his blood alcohol limit was twice the legal limit. That was one of the poor choices.
Second, Huckabee continually brings religion into the Republican debate. Religion has a place in the debate; it just does not hold the central place when talking about a Presidential candidate. It is working by confusing many voters. They are confusing being a good “Christian” with being a good Conservative. The two are not related. It is possible to be a good Conservative and not be a Christian at all. Many pundits are thinking that we are getting our Jimmy Carter in Mike Huckabee. Jimmy Carter was arguably the worst President we have had. Bill Clinton was the most corrupt. Jimmy Carter was incompetent. Mike Huckabee appears to be in the incompetent mode. He takes criticisms personally, not politically like it is meant.
Selecting a President is finding the person that most closely matches your world view and ideals. What religion a person is in this case is not important. When you boil most religions down to their essentials you get pretty much the same points. If the person running is a good person, you should be able to vote for that person. What religion they are should be a secondary consideration. If the two share all your ideals and the only thing that separates them is their religion, then that can be a criterion. But, overall it is more important to find someone who will safeguard the country and run it efficiently.
Mike Huckabee is not a Conservative. He does not believe in supply side economics. He does not believe in most of the conservative economic issues. Socially, he is a conservative as he is pro-life. He is also a liberal when it comes to foreign policy. On two of the three legs of being a conservative, Mike Huckabee qualifies as a liberal. He only qualifies as a conservative on one of the three. That is not a good percentage. Rudy Giuliani at least qualifies on two of the three. Mitt Romney qualifies on all three. Fred Thompson qualifies on two and there are real questions on the third. John McCain qualifies on two and there are questions about the third plus he cannot be counted on when the chips are down.
Where does this leave us? We have a problem on our hands. If Huckabee becomes the nominee, we no longer have a Republican Party. We have a Democrat Party lite with a social conservative plank. That will not get anyone elected. That will mean a Democrat President and a Democrat Congress. We cannot afford that when there are Supreme Court Justices to be confirmed in the next four years. We need a conservative President to lead a conservative legislative branch. That can only happen if we select a nominee that is a conservative on all three legs of the Republican stool.
In my case, I cannot vote for Mike Huckabee as currently running. I want a conservative on all three legs of the conservative stool. Huckabee only qualifies on one leg. That stool cannot stand. Until he changes to fit all three legs, he is unacceptable to me. I will not vote for him until he modifies his views on economics and the world. But then, in the eyes of many he would be a flip flopper and only doing it for the nomination. That would then disqualify him in the eyes of many.