|
|
December 11, 2007The Huckabee/Romney Circus - UPDATEDI have to be honest, I never much liked Mitt Romney, or Mike Huckabee. I have no intention of selecting a candidate and backing him this far out, particularly when - for the most part - so many of them seem either bland, unserious, pandering, not-forthcoming or just yeeech. The National Review is endorsing Mitt Romney
Well, I didn’t especially think that Romney’s speech was all that and if that moment - when he was supposedly defending his deepest beliefs - was a sample of his passion…I remain underwhelmed. If you care about polls, this one says Romney’s speech made no difference for him, and I think that’s probably about right. National Review will likely convince some with their reasoned argument, but I think it is a too-early reaction against the “Huckabee spree” we’re being fed by I don’t-know-who-but which I’m not buying. Huckabee leaves me cold - and this endorsement just leaves me further chilled. Aside from the fact that I am not sure I like the idea of a minister being POTUS, I cannot believe this most important of elections is involving candidates who are busily questioning the religious beliefs of other candidates in a way that I think will turn off many Americans:
Look, the press is going to do as much as it can to keep voters focused on the “Jesus freaks and spooky Mormons” in the GOP, and without saying very much about them - just allowing the religious hype and in-fighting to play out before the nation’s eyes, they’ll manage to scare the country into the Dem column. (Update - Michael Novak is, endorsing Romney,too. More backlash against Huckabee’s tactics? Perhaps.) Jonah Goldberg dissents from the NRO endorsement. Like me, he’s still looking, it seems. I’m lately more and more convinced that I am not much of a “conservative” girl (heh, plenty of conservatives have written telling me as much), but I can’t call myself a “liberal” as “liberalism” is today-defined. Maybe what we classical liberals need is a candidate like Hubert Humphrey or JFK or Scoop Jackson. I’m not ready to say who I’ll vote for in ‘08 - I frankly don’t know. I can only tell you it will not be Hillary Clinton, it will very likely not be Mike Huckabee, or Mitt Romney. Give me a candidate who will not continue or deepen the balkanization of this nation into political/feminist/religious/economic factions, one who can be counted on to seriously engage our enemies, both foreign and domestic, and who will take care of the nation’s infrastructure while getting out of the way of the citizenry, and I’ll start to get excited. More selections, please…and hurry. http://theanchoressonline.com/2007/12/11/the-huckabeeromney-circus/trackback/ 20 Responses to “The Huckabee/Romney Circus - UPDATED” |
December 11th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
Different strokes for different folks, I suppose. Yet, I wonder if I could convince you to give Huckabee a second look. One reason I think he’s a good choice is his foreign policy. If you have time, listen to this speech he gives on the war on terror here:
http://media.csis.org/csistv/?070928_huckabee
He makes some excellent criticism of Bush, and seems to have a fantastic grasp of both the threat of the terrorist movement and the need for engagement with the Muslim world, as well as the plight of Muslims in Europe and the distinction between Persian and Arab culture. I especially appreciated his admonition that politics is not as black-and-white as theology, and that we cannot afford to always be self-righteous ideologues.
Huckabee to me seems like the real deal - and its amazing how his compassionate heart stands apart from the other GOP leaders:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZOI3qk-IMs
If you dig a little deeper, I think you may actually like what you find.
December 11th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
[...] Captain’s Quarters, Power Line, The Anchoress, Sister Toldjah, CNN Political Ticker, The Swamp, Hot Air, Truthdig, The Trail, Political Machine, [...]
December 12th, 2007 at 12:40 am
[...] I agree with the Anchoress. Look, the press is going to do as much as it can to keep voters focused on the “Jesus freaks and spooky Mormons” in the GOP, and without saying very much about them - just allowing the religious hype and in-fighting to play out before the nation’s eyes, they’ll manage to scare the country into the Dem column. [Print This Post] [permalink] [Trackback URI] [...]
December 12th, 2007 at 3:09 am
The elitist know-it-alls at NRO have been out of touch with reality a good many times these past few years, and an endorsement of the weasel is no different.
December 12th, 2007 at 7:08 am
“More selections, please…and hurry.” That is just not serious. Our next President will be one of those now running. You would have to be a foolish person, such as those who believe in third-party candidates, or political saviors riding in on a white horse, to think otherwise.
December 12th, 2007 at 8:25 am
Everyone should go into the booth with their own reasoning behind their decision to vote for a candidate.
You have said in the past Mitt’s Mormon faith is the primary reason you cannot vote for Romney. That is OK. For people who can get beyond that, the NR endorsement should mean something.
I intend to caucus here in Iowa for Thompson at first, but may join the Mitt camp if Huckabee’s “fair tax” minions are there in any number. I have liked Thompson’s policy proposals thus far, but have anxiously awaited him to make a move in the polls. If no one is there to support him in numbers, I will look elsewhere to see that a viable candidate comes out of our caucus precinct.
December 12th, 2007 at 8:28 am
What are your feelings about JFK, his speech and his being the first Roman Catholic to be elected President?
Thousands of Catholics voted for JFK who didn’t have a clue what he stood for. This was perfectly understandable.
It is also perfectly understandable for those who actually believe God has a part in their daily lives and in the survival of our country to include “religion” in their voting equation.
There are Christians and others of faith who do not leave God in the sanctuary when church is over.
December 12th, 2007 at 9:03 am
Call me crazy but if Newt G were in the race, I think he’d be a better choice than any now in the running. I still have doubts that Cheney will finish up as the VP. Time is getting short, but he could still resign and we “could” end up with an appointed VP on the ticket.
I was very disappointed to hear Romney’s “ok with ESC research on left over frozen embryos providing parental consent.” On COME ON. To my great disappointment, he clearly doesn’t “get” the sanctity of life. Even worse, I actually believed he really did have a change of heart, and was a true pro lifer.
For what it’s worth, I had a dream that Pat Buchanan was our next pres. Think about THAT one.
December 12th, 2007 at 9:44 am
I don’t like Huckabee and do we really need ANOTHER disaster as POTUS from Arkansas? Romney - I’m really on the fence. McCain I find it hard to accept him because of his asinine views on dealing with illegals and worse yet, I simply cannot overcome my fury at McCain/Feingold and all that it has wrought! Ron Paul strikes me as a loon, except for a few good positions, but basically unqualified. That kind of leaves Thompson (no thank you) or Rudy - and in the end, his strength in the GWOT might get him the nomination. But I just cannot overcome my distaste for his multiple marriages which tell me that he may make a solemn vow but doesn’t feel constrained to honor it. And his position on abortion, especially since he was raised Catholic, is a total turnoff.
Can I vote “no” for President?
December 12th, 2007 at 11:19 am
Caustic Conservative, I have NOT said that I cannot vote for Romney because he is a Mormon - I have merely written that his religion will be a serious problem for some and pointed out (briefly) why that might be. I frankly don’t care about his faith, I care about the fact that he is very beige and middle-management and a bit of a flip-flopper. The NRO endorsement doesn’t weigh much with me, because they’re looking for the best “conservative” of the bunch. I’m not. I’m looking for the one I BELIEVE the most. This has nothing to do with “leaving the sanctuary” as someone wrote. I want to vote for someone I believe when he opens his mouth. I believed W when I voted for him, and love him or hate him, you still know that he means what he says. I don’t get that feeling from either of these two men. I believe Thompson when he talks, but I’m not sure I believe he WANTS the job. I believe Rudy most of the time, but most is not enough.
And while it might be “foolish” to wish for another candidate, I figure why not wish? Doesn’t mean I’m not going to vote, in the end…but it’s still pretty early. Someone could step in…but who?
December 12th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
As a Catholic I am annoyed by the fact that 47 years after JFK (and 99 years after Al Smith — the best president the US never had) we are all having this conversation.
I agree with you on Romney. I too find it difficult to vote for him, and it has nothing to do with his religion. Rather, I find him somewhat plastic. And this is disappointing as I initially had high hopes for him.
With Huckabee, several months ago I stated on my blog that he was a dark horse. With his support of the Fair Tax and his true outsider status, I thought he might make a good candidiate. On a Glenn and Helen Show podcast, he even had good things to say about federalism. And he showed a self deprecating sense of humor.
But the closer I look, the more concerend I am with Huckabee. At heart, he is a nanny stater.
So despite concerns about campaign finance reform, I am going with McCain.
December 12th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Did I mention that I am also very opposed to oligarchies? Since when did America descend into having a permanent ruling class?
Again and again and again we are forced to choose between the same names for political office.
Now, I like W, but it is not good for our country to be ruled year after year by the Bush family or the Clinton family or the Gore family or the Kennedy family or the Romney family or anyone else from the handful of families that are routinely elected to office.
December 12th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Sorry lady A but I’m with Caustic Conservative, you did imply that YOU had problems with the Mormon religion. I remember thinking about it and feeling very sad about it. But if you say that is not what you meant then I will take your word for it. I think the whole religious bruhaha is disgusting. I havan’t decided who to vote for but I know it won’t be a democrat running right now. This whole campaign started too early, will go too long and has turned too ugly for my taste.
December 12th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Farrwestmom, I really, really don’t think I’ve ever said that I have a problem specifically with Romney’s religion. I don’t have time to look back into my archives, but that statement would be so far from who I am that I really don’t think I said it. I will look over the weekend, and if I find I am wrong, I will say so.
What I have done - repeatedly, I admit - is point out and enlarged on the fact that for some his religion will be a non-negotiable factor against him, and I’ve pointed out that, for example, the Mormon idea of “sealed” (in temple) marriages become marriages throughout eternity - in direct contradiction to what Jesus says in scripture - is sure to be difficult for a lot of Christians. I spent much of my adolescence around Mormons. I don’t pretend to know everything about their faith - frankly there is a lot about their faith they did not share with me, for whatever reason. I know enough to know it’s not for me, but then again, I’ve never been one to say everyone should have the same faith. Best to you!
December 12th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
I’m rooting for Fred Thompson. He may not be flashy but he has plenty of substance.
December 13th, 2007 at 8:35 am
Allow me to point out that Fr. Neuhaus stated it pretty well when he said - “Few Catholics believe that a candidate is disqualified by being a Mormon. The reason is obvious: Catholics are accustomed to having heretics in the White House. Jews likewise are not offended that the president is not one of their own. This is and always has been a dominantly Protestant country. With the exception of JFK, who, sad to say, was not much of a Catholic, Catholics are accustomed to having presidents who are, in their view, religiously wrongheaded. Evangelicals, by way of contrast, are accustomed to thinking of America as a Christian nation, meaning a Protestant nation. For many who lack a fully developed ecclesiology, America is something very much like their church. You don’t want a heretic as the head of your church.”
When somebody believes you said you had a problem with Romney’s Mormon faith, if you did, it most likely was the problem they might be projecting on you, not as Fr. Neuhaus put it. Romney is a heretic, but that doesn’t stop us Catholics from voting for him if he turns out to be the most qualified. Those of us who refuse to bind ourselves to one political party, must wait out the primary game. This election season, it’s going to be excruciatingly painful.
December 13th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Well I guess I am still a Huckabee supporter. THe Mormon question he fell into even though he has tried to avoid it forever. For a press that was asking his views on the subject it is funny they have turned him on so. Living next to Huckabee home state I can say he is relly not a divider. One reason why he got so much cross over vote. I am noit thrilled at all with the Gilhchrist endorsement. However note the other factions of that movement are very anti Huckabee. Gilchrist in my mind is pretty much an opportunist.
Still Huckabee has caused himself some damage and now will have to move on from it. I do think that when one side cause he a liberal in Conservative clothing and another calls he a crazed conservative that should be a indication that he is a tad more complicated than th sound bites of the opposition let on.
That being said this will be over quite quickly now. ON the GOP side there will either be Romney , Rudy, or Huckabee. I do like McCain but he he appears to be “hated” and misunderstood by everyone. Pretty soon after 6 to 8 states vote in quick succession this will be pretty much over on the GOP and Dem side. So in reality it will not matter who we will support because it will be a done deal at least as to the leading Frontrunners of the two parties
December 14th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Huckabee Slings Some Mud…
I guess it was inevitable–Mike Huckabee has advanced on a winning personality and unassailable Evangelical bona fides. Until now he hasn’t been tested the way a leading candidate would be. He’s not ready. What kind of frontrunner slings mud? Republi…
December 14th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Why It Matters What Huckabee “Knows” About Mormons…
My post on Huckabee’s dissembling about what he “knows” about Mormonism got picked up by Hugh Hewitt on the Townhall blog and then subsequently by others. Notably, some Huckabee boosters are reluctant to attach too much seriousness to the issue,……
January 5th, 2008 at 2:05 am
Huckabee is a preacher first and a candidate second. He is intent to bring his prescher credentials to the White House. Born Agains are running the military and despise those who don’t comply, as they do those of other faiths, especially Mormons, of which I am one. By the way, if I choose to believe Priesthood power was restored by angelic ministry to Jospeh Smith and Oliver Cowdrey, that is my privilige. Peter, James, and John held the sealing power from Christ who said, “What so ever thou shall seal on earth shall be sealed in heaven..etc.” So if that power was restored, as we believe, by them, my marriage to my wife in our temple is so sealed eternaly if we remain worthy. Sure we have many civil marriages in our church also. So lets drop the subject. Mormons are told to keep their politics out of their worship, and they do. Look how the Evangelicals turn out for Huckabee. In my opinion he is shifty and bigoted. Romney, he is too rich for me although he can be trusted to give his best effort and succeed in anything he takes on. I wish Newt were running also. Obama impresses me with his style, and his leadership ability. I am watching him although, at age 81 I have never voted to put a Democrat in the White House.