ROMNEY VERSUS LUTZ: CATCHING MITT IN A MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATION?

(Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here)

The Magnetic Mormon, Mitt Romney is engaged in a never-ending presidential campaign. One feature of the Vain Bain Capitalist's quest to buy the presidency in 2012 has been a series of campaign events thinly veiled as a "book tour" in support of Romney's self-promoting tome No Apology: The Case for American Greatness.

Romney apparently fancies himself as an automotive business guru, mostly on the strength of Papa George Romney's controversial time at American Motors (before George shuffled off this mortal coil in vain hope of his own Mormon planet to populate and rule as a procreative "god")

One problem is that Mitt and his handlers continue to play fast and loose with the truth.

AOL Autos recently interviewed "Maximum Bob" Lutz on a variety of topics as Lutz prepares to retire from his brilliant career. When asked about one of Mitt Romney's assertions about the "car czars" running "Government Motors," Lutz fired back with both barrels:

AOL: In his recently-published book, former Massachusetts Governor and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney claimed that an anonymous auto executive told him that the Obama administration’s task force was essentially running the show at GM and making the major decisions. Shortly after that was reported, GM flatly refuted Romney’s claim; the company said that was just not true. What are your insights into that?

BOB LUTZ: Well, as a condition of the loans and bankruptcy, the president’s task force initially did have certain goals, like to reduce number of dealers, and they did insist on certain restructuring steps we had to take as we were working our way out of bankruptcy. But in terms of them having the slightest influence on things like strategy and product decisions, that’s not true. The task force has long since been abandoned, and all of those folks have gone back to their former lives, and we haven’t heard word one from them since.

TAKE THAT, MITTINS!

Clearly, Romney has ample ammo against the Constitution-trashing Obama Administration by sticking to actual facts. Yet something in Romney's makeup apparently impels him to overstatement, oversimplification, and misrepresentation.

Mitt's well-paid "Mormon Mafia" of sycophants will undoubtedly defend their infallible hero, both by taking issue with Lutz and explaining that Romney was merely repeating rumor and innuendo. But the bottom line is that Romney has once again discredited himself with another material misrepresentation. And expect "No Apology."

FEW MOURN TILLER, GM, OR CHRYSLER (BUT MITT “SLICK WILLARD” ROMNEY IS STILL ABSOLUTELY WRONG)

[Get the latest “Truth With Speedzzter” here]

The rule of law is supposedly a hallmark of the American system. Yet the events of the past few days have shown that the rule of law is under virulent attack.

As expected, the nationalization of General Motors has now moved into the friendly confines of bankruptcy court.

As expected, the Indiana Pensioners and other creditors got steamrolled in Chrysler’s Obama administration-orchestrated “show bankruptcy.” Now the Treasury Department is partners with FIAT and the U.A.W.


Capitalism, anyone?

And on Sunday, May 31, 2009, the heinous and vicious late-term abortionist George Tiller met his Maker somewhere in the aisles of the Reformation Lutheran Church of Wichita, Kansas. Tiller was murdered at the hands of a rogue anti-abortion zealot who cast off the essential philosophy of the pro-life movement to mete out vigilante justice that was “above [the assassin’s] pay grade.”

Meanwhile, President Obama has nominated to the Supreme Court a liberal, pro-abortion, “policy making” identity politician masquerading as a jurist. Judge Sonia Sotomayor has expressed a belief that neutral questions of law and constitutional interpretation are better decided by an inarticulate, brusque, unquestionably liberal, Ivy-league-educated, Puerto Rican woman who grew up in the ghetto, than by any Caucasian male: “ I would hope that a wise Latina woman, with the richness of her experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.”

In each of these events, pragmatic, ends-justifies-the-means rationales were clearly at work.

And each of these events is an indicator that the impartial rule of law is dying in America.

Few seem to be mourning that.

The average Obama voter certainly doesn’t.

Deeply imbibing the mellifluous snake oil of “hope and change,” the average Obama supporter blithely wheels her non-union-made Japanese car and sheds no tears for the government-union-regulatory nexus that mostly destroyed GM and Chrysler’s competitiveness over the past seventy years. Instead, she demands increased environmental and organized labor intrusions into the business of American manufacturers, even as she personally consumes products made in dirty overseas sweatshops at record rates.

And as long as the government checks keep coming, the mobs of special interests that support Obama and the power-mad Democrats will scarcely question the costs of current deficit spending spree, or the de facto nationalization of our most basic industry, or the sacrifice of what’s left of the free market and success-through-merit on the altars of forced redistribution, “fairness as justice,” and climate change.

Few will mourn that the creation of “Government Motors” will have the unintended consequence of driving many more short-sighted, selfish consumers into the arms of the predatory Japanese invader automakers in retaliation for the perceived largess toward the U.A.W. and the recent federal interference in the business of GM and Chrysler (notwithstanding that decades of federal interference mostly predicated the crisis to begin with).

Few will mourn the loss of American industrial muscle and of vehicular freedom-of-choice that will result from the polarizing events of the government effectively running over half of the domestic auto industry.

Few will mourn the thousands of family-owned automobile dealerships which will be forcibly closed in “reorganization” (and some will even celebrate that these losses fall most prominently upon Republicans).

Few will mourn that an emerging Climate-Industrial Complex is becoming poised tocontrol or affect virtually every aspect of life in America.
Likewise, few will truly mourn the premeditated murder of an unrepentant, cold-blooded killer-for-hire who crushed the skulls of defenseless children sometimes just days or hours before birth and vacuumed out their innocent brains like some sort of fetal parasite. Many will see the irony that Dr. Tiller’s end was as unwilling and violent as the untold numbers of unborn children he dismembered for profit.

A few misguided souls will attempt to rationalize that Tiller’s quantum of moral evil somehow justified the moral evil of his murder. Such a result would indicate a profound misunderstanding of the underpinnings of the pro-life movement.

Undoubtedly, the Planned Parenthood lobbyists, abortion mills, “pro-choice” activists, and grandstanding leftist politicians (many with politically-motivated crocodile tears flowing) will attempt to elevate Wichita’s most infamous baby butcher into some sort of sick, fetid “martyr” for the pragmatic cause of the “right” to murder unborn children for convenience -- or in the sanitized P.C. vernacular of the pro-abortion movement: for “choice.” Some may even try to link the special-interest campaign to confirm the “Wise Latina” and budding constitutional vandal Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court as the necessary response to Dr. Tiller’s slaying. Yet, few will mourn that the rule of law and valid, transcendent principles of conscience failed to constrain both Dr. Tiller and his assailant.

Few will mourn that an allegedly “Christian” church – the so-called Reformation Lutheran Church – was apparently so devoid of the Gospel and of sound doctrinal teaching on matters of life that a horrific, rebellious, unrepentant serial murderer such as Dr. Tiller could peacefully thrive within their congregation and was even reportedly permitted to assume a leadership role. Certainly, the pragmatism of such a“church” has blinded them to God’s laws and has lead them into an unholy union with the “god of this age.” The inherent idiolatry of popularity has seemingly caused their salt to lose its savor (if it ever had any).

Few will probably mourn that the unlawful, yet sickly “pragmatic” act of murdering Dr. Tiller will distract and detract from decades of righteous, non-violent, law-abiding opposition to the unspeakable horror and manifest injustice of abortion-on-demand.

However, the pragmatists on both sides of the aisle will be out in force maneuvering. A prime example is “Slick Willard” himself, Willard Mitt Romney.

Romney is ever the pragmatist, and is seemingly unguided by consistent principles. Previously, Romney has repeatedly demonstrated his permutability on the abortion question.

And now Romney has conclusively shown his lack of insight on the automobile crisis. On Fox News Sunday, “Romney suggested that the roughly 70 percent of GM that the government could own after it emerges from bankruptcy should be immediately distributed to taxpayers, and the 17.5 percent that will go to a UAW trust fund for retiree healthcare should be handed out to UAW members.”

Romney’s “pragmatic” grandstanding makes absolutely no sense. It is simply transferring ownership of GM to people who have done nothing individually to merit it. The billions of dollars in GM debt held by the Treasury Department that purportedly justify the government acquiring an ownership stake would not flow with the distributed stock under the Romney Plan. Certainly, the only hope for recovering any of the taxpayer money spent thus far is the remote possibility of GM and Chrysler recovering (against the crushing load of Obama’s carbon-reduction, environmental, foreign, and labor policies) and a sale of the new stock to investors. Romney’s plan would be nothing more than a windfall to people who did nothing much to deserve it. Moreover, it compounds one abuse of the rule of law with another one.

The events of the last few days show that the rule of law in America is in grave crisis. And there is no shortage of charlatans, such as Barack Obama, Sonia Sotomayor, and Mitt Romney, who are poised to “pragmatically” take advantage of the crisis for their own benefit. And few will join Truth With Speedzzter in mourning that.

IS RICK WAGONER WASHED UP AT GM?

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

It looks like Congress will adjourn for 2008 without doing anything to douse the economic firestorm that is consuming what's left of General Motors, Ford Motor Company and Chrysler.

Monday, November 17, 2008, the New York Times asserted that:

"DETROIT — Rick Wagoner cannot afford to leave Washington this week without at least $10 billion in federal aid to keep General Motors in business."


"Rick Wagoner, G.M.'s chief for the last eight years, has to convince Congress that the automakers need federal loans."

"But a major question for Mr. Wagoner, G.M.’s chief executive for the last eight years, is whether he will return to Detroit with his job as well."

Wagoner jetted into town on a "luxury corporate jet," got brutally punished in a sadly typical U.S. Senate "show trial" "photo op" joke of a "hearing," and did not even obtain so much as cab fare for GM.

Wagoner failed to "circle the wagons" when it mattered most. Now GM will be forced to either file for bankruptcy or go into a "starvation mode" in order to hang on until President-Elect Obama and a larger Democratic majority takes over in late January 2009.

This will likely be the longest sixty days of Rick Wagoner's life.

However the inescapable question is: Will Wagoner even survive that long as GM's CEO? Or was Wagoner's infamous begging trip to Washington D.C. in the GM executive jet one of his last?

Wagoner basically has put all of his clout and reputation on the line. His "bet" came up empty. He struck out in the bottom of the ninth with the whole World Series on the line. He missed the "Hail Mary" shot at the buzzer that would have prevented a certain loss and put the contest into overtime.

Moreover, some have undoubtedly concluded that how he has mishandled this has actually HURT GM's cause. A near universal chorus in the halls of Congress and the lazy, sycophantic media is that GM's management is to blame for the crisis. And that "buck" stops with the guy who failed to "close the sale" by not bringing home the bucks this week.

High-profile management upheaval will likely be necessary window-dressing to any future deal as well.

Wagoner is the last of the traditional "Detroit insider" CEOs. The popular canard that it will take brilliant folks who have not grown up in inside the auto industry to save it is a career-flattening steamroller for company men like Wagoner.

He may not have made the mess and he may have been fighting for restructuring long before anyone in Congress ever even heard of the concept, but he's most likely to take the fall for generations of GM managers that are long gone.

It maybe totally unfair and divorced from the actual facts, but Wagoner might just be one of the sacrificial lambs in the titanic struggle to save GM.

Of course, Mitt Romney is tuning up in the green room . . . .

“DEATH MARCH” OR “PLANE CRASH” IN D.C. FOR THE DETROIT 3

[Get the latest “Truth With Speedzzter” here]

The Big Bankrupt Three Detroit automakers crashed and burned in front of Congress.

The poverty pilgrimage of Ford Motor Company’s Alan Mulally, General Motors’ Rick Wagoner, Chrysler’s Bob Nardelli and the United Auto Workers’ Ron Gettelfinger was an Edsel-sized disaster. A fiasco. A flop.

In a breathtaking show of tone-deafness, the hat-in-hand witnesses reportedly breezed into town on a fleet of “luxury private jets.”

A skeptical media – the same one that couldn’t be bothered with doing real stories about President-Elect Obama before the election – noticed the irony . . or the hypocrisy.

One would have thought that somebody in the huge public relations operations would have dreamed up something better. Something more symbolic.

A bus ride.

A convoy with thousands of employees who would get fired and lose their homes when the Detroit automakers are parted-out and stripped like a stolen Corvette in bankruptcy.

On the other hand, the dwindling cadre of logical engineers as well as the myopic bean-counters who plague Detroit would recognize that flying by private jet to Washington D.C. undoubtedly saved 3-5 hours of travel time (not insignificant when your time is worth $1,000/hour or more to your employer). It allowed Mulally, Wagoner and Nardelli the option to surround themselves with advisers and staff. It permitted them to conduct rehearsals and other work in flight (not possible on a commercial flight). It was also more secure than commercial air travel.

$20,000 in travel costs is chump change when you need $25-100 Billion! When Senators junket to exotic locales on “fact-finding” forays, they often take even more expensive military aircraft. And these same Senators vote to spend billions earmarks for “landscaping,” “nature walks,” “bicycle trails”, “beautification” and a museums for arcana such as the Woodstock Music Festival.

Nonetheless, all of that logic will be lost in the battle for public perceptions. It was as tone-deaf as driving a 1960 Corvair to a Ralph Nader birthday bash. . . .

Maybe they could have call the jets “air ambulances . . . .”

As for the main event -- the scene exuded all of the foregone “drama” of a Figure-Eight Jalopy race.

As Autoextremist Peter M. DeLorenzo put it:

"The din out there in the media right now is so anti-Detroit, anti-'bailout' that I welcome the opportunity to present the other side of the debate, even if it appears with each passing day that Detroit is running out of time and unable to break through the negative media clutter that envelopes the industry at every turn. And after that death march of a hearing before the Senate Banking Committee yesterday, I’m even more pessimistic.

When Alan Mulally, Rick Wagoner, Bob Nardelli and Ron Gettelfinger sat down in front of the microphones, I knew it wasn’t going to be good . . . ."

In fact, it was a total set-up from the get-go.

Later, even the hapless Mitt Romney weighted in, reminding everybody that his Daddy was among the old-line of Detroit managers who barely kept now-defunct American Motors afloat back in the halcyon days of the 1960s with frugality.

Mitt even claimed that helping the Detroit 3 avoid certain liquidation in bankruptcy would virtually guarantee the “demise” of the Ford, GM and Chrysler! (Don’t worry, Flipper Mitty will probably flip-flop to supporting aid . . . after it is too late.)

The journalists also dredged up the example of nationalized U.K. automaker British Leyland as an example of why “bailouts” won’t work.

Of course, the bulk of British Leyland did survive into the 21st century – which it likely would not have if the ratchets of over-regulation, hyperinflation, and government coddling of labor unions had not been leavened by bridge loan funding.

The vandals and visigoths seeking to burn down what’s left of Detroit conveniently ignore any success stories. They just don't fit the narrative.

Chrysler’s resurrection in the early ‘80s is wholly discounted as “prolonging the inevitable” even though every taxpayer dollar invested was fully repaid ahead of time and with interest.

“[T]he case of Renault, which combined fresh money and new management in the 1980s, showed that government bailouts can be beneficial.”

“The French government help for Renault also came amid increasing losses for the company. . . . [U]nlike British Leyland, Renault was able to use the financing to create new car models that were ultimately successful. That, along with tough cost-cutting by a newly installed chairman, cleared the road to profitability by the time the government began privatizing Renault in the 1990s.”

Renault even picked up the dregs of the weakened American company that Mitt Romney’s frugal Mormon pappy ran!

None of this matters to the Toyota-driving, Consumer Reports-worshiping, know-it-all Mob who want Detroit to “pay” for not eradicating the UAW forty years ago and who erroneously believe Vegas and Pintos accurately represent the quality of Detroit’s current products.

None of this matters to a hoard of finger-in-the-wind politicians who would spend billions more on pork and special interests, and anticipate heaping on billions more in unfunded mandates, but who will not lift a money-grubbing finger to save one of our most basic industries.

Romney, of course, is right when he says that the wages and benefits for UAW-represented workers must track with those of their “scab” counterparts in the right-to-work Southern and Midwestern assembly plants of the Japanese invaders. Yet, nobody in Washington D.C. has the bravado to suggest that the political branches of government have the power to make this happen. After all, it was FDR's "New Deal" that saddled the Detroit 3 with decades of labor trouble. Washington broke it and now they should fix it.

Instead, the Democrats and the GOP continue to squabble over the meaningless minutae of whether the already-appropriated $25 Billion for fuel efficient cars can or cannot be diverted to the more pressing need of avoiding a total shut-down of the industry. Stupid. Selfish. Tragic. Politics as usual.

Detroit is burning to the ground. Meanwhile all of those with fire extinguishers are acting as if they think fire is good.

IS ANTI-ROMNEY RHETORIC IMPROPER?

[GET THE LATEST “TRUTH WITH SPEEDZZTER” HERE]

“Gambit,” over at Huck’s Army said the following about “Truth With Speedzzter’s” recent post “ANDY CARD'S "NOT PLAYING WITH A FULL DECK" ON ROMNEY:”

“[T]his blog's author is getting what he deserves. In fact, he's making a bad name for Huckabee supporters with all of his Romney-bashing and other crazy blog posts. He is letting his hatred of Mitt Romney cloud his writing, and not adhering to "vertical politics" at all.”

“Please sift through some of his posts and realize that defending him is not the answer. It would only make "good" Huckabee supporters look bad with him. Please be careful what you say in his blog, that's full of negativity (both from himself and from Romney supporters).”

[Speedzzter would thank the kind and sincere folks over at Huck’s Army for all of their support and for their unvarnished feedback. Such sincerity and honesty ought to be the hallmarks of the grassroots conservative movement]

Gambit’s comments are fully in line with the example set by Governor Mike Huckabee in the 2008 campaign.

Governor Huckabee did his best to honorably abide by Ronald Reagan’s “11th Commandment” by trying not to speak ill of another Republican. Although the elite pundits and attack “dogs” of GOP talk radio -- and even the mainstream media -- attempted to “blow up” an ad hominem fight based on fleeting fragments of hearsay (the so-called “Christian Leader” ad in Iowa, the hastily-pulled negative ad press conference, the “floating cross” Christmas ad, and the off-hand “Don’t they believe Jesus and Satan are brothers” remark), Governor Huckabee refused to “take the bait” and stayed as much as he could on the “high road.”

Of course, not everyone traveled that same lofty road.

The internet is flooded with all sorts of negative sobriquets for Governor Huckabee: “Huckster,” “Huckleberry,” “Muck HICKabee,” “Hackabee,” “Mike Suckabee,” “Hokeabee,” “Hokeybee,” “Mike Taxabee,” “Tax Hikeabee” and a host of other unflattering, stereotypical labels attacking, inter alia, Governor Huckabee’s faith, geographic background, and profession.

Obviously, such partisan ridicule has historically been a job hazard of seeking elective office. And to the extent Governor Huckabee is aware of such name-calling, Speedzzter suspects he reacts privately with a blend of hurt, amazement, forgiveness and, perhaps even pity.

Moreover, During Governor Huckabee's active campaign, the political discourse was filled with any measure of half-truths and distortions of Governor Huckabee’s fine, Reagan-style conservative record in Arkansas. Yet, in spite of facing a well-funded hurricane of negativity and falsehoods, Mike Huckabee and his “Army” mostly “turned the other cheek” and focused on the positive message of the candidate.

Of course, no ordinary human being is perfect – Not Mike Huckabee . . . not his opponents (even the ones who falsely and pridefully believe they will become “gods” someday) . . . not his supporters . . . and most certainly, not Speedzzter.

Just as the “Body of Christ” has many members and diverse parts with many different talents, so does the GOP. And while many believe it was their sacred duty to campaign as gentle, inoffensive lambs, others sincerely believe that telling the whole truth requires stiffer measures. Speedzzter is obviously among the latter.

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s radical mentor, Saul Alinsky claimed in his 1971 book “Rules for Radicals: A practical Primer for Realistic Radicals” that “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”

In a wholly secular environment, Alinsky probably has a point. For example, because of the power of ridicule, the stereotypical crassness of the fictional Archie Bunker and his neighbor George Jefferson may have had more actual, long-term impact on fundamentally changing American race relations than the thoughtful, soaring eloquence of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

But Speedzzter’s Christian readers will undoubtedly object that such worldly tactics have no place within the scope of a true Christian’s conduct.

“Truth with Speedzzter” has attempted to walk this line between mean-spirited, non-factual ridicule and entertaining, insightful truthfulness about Mitt Romney. The playful nicknames “Gucci Chameleon,” “Slick Willard,” “Bishop Romney, ” “Mitt-the-Flip,” “Flipper Mitty, ” the “Vain Bain Capitalist,” and others appearing in these posts were carefully formulated to humorously highlight substantive defects in Mr. Romney and the apocryphal heavy sales pitch that his rabid supporters offered for him.

Moreover, the approach was intentionally focused on Mr. Romney’s secular, political deficiencies, notwithstanding his proud allegiance to a proselytizing, false, deceptive and secretive cult.

Outside his rabid supporters in the LDS religion (who are chomping at the bit for the public relations bonanza sure to come their way if a "Mormon" leads the free world), Romney only appeals to those who: (a) like plastic, prepackaged "machine" candidates; (b) Country-club GOPers who know that Romney is "shining on" the dirty rabble about those pesky "social issues;" (c) business special interests and "fat cats" who detect that Romney is really "one of them;" (d) the Eastern media elites and "beltway boys" who know little to nothing about "fly-over country" or the South and the candidates who hail from them; and (e) pragmatic lemmings who jump on the most ostentatious bandwagon parading by merely to be among the “in crowd.”

Speedzzter wouldn’t have been fully faithful to the truth without making these observations.

Mr. Romney’s heterodox faith has never been the issue with respect to his candidacy.

However, “Truth With Speedzzter” would not be fully truthful if it shrunk from veracity about the LDS religion. As has been pointed out over and again in these pages, reasoned theological disagreements are hardly bigotry. Such robust discussions are what were anticipated by the Founding Fathers when they adopted the First Amendment. Obviously, doctrinal discussions on sincerely-held beliefs do not automatically make one a "religious bigot" (otherwise, the legions of bike-riding LDS missionaries (which included Romney) would fit within that definition).

Like many roads, this First Amendment road we’re traveling together has a ditch on either side. The first ditch is marked by breezy notions of "tolerance" which cede the rhetorical battlefield to thugs who distort, mislead and practice ad hominem ridicule. This is the ditch favored by those who want to strip the public square of any meaningful discussions about faith (and about non-faith) as well as the safe harbor for the intellectually lazy.

The other ditch is populated by those with thin-skinned hypersensitivity and paranoid overreactions to any criticism or debate about matters of faith (or non-faith). This ditch is the refuge for those who are not robust enough to candidly, objectively, and authentically consider political, theological or moral questions.
The public discourse is not enriched by knee-jerk commentary from either ditch. Rather, understanding and meaningful dialogue comes from openly confronting the hard questions that the ditch dwellers punt on.

Romney has proven the unique ability to oscillate between the ditches, while stopping briefly between them to announce in carefully chosen code his fealty to “Jesus” (without any specifics, of course).

A case in point was Romney's over-blown "religion" speech last fall. It was calculated to evade and mislead. Romney's non-answers and buzz-word double-speak communicated more loudly than his carefully-crafted, focus-grouped, photo-op "religion" speech ever could.

By the way, unlike Romney, John F. Kennedy stood for a lengthy period of questioning by clergy AFTER his "religion" speech.

Romney has sought to have it both ways.

He wanted to talk just enough "Jesus talk" to lure some of the voters who sincerely believe that what's in a candidate's "heart" profoundly affects governance, but he didn't want to answer any of the questions that logically flow from this same topic. He also wanted to pander to his fellow LDS cohorts by claiming to be "proud" of his particular religion, yet he shrank from any meaningful discussion of its essential tenants or his leadership roles in it.

Romney "opened the door" to pointed religious questions when he laid claim to "faith" in Jesus Christ. If he didn't want to discuss religion whatsoever, he should never have mentioned it.

This lack of candor reveals much about why Romney is ill-suited for the presidency.

More importantly, Romney and the Romney-ites have grossly distorted the "no religious test" provision of the Constitution. The "no religious test" provision of Article VI, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution clearly does not prohibit individual voters evaluating a candidate's intellect, personal moral values and even religious beliefs in the private calculus on whom to vote for. Nor does it prevent any candidate from responding in candor and honesty as to questions on matters of faith. It simply prohibits the government from establishing a formal "religious test."

Given, however, the poor state of civics education in this country and the constant anti-debate paeans to a lazy, empty-headed, politically-correct "tolerance," Romney's message undoubtedly resonated with many in the electorate, including a number of conservatives (including Charles Krauthammer) who ought to know better.

Romney did say one important thing in his over-hyped “religion speech:” "Americans do not respect believers of convenience. Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world."
[Uh, Mitt . . . Do you mean those who would conveniently flip-flop on abortion, same-sex marriage and homosexual rights to "gain" election to political office?]

Speedzzter, of course, will not casually “jettison” the belief that Romney’s secular record and underdeveloped campaign skills make him a poor choice for the presidency simply to win the acclaim of some who reject the notion of unvarnished truth in political campaigns. While some sincerely believe that this somehow makes a “bad name” for Huckabee supporters, Speedzzter humbly and respectfully disagrees.
“Truth With Speedzzter” does not speak for any “Huckabee supporters” other than Speedzzter. Hopefully, anyone who is intelligent enough to find this blog and to carefully read it ought to figure that out.

More importantly, merely dressing up a skunk in a tuxedo does not ameliorate the odor. And sugar-coating or suppressing the truth in a false shroud of political correctness is an empty, cynical tactic which is tantamount to intentional deception. We ought to be more robust in our discourse than to require such insincere, pharisaical niceties. Instead, we ought to highly value plain-spokenness and candor.

The Values Voter blog said it well:

A person who is willing to say anything to get elected and who has no core guiding principles is the most dangerous type of politician. Because even if they agree with you on every point today, they're likely to change on every issue as soon as they feel they need to in order to accomplish a political objective. They're ideologically unstable - as undependable as the weather. I'd actually prefer dealing with someone whom I can predict - even if they didn't totally agree with me.

The same ought to be said of one who steps into the political ring as a commentator.

The comments herein are motivated by clear, unchanging “core guiding principles.” Whether or not they are agreeable to any readers is a matter of personal judgment. However, to the extent that readers become “hung up” on the style and miss the substance of this allegedly “crazy” blog, they are wholly missing the “forest for the trees.”

Speedzzter vehemently opposes Mitt Romney’s election to any national office for entirely secular reasons. But, to be unequivocally clear, Speedzzter does not “hate” Mitt Romney.

In fact, Speedzzter is saddened by Mr. Romney’s deficiencies and his notorious problems in taking consistent, values-based actions.

Speedzzter is saddened by Mr. Romney’s documented undependability on critical social concerns.

Speedzzter is saddened that Mr. Romney’s vanity and selfishness apparently prompted him to repeatedly fall from the high road and into the gutter of expensive attack ads, half-truths and distortions.

Speedzzter is also saddened by Mr. Romney’s apparent disrespect for his opponents and his inability to be collegial.

Most certainly, although not directly relevant to Mr. Romney’s pursuit of higher office, Speedzzter is further saddened that Mr. Romney has been deluded by family tradition, personal pride, and the false “god of this age” (2 Cor. 4:3,4) into dogmatically adhering to a false, deceptive religion.

In closing, the secularists and the "toleration fascists" are right insofar as they point out that building an electoral coalition requires attracting voters from many different (and conflicting) faiths (including a few voters who reject all faiths). Thus, the successful candidate will focus on common ground RELEVANT TO WHAT GOVERNMENT DOES (i.e. specific policies based on moral values).
Therefore, all candidates and even their camps of boosters, supporters and fans are better served by comparing and contrasting what each candidate would do as president, rather than battling over their respective theological motivations and quirks.

However, no participant in this process should be expected to “check” all religious values, opinions, beliefs or motivations “at the door” to participate in building the coalition or expect to be immune from any meaningful discussion of them. And no one should be expected to “jettison” all humor and rhetorical panache in making the case for, or against any particular candidate.

The Christian readers of this post will generally agree that all of us, including intentionally provocative bloggers such as Speedzzter, will have to give an account of “every idle word” in the final Heavenly judgment (Matt 12:36). To that extent, no man can truly and objectively judge whether or not the words printed here are proper or “idle.” (The secular readers are undoubtedly lost and wholly confused at this point) Speedzzter is most certainly an imperfect “sinner” who is wholly dependant upon the “saving grace” of Jesus Christ and subject to His judgment.

However, one of the aspects of living in a community of faith is voluntary submission to the counsel and discipline of the “Body of Christ.” Therefore, to the extent that Speedzzter’s literary flourishes have been in poor taste or have offended any “weaker brothers,” Speedzzter apologizes and requests constructive direction.

But “Truth With Speedzzter” will never apologize for being unequivocally truthful or advocating as passionately and effectively as possible on the basis of strongly-held, heart-felt convictions.

ANDY CARD'S "NOT PLAYING WITH A FULL DECK" ON ROMNEY

[GET THE LATEST "TRUTH WITH SPEEDZZTER" HERE]

Former White House Chief of Staff Andy Card has stumbled into the camp of self-appointed elite leaders of the GOP who are shilling for the Gucci Chameleon, "Slick Willard" Mitt Romney as a candidate for vice president.

Card told Newsmax that Romney would be at the "top" of Card's list for Veeps (as if Andy Card's list of potential vice presidents is a burning question)

Card further opined:

[Slick Willard’s] attractive, he was knowledgeable, he didn’t stumble too many times, so I don’t think that he suffers from foot-in-mouth disease . . . He is appropriately respected for his understanding of the economy and how it works and what decisions must be made that complement the ability for people to have jobs. He’s filled with integrity, and he’s a proven winner in a Democratic state.”

Of course, Card admits the obvious -- that Romney probably wouldn't be able to deliver Massachusetts to the GOP in November.

And Card apparently believes that McCain could simply trample over Evangelical voters, who like mind-numbed robots will always "take one for the team:"

“When it comes right down to it, the evangelical community will recognize the values of a Republican candidate for president as compared to a Democrat candidate for president” . . . “And I think they’re such good citizens that they won’t stay home. They’ll actually show up and vote, and I think that they’ll vote for the Republican nominee.”

Apparently the Romney-ians talking points left out the part about "holding their noses" when Evangelicals actually "show up and vote."

Already, the Democrats are trying to paint a McCain Administration, notwithstanding McCain's heterodox views and "maverick" reputation, as "four more years of George W. Bush."

For McCain to follow the advice of "W insiders" such as Andy Card and Karl Rove by picking Romney for Veep would merely reinforce the "four more years" charge in the minds of crucial independent and conservative Democrat voters.

Somehow, somebody in the GOP elite has to come to their senses and realize that in a time of economic turmoil and in the wake of the disastrous 2006 mid-term elections, the GOP cannot afford any hint of "more of the same" or a Bush coronation of the Presidential ticket.

The Gucci Chameleon is certainly "attractive" . . . to Democrats who write attack ads.

Tapping a political neophyte such as Romney, whose massive fortune was made by slashing jobs, off-shoring, and other short-term "bean counter" gimmicks, and who lead a state that “ was the third-lowest in the nation after Hurricane Katrina-hit Louisiana and Michigan," would be an absolute disaster.

Card's talking-point "belief" about Romney's attractiveness was hardly shared by the voters in the GOP primaries.

Romney's cost-per-convention-delegate may have set an all-time World record. However, Mitt Romney’s mendacity and make-overs simply didn’t sell, notwithstanding a self-financed, multi-million dollar ad campaign, a multi-million dollar GOP attack radio love-fest, the shadow war by the Romney-supporter-funded, Club For Growth, and a tidal wave of negative robo-calls.

To frame Slick Willard's appeal as a dating analogy -- a majority of voters saw Romney as like a privileged, nerdy “frat boy” lout who’d studied up on a slew of formulas on how to “pick up girls.” . . . a shallow sort of narcissist who would say “Sure, I’ll respect you in the morning,” while expecting his latest “marks” to ignore “all the girls he’s loved before (gun control, $50 abortion co-pays, millions in fee increases that “aren’t taxes,” secret timetables that “aren’t timetables”).” . . . the sort of selfish cad who would maliciously gossip against any rivals to his latest “conquest.”

Given the magnitude of Romney’s arrogance and the vast size of his checkbook, “Citizen Kane 2008" tried to hold on, long after it was apparent that he could not win any contested states, even among conservative Republicans (save his birthplace Michigan, where he sailed to a narrow win on the historic coat-tails of his father and the promise of billions in corporate welfare for the automakers, his spiritual "secret temple home" in Utah and his narrow, unimpressive showing back in Massachusetts).

But, according to Card, he didn't "stumble" too many times.

Romney has proven he can do several things. He can siphon support, drive wedges, and preview attack ad scripts for the Democrats in the fall. And he can change, like a chameleon, his approach and message with the wind.

He is not the ideological candidate for “movement conservatives” – notwithstanding all of the free and paid cheerleading from the Eastern conservative elites– because at his core, Romney is a “process” candidate, not a man of conviction.

Unlike Reagan, he has no great record of conservative thought, conservative leadership, or conservative governance.

His obvious commitment to situational ethics demonstrates that Romney has no ideological “soul.” Romney’s candidacy isn’t about advancing conservative principles – it’s about advancing Mitt Romney to his next self-aggrandizing “to do” in his Palm Pilot. It’s about giving Mitt another trophy . . . another take-over . . . another “conquest.”

Slick Willard found out that money couldn't buy him either love or the White House. So apparently he's now focused on the second best thing -- buying his way into being one heartbeat away from the Presidency.

While Romney apparently sells to Bush Administration insiders (the same people who thought that waiting until after the 2006 mid-terms to "can" Donald Rumsfeld was a good idea) and other out-of-touch Ivy League/Country Club Republicans, Romney has virtually no appeal whatsoever to the legions of ordinary rank-and-file Republicans who make up the real backbone of the GOP.

And if the Gucci Chameleon is a "no sale" to a double-digit percentage of the committed GOP faithful, Flip-Flop Mitt' s even less "attractive" to skeptical independents.

Andy Card's simply "not playing with a full deck" on the viability of Romney as a vice presidential candidate.

THE VEEPSTAKES: THERE IS AN OBVIOUS LOSER

[NOTE: GET THE LATEST "TRUTH WITH SPEEDZZTER" HERE]

Uberpundit Fred Barnes, of Fox News and Weekly Standard fame has plunged head-first into the Mitt Romney for Vice President campaign.

Barnes, apparently writing directly from the talking points paid for by Willard Mitt Romney (a/k/a the Gucci Chameleon, "Mitt-the-Flip," Bishop Mitt, the Vain Bain Capitalist, "Flipper Mitty," "Slick Willard" and that "guy who made hundreds of millions by outsourcing your job to China"), claims that Romney is the "obvious winner" as McCain's choice for Number Two.

R-i-g-h-t.

And New York Governor Elliot "Mess" Spitzer is a committed monogamist who'd never pay a floozie $5,000-an-hour for some nookie . . . .

Barnes' "analysis" (e.g. Romney commercial) ranks about as credible as Bill Clinton's infamous claim that he "didn't inhale."

Fred appears to be inhaling something (perhaps the sweet smell of beau-coup Greenbacks from Mitt's unlimited bankroll . . . or maybe the same stuff that Professor Benny Shanon was apparently on when he claimed Moses hopped-up on psychedelics at Mount Sinai)



[Of course Fred is probably just parroting the News Corporation company line as a dutiful employee]

Selecting Mitt Romney as vice president is a sure-fire way to torpedo John McCain's chances in November.

Just punch the "Mitt Romney" link below on this website for more about Romney's Mormon Tabernacle-sized list of political defects.

But here's the "Executive Summary" for those otherwise occupied at the "19th hole."

"Pit-Bull-Mitt" is a flip-flopping political novice who used his huge personal fortune to attack fellow Republicans.

"Bishop Mitt" overwhelmingly alienates at least 1/3 of the GOP base.

"Mitt-the-Flip" lost in many of the Red States where the GOP must win. (Romney didn't win any place that McCain was uncompetitive so he adds virtually no regional balance to the ticket.

"Slick Willard" stands for almost nothing solid (he's grossly flip-flopped on nearly every issue important to social conservatives).

The Vain Bain Capitalist also is the perfectly-coifed poster child for almost every negative stereotype the electorate holds about the GOP.

If Five hundred million dollars worth of free media from Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity and a host of other GOP "attack radio" stars couldn't sell "Mitty" to the GOP base (who were primed and ready for SOMEONE to rescue the GOP in 2008), why does Fred Barnes believe that Romney would sell any better among the more moderate (and more skeptical) general electorate?

Mitt as Veep would be a disaster (and a guarantee that this card-carrying Republican wouldn't even put a McCain-Romney sticker on the old Powered-By-Ford SpeedWagon . . .)

Central to the Romney-ian argument for the "superiority" of Slick Willard as Veep is the claim that he's been anointed by Karl Rove and George W. Bush.

Rove, of course, has been an in-the-tank Romney-ian for months. And , given the obvious fact that Rove and Bush have lead the GOP nearly to the abyss (including with sterling picks such as Donald Rumsfeld and Bush's gross negligence in not using the veto pen to stop profligate spending while the GOP still had control of Congress), it's hardly a ringing endorsement of their collective wisdom in selecting personnel or sensing the direction of the political waters.

But Rove and Bush pushing the Gucci Chameleon is certainly a fact that will make for a nice Democrat attack ad in the fall.

Mitt Romney is only the "obvious" winner of the Veepstakes if the GOP has a death wish in November.

HUCKABEE CROSSES THE “FINISH LINE” WITH HONOR

[UPDATE: After posting this, Truth with Speedzzter became aware of an eloquent blog by campaign correspondent Joy Lin. Ms. Lin's blog makes many of the same points as the blog entry below, but with the elegance and grace of a highly-paid network journalist. All Huckabee supporters should read Ms. Lin's blog]

“Little Rock, AR – Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee concluded his 2008 bid for the Republican nomination for President tonight, calling upon his supporters to embrace the candidacy of U.S. Senator John McCain (AZ).”

“Huckabee, a champion of conservative values, said: ‘I extend my congratulations – and my commitment to John McCain and the Party – to do everything possible to unite our party and our nation, to be the best country we can be, not for ourselves, but for future generations. I am grateful that Senator McCain has led an honorable campaign because he is an honorable man.’”

“‘It's now important that we turn our attention, not to what could have been or what we wanted to have been, but what to now must be, and that is a united party,’ Huckabee stated in his speech to supporters gathered in Texas tonight.”

“Huckabee said, ‘Not only have we fought the good fight and finished the race but more importantly, we have kept the faith. I would rather lose an election than lose the principles that got me into politics in the first place.’”

“‘While many in the establishment never really believed I belonged, there were many in the country that did,’ he said. ‘Thanks to their sacrifices, I had a voice – and I only pray that I have been able to give them a voice.’”

“Huckabee said he represented average Americans who work two jobs to meet ends meet; conservatives who want less – but more efficient – government with less corruption; people who believe we should overhaul our tax system, implement the Fair Tax and get rid of the IRS; the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines, who keep us free; those who cherish life and those who have yet to be born.”

“Huckabee, who ran an extremely small but cost-effective campaign, concluded his remarks by stating, ‘Our battle was never about us. It was about our country and its liberty. Now, we join with Senator McCain in the rest of that battle, not for who gets elected, but for what we can do when we get elected.’”

“Huckabee finishes the race with delegates from his victory in eight primaries and caucuses. He won caucuses in Iowa, West Virginia, and Kansas. Huckabee also won primaries in Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, Louisiana, and his home state of Arkansas.”

Almost immediately, a huge outpouring of support flooded the blog at www.mikehuckabee.com.

A number of pro-Huckabee bloggers also posted heart-felt reactions and support for Mike.

FIVE SMALL STONES WEREN’T ENOUGH THIS TIME

The bottom line is that more conservatives chose Senator John McCain over a true Reagan Conservative with an excellent record of executive public service.

Thus, the conservative carping over John McCain’s nomination should end now.

McCain won the GOP nominating contest “fair and square.” (Of course, McCain still has to be voted the nominee in September, but baring a disaster of some sort, such a vote is a fait accompli at this juncture.)

So why did Huckabee “cross the finish line” in second place?

Why weren’t “five small stones” enough to fell the Goliath of the GOP establishment and paid “attack radio”/Fox News Channel elites?

For Huckabee’s faithful Evangelical Christian supporters, the ultimate conclusion is that it wasn’t God’s will for Huckabee to win at this time.

The miracles of young David vs. Goliath or of Gideon’s small band against the Midianites are milestones because of their improbability and abnormality.

Mature Christians know that they are often called to be faithful in apparently “lost causes.”

Mike Huckabee “fought the good fight” and “kept the faith.” It is of no dishonor whatsoever that he did not prevail. He obediently did what he was supposed to do according to the dictates of his conscience.

Mature Christians know that obedience isn’t about achieving a particular result (although reaping a bountiful harvest can be a blessed temporal reward).

“We sow the seeds but God gives the increase.”

In other words, obedience is about the PROCESS of stepping out in diligently in faith, doing what’s right and following the leading of the Lord -- often times in spite of what the elites and the know-it-all wags of this World say.

For more secular pundits, theological excuses aren’t tangible enough. They will point to the following Huckabee failures:

1. Not enough money: Huckabee’s lean campaign was simply too anorexic to compete nationwide. And it wasn’t well-funded enough to beat back the misrepresentations of the Gucci Chameleon, “Slick Willard” Mitt Romney and his bought-and-paid-for surrogates over at the Club for Growth.
2. Not enough organization: Little money meant Huckabee had to rely on spirited volunteers acting without leadership in too many places. Although this worked in Iowa, it wasn’t enough in the states which came to dominate the primary season: the large, winner-take-all Northeast and Florida. It also meant that the Huckabee campaign had to concede several Western caucus states to the huge Romney/LDS organizations.

3. Inability to deflect skepticism about Evangelicals: The elites and Romney-ians tagged Huckabee with the label of “Evangelical candidate” early on. In much of the U.S., Evangelicalism is grossly misunderstood and is a “suspect” movement. Notwithstanding Mike Huckabee’s sterling sense of humor, his base guitar playing and other attempts to diffuse the rigid, fundamentalist “Southern Baptist minister” stereotype, Mike Huckabee was not able to attract enough “secular conservatives” to his cause.

Evangelicals should be somewhat troubled that millions of ordinary Americans are so ignorant or skeptical of conservative Christians that they would categorically reject one for national leadership. Obviously, had Evangelicals been more effective at spreading both the culture of Evangelical Christianity and in obeying the “Great Commission” in the decades leading up to this election, the seedbed necessary for Huckabee’s success would have been much more fertile in the Northeast, Midwest and Pacific Coast.

The harsh, often Anti-Christian rhetoric heard during this campaign and the pervasive, unreasonable bias against a high-profile Evangelical such as Mike Huckabee ought to awaken all Evangelicals of the need to become more obedient and active in spreading the Gospel – not so that some future Evangelical could be come President or so that Evangelicals are more popular in general, but so that millions of lives are transformed by the saving power of Christ.

4. Foreign Policy Deficit: Mike Huckabee never gained much traction with the Foreign Policy Conservatives.

Although he said the “right” things about the War in Iraq, Israel, and U.S. strength abroad, Huckabee never spoke with sufficient detail to overcome the skepticism of foreign policy wonks (who naturally distrust the international inexperience of state governors). McCain, of course, used this issue to his advantage against the entire GOP field.

5. Talk Radio: Justice Clarence Thomas once complained about a “high tech lynching,” but we’ve now seen what a concerted effort to destroy an honorable conservative looks like.

Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and a whole host of lesser lights never gave Mike Huckabee any fair treatment. Instead these elite GOP “attack radio” shills became the de facto arms of rival campaigns. The irony is that their attacks against Huckabee yielded an arguably even worse outcome for their conservative followers: the nomination of John McCain.

6. Fred Thompson: Thompson was a lazy, uninspiring spoiler.

[Speedzzter would like a refund of the money he contributed to Thompson’s effort before Speedzzter became convinced that Mike Huckabee was the best choice in 2008]

His lackluster campaign flourish in South Carolina slouched in just enough to turn McCain into the clear front runner. Had Huckabee garnered a fraction of the conservative votes that Thompson bled away, he would have won the Palmetto State and the subsequent course of the election could have been significantly different.

7. Evangelical disunity: Mike Huckabee said that if he couldn’t hold his base together, he couldn’t win.

Yet a whole host of self-anointed Evangelical leaders, such as Richard Land, Pat Robertson and others imbibed deeply the Romney-ian/Club for Growth/Elite GOP Attack Radio Kool-Aide and focused their support on other, more flawed alternatives.

Certainly some of Huckabee’s inability to unify the Evangelical community (at least among Southern Baptist leaders) was a lingering consequence of apparently choosing the wrong side twenty years ago in the Southern Baptist “Holy War.” But other Evangelical leaders apparently viewed pragmatism and secular opinion over principled voting.

8. Too high of a mountain: Jumping from being a little-known Southern governor to being a national candidate is a daunting task.

Only Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter have been able to do so in recent times. But Carter and Clinton were successful during a virtual vacuum in the power structure of their party. Although the GOP primary had no strong front runner or heir apparent, the GOP did have a massive field of potentially viable candidates.

Unlike Carter, who in 1976 could build grassroots support during an attenuated primary season and capitalize on an overwhelming wave of anti-Washington, post-Watergate, Post-Vietnam, "anti-Stagflation" sentiment, Huckabee had little time to capitalize on his upset win in Iowa. Huckabee’s effort was overly dependant upon “retail politics” and he was under-equipped for a multi-million dollar “air war.”

And unlike Clinton, who could occupy the “moderate Southern Democrat” slot mostly alone in 1992, Huckabee had to split the analogous conservative vote with a whole host of other candidates. Thus, Huckabee had to rise too far, too fast to have anything better than a long-shot chance at success.

9. Taxes: Huckabee rose and fell with his “Fair Tax” plan. Some realists rejected it outright as impossible or impractical. And the radical nature of it turned scores of special interests who bank on tax breaks and subsidies in the current byzantine tax code against him.

Ladle on the Romney-ian/Club For Growth/Attack Radio distortions of Huckabee’s fiscally-responsible Arkansas tax record, and the tax issue became a problem for Huckabee that his lack of funding and organization couldn’t overcome.

10. Conservative disunity: Conservatives were unable to coalesce around any alternative to John McCain.

Rudy couldn’t win Social Conservatives.

Fred Thompson couldn’t generate any grassroots excitement.

Romney had a “snowball’s chance” of winning in the South and among Evangelicals and blue-collar conservatives.

Still, all of these competed with Huckabee for conservative voters.

Thus, Huckabee couldn’t position himself early enough as the conservative alternative to McCain. By the time it was mostly a two-man race (not to discount the fervor and fund raising of the libertarians/drug dealers supporting Ron Paul), Huckabee could only strive for a brokered convention, and not an outright win. At that juncture, too many conservatives chose party unity and pragmatism over principle.

Mike Huckabee far exceeded any expectations that the political chattering classes had of him. He is a new star rising in the GOP. He has energized a critical segment of the Reagan coalition in a year when the GOP is somewhat dispirited.

Sadly, he didn’t win, though. His five small stones, "happy warrior" Charisma, folksy charm, and rock-solid faith simply weren’t enough to overcome a Katrina-sized hurricane of skepticism and lies about him and his supporters.

America is better for the fact that Mike Huckabee used this campaign to spotlight the issues that matter most to social conservatives.

And America is worse off in that the same old Eastern Establishment/Country Club/Wall Street/special interest elites who mostly run (and ruin) the modern GOP choked off the process and denied the voters the choice of a true, traditional Reagan Conservative in November.

ARE OHIO & TEXAS “MAKE OR BREAK” FOR CONSERVATIVES?

Contrary to the Elite GOP media spin, John McCain has not “mathematically eliminated” Governor Mike Huckabee.

McCain does not have 1191 COMMITTED delegates yet.

As many have pointed out, uncommitted delegates are UNCOMMITTED and can vote however they want at the GOP convention in September. Thus, until McCain has 1191 COMMITTED delegates, Mike Huckabee has at least a theoretical path to stop McCain.

However, too many conservative Republicans are acting as if winning 1191 COMMITTED delegates and then staying politically viable for the next six months until the GOP convention is a mere formality.

For his part, McCain is already “counting his chickens.”

Like a chicken, he’s ducking and dodging debates with Mike Huckabee.

Like a mother hen, he’s apparently sitting on what’s left of his campaign "nest egg" because he’s reportedly nearly at the FEC spending limit for the primary season.

And he’s “crossed the road” and “flown the coop” by campaigning more against the one he assumes will prevail in the Democratic Donnybrook instead of shoring up the conservative base of the GOP “back home.”

Of course, McCain’s mostly “big blue state” plurality path to the GOP nomination has undoubtedly (but incorrectly) taught him that conservative power in the GOP is waning.

As Speedzzter has previously written, if conservatives are not wholeheartedly behind John McCain, then voting for Mike Huckabee is the last clear chance to avoid his nomination and to send a powerful message to the Eastern GOP elites.

It is now up to true conservatives in Texas and Ohio to vote their consciences.

If true conservatives in Texas and Ohio fail to send McCain and the Eastern GOP elites a message in sufficient numbers, Conservatives in those states may be fairly labeled as “all hat and no cattle” or “all talk and no action.”

It’s clear that Mike Huckabee has energized many social conservatives. That much is evident from the continuing enthusiasm that many conservative voters have for his campaign (even after the monolithic chorus of GOP media elites have screamed for “Huck’s Army” to “cease fire”).

But it’s also true that the lingering effects of the corrosive propaganda war funded by Mitt Romney and his paid surrogates at the hypocritical “Club for [No] Growth” has taken its toll.

Conservatives who fail to stand in 2008 (not in 2012 or 2016) for true, rock-solid Reagan conservatism by voting for Mike Huckabee deserve John McCain as a nominee.

It’s not enough to pine away for 2012.

It’s not enough to wistfully dream of an “ideologically pure” third party.

It's not enough to turn toward Congress or local elections (neither of which can stop Hillary/Obama from packing the U.S. Supreme Court and the Federal Judiciary with appointed-for-life liberal ACLU/trial lawyers who will make up the meaning of the Constitution and our laws as they go.)

And it’s certainly not enough to float ridiculous, jack-legged trial balloons, such as a McCain-Romney ticket. (The Gucci Chameleon, “Slick Willard” Mitt Romney lost in the vast majority of the bedrock Red States that the GOP must hold and he de-energizes a sizeable plurality of the voters that ANY GOP nominee must have to win in November)

True conservatives in Texas and Ohio – if they are serious about their convictions -- must take a hard look at John McCain and Mike Huckabee. A hard look that’s independent of all of the paid GOP media spin, public opinion polls and the conclusions of the elite pundits.

If Texas and Ohio conservatives are willing to make a fair, honest, objective comparison, Speedzzter is certain that they will adjudge Mike Huckabee as the true, Reagan conservative choice for the GOP nomination.

The truth about Governor Huckabee is as follows:


1. With ten-and-a-half years of experience running state government, Governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas has more relevant executive experience than any candidate in the race – either Republican or Democrat.

2. Recognized and tapped by his peers for leadership, the National Governor’s Association selected Governor Huckabee as it’s Chairman,

3. TIME Magazine honored him as one of the five best Governors in America.

4. Governor Huckabee is a fiscal conservative who cut taxes almost 100 times in the state of Arkansas, including the state’s first broad-based tax cuts, and turned a $200 million deficit into an $850 million surplus.

ISSUES

1. TAXES/ECONOMY –Governor Huckabee supports The FairTax because it will restore the “Made in America” label, making American goods 12-25% more competitive, boosting economic growth, increasing our exports, and securing American jobs. It also prevents criminals or illegal aliens from avoiding taxes, and makes the taxes we all pay 100% transparent.

2. GOVERNMENT SPENDING – Governor Huckabee is committed to reducing government spending. One way he’ll do this is by reducing the cost of welfare. Governor Huckabee will work with states to reduce welfare roles through programs like the one he implemented in Arkansas, which reduced welfare roles by 50%.

3. HEALTH CARE –Governor Huckabee will implement a consumer-based healthcare system that emphasizes preventative medicine and wellness. Because 70% of our $2 trillion dollar healthcare costs is spent treating chronic, preventable diseases, this approach will make healthcare more affordable for everybody while keeping us healthier.

4. FAMILY VALUES –Governor Huckabee supports a federal constitutional amendment to protect the right to life. He Successfully fought for Arknasas’ marriage amendment and strongly supports a similar, federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

5. IMMIGRATION –Governor Huckabee will secure the border (with physical barriers, electronic surveillance, and more border-patrol personnel and detention facilities). He will also end sanctuary cities and increase penalties on, and enforcement against, employers who hire illegal immigrants. Governor Huckabee will make sure the border patrol has adequate funding to end our “catch and release” system so that everyone caught trying to enter illegally, overstaying their visa, or committing a crime will be held until they’re tried, convicted, and deported. Gov. Huckabee has also signed the Numbers USA "No Amnesty" Pledge.

6. WAR ON TERROR AND IRAQ – Governor Huckabee knows it takes a large, well-equipped military to ensure our national defense and to deter conventional military confrontations. He also knows we need large, well-equipped intelligence and Special Forces operations for our national offense – so we can effectively find and eliminate terrorists threats at home or abroad. Governor Huckabee will be a Commander in Chief who knows that IF WE HAVE TO FIGHT A WAR, our President has to fight it the way our GENERALS tell him it can be won, not the way we wants it to be won.

7. ENERGY INDEPENDENCE –Governor Huckabee will implement a program to end the import of foreign oil in the next ten years by increasing domestic oil production in the short term, and then replacing oil-based energy infrastructure with alternative and renewable energies.

8. CLEMENCIES – Arkansas Governors grant clemency, but the parole board grants parole. Wayne DuMond’s parole was granted by the board and NOT Governor Huckabee.

9. TAXES –When Governor Huckabee left office, the tax rates remained exactly the same as when he first came into office. Governor Huckabee returned almost $400 million to Arkansas taxpayers, and he also DOUBLED the standard deduction for individuals and married couples, DOUBLED the childcare tax credit, and eliminated the marriage penalty. He also repealed capital gains taxes for home sales, lowered the capital gains rate by 25%, expanded the homestead exemption, and set up tax-free savings accounts for medical care and college tuition. Gov. Huckabee has also signed the Americans for Tx Reform's pledge not to raise taxes.

10. SECOND AMENDMENT-
• Lifetime member of the NRA, member for over 15 years
• First Governor to have concealed-carry permit
• Removed restrictions on carry permit holders • Protected gun manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits
• Opposes reauthorization of the Assault Weapon Ban
• Opposes expansion of the unconstitutional “Brady Bill”
• Opposes waiting period for purchase of firearms
• Opposes background checks on private firearms transactions at gun shows
• Will nominate judges who interpret the Constitution a the Founders intended, rather than as a “living document reflecting current political trends or opinions”
• An avid hunter and conservationist, and a member of the Ducks Unlimited, National Wild Turkey Federation and BASS.
Governor Huckabee has also been a rock-solid supporter of the right to life (unlike Mitt Romney -- proud father of the $50 abortion co-pay health plan).

Governor Huckabee has said "No candidate has a stronger record on the sanctity of life than I do. I have always been actively and aggressively pro-life. I first became politically active when I helped pass Arkansas' Unborn Child Amendment, which requires the state to do whatever it can to protect life.""As Governor, I used that Amendment to pass pro-life legislation. The many pro-life laws I got through my Democrat legislature are the accomplishments that give me the most pride and personal satisfaction. I banned partial birth abortion, I required parental notification, I required that a woman give informed consent before having an abortion, I required that a woman be told her baby will experience pain and be given the option of anesthesia for her baby, I allowed a woman to have her baby and leave the child safely at a hospital, and I made it a crime for an unborn child to be injured or murdered during an attack on his mother."

"What I accomplished as Governor proves that there is a lot more that a pro-life President can do than wait for a Supreme Court vacancy, and I will do everything I can to promote a pro-life agenda and pass pro-life legislation. If I'm saddled with a Democrat Congress, I'll veto any pro-abortion legislation they pass. I will staff all relevant positions with pro-life appointees. I will use the Bully Pulpit to change hearts and minds, to move this country from a culture of death to a culture of life. I have no desire to throw women in jail, I just want us to stop throwing babies in the garbage."

Unlike McCain, Governor Huckabee is not best remembered for being a “hyphenated politician” (i.e. McCain-Feingold, McCain-Lieberman, McCain-Kennedy . . .)

Governor Huckabee, instead, is a true, consistent Reagan conservative.

Hundreds of true, grassroots conservatives in Texas have endorsed Governor Huckabee.

March 4, 2008, is a time for choosing.

Will true conservatives simply choose to “go with the flow” or will they vote their heart-felt convictions, notwithstanding what the elite leaders of the GOP say?

March 4 is the time when all true conservatives in Texas and Ohio should rally for their Country.

March 4 is the time when true conservatives must take a stand against the Washington D.C. belt-way of doing things.

In other words, it’s a time for choosing Governor Mike Huckabee – the last true Reagan conservative standing.

HUCKABEE ATTRACTS A DIVERSE BASE OF SUPPORT

[GET THE "FRESHEST" HUCKABEE AND "TRUTH WITH SPEEDZZTER" POSTS HERE]

Governor Mike Huckabee's detractors (mainly the slash-n-burn negative campaign artists affiliated with Fred Thompson and the Gucci Chameleon, "Slick Willard" Mitt Romney and the Eastern elites of GOP "attack" radio) have repeatedly attempted to frame "Iron Mike" as the "Evangelical candidate" or someone who only appeals to "religious right Evangelicals."

[Of course, these many of these same attackers would also charge that Governor Huckabee wasn't a "real" conservative -- notwithstanding his 10.5 years of solid Reagan-style conservative governance in Arkansas.]

Huckabee's supporters know better.

The Values Voter Blog has an "essential" post anecdotally rebutting the myth that Huckabee's supporters are all extracted from some right-wing Southern Baptist clone factory.

While the whole post is recommended reading for the well-informed, the most compelling reasons for why Governor Huckabee garners enthusiastic support (despite all of the "headwinds")from many diverse corners:

"Of all the 2008 Presidential Candidates, Mike has the most experience of actually running a government. I deeply respect the work of a U.S. Senator, but there is a significant difference in literally making decisions 'by committee' and being the person who is solely responsible for making sure that things get done. Mike is the only remaining candidate who actually has that experience."

"We all want a President who will bring us together instead of dividing us further. Mike was a popular Republican governor in a heavily Democratic State. He became governor just four years after Bill Clinton left office. In a state that was largely run by Democrats, he was re-elected until term limits made him ineligable for further re-election. In a country where most blacks will not vote for a Republican, Mike received 48% of the African American vote. And in a highly divided, "us vs. them" country, many people who held very different views on social issues than Mike still found themselves liking him and believing that he is a good man and an effective leader."

These comments highlight "Iron Mike's" clear RECORD of being able to "disagree without being disagreeable" and of accomplishing strongly conservative objectives against the "headwinds" of Democratic opposition.

In short, that's leadership!

A lot of candiates talk about being "uniters."

Barack Obama claims to be some sort of a post-partisan candidate. Yet Obama's website is loaded with radical left-wing proposals that, if pushed for adoption, will drive deep wedges into our political system.

Once Obama actually has to start actually pushing some of the radical details of what he apparently stands for, "Obamamania" will morph into just another partisan war lead by a glib, but vastly inexperienced commander. If fact, once Obama disposes of Hillary in the primaries, a fair level of his alleged "Republicans for Obama" support will evaporate almost instantly.

Nothing in Obama's anorexic record remotely suggests that Obama can jawbone through a radical leftist agenda without becoming a de facto partisan.

Liberal economist Paul Krugman reminded his readers today that even Jimmy Carter adopted this rhetoric. Governor Huckabee's shoestring campaign, Iowa upset victory and background as a Southern Governor has prompted a few GOP elites to falsely suggest that "Iron Mike" would be "another Jimmy Carter."

Yet nothing in Jimmy Carter's hyper-partisan career suggests that he somehow transcended the partisan divide.

John McCain is criticized by some conservatives as a "maverick" for his abandonment of many points of the Bush Agenda after the brutal 2000 election campaign and his open attempts to court Ted Kennedy and other Democratic liberals for a number of controversial bills.

While McCain is clearly a better choice for "Commander-in-Chief" and "Leader of the Free World" than a neophyte such as Obama, and even likely a stronger leader than the malaise-prone Carter, McCain neither has the record of executive success, nor the natural speech skills of Mike Huckabee.

That's why Mike Huckabee is attracting such enthusiasm from across the GOP, even if they've already told us the "fix is in" for McCain.

Adam's Blog points out some "Huckamath" problems with the conventional "McCain-has-it-wrapped-up" spin.

And "Voteforhuckabee" has the following brilliant rebuttal of the Romney-ian/Elite GOP/McCain chorus for Huckabee to quit:

Quit urging Huckabee to drop out! If he is 100% dead as you claim, then tell McCain to start his national campaign - why worry about some insignificant washed up nobody? But thats not the case is it? The fact is, Huckabee could very easily rack up another 5-7 states before this is all over. Huckabee isn't McCain's problem, THE PEOPLE THAT KEEP VOTING for Huckabee are McCain's problem! The thing is, you can't make people stop voting for the other guy, you can only ask the other guy to quit."

"McCain's supporters are literally shouting from the rooftops that their candidate is incapable of winning the required amount of delegates without Huckabee dropping out."

Huckabee, of course, as this blog has pointed out in several posts, is performing a valuable function for the process of selecting a nominee as well as holding fast to his promise to his loyal supporters.

Doing what you promise--now that's a novel concept for politics!


A BRIEF WORD ON "THE ICEMAN AND THE ISEMAN"

The pundit world is marveling at how the McCain spin machine outmanuvered the New York Times on the VickiIseman tale of innuendo and unidentified sources. And certainly the "movement conservatives" were correct to point out that the New York Times story was virtually unsubstantiated and from a source dedicated to promoting a left-of-center, anti-Republican agenda.

But the real questions surrounding the tale of the "Iceman (McCain) and the Iseman" involve the McCain camp's prior suppression of the story. John McCain's handlers apparently believed that GOP voters were not "adult" enough to evaluate the Vicki Iseman situation during the early primaries. If all the facts are on McCain's side (which Speedzzter has no reason to doubt) why wouldn't McCain want these facts to come out at the earliest possible time.

Another curious detail is that Vicki Iseman, according to reports linked to the Drudge Report, had "lawyered up." Hiring a lawyer, of course, is hardly evidence of any guilt and the right of any citizen. And having a lawyer help navigate highly politicized waters is generally a good idea. But if Iseman really has nothing to fear from the whole truth coming out, is a lawyer filtering the truth really necessary?

The apparent fact that Mr. McCain may have put himself into a questioned situation with a young, relatively attractive lobbyist may have been a lapse in judgment. And some on the left have already jumped at the chance to rip the Republicans for more "family values hypocrisy", based on McCain's reputed tumultous personal life and the wisp of smoke from the Vicki Iseman story.

But, anyone who has spent any meaningful time at all in legislative politics realizes that it is almost impossible to avoid casual associations with lobbyists and constituents with less-than-sterling records. After all, legislators are "public persons" and the work of policy-making should be a mostly public affair. Assuming that there is no "hanky-panky" between "the Iceman and the Iseman," McCain probably should have been a little more circumspect in avoiding an appearance of impropriety.


Trackback linkhttp://thevaluesvoter.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!F3D4C1BC1D8B0D91!325.trak and Trackback link http://blogsforjohnmccain.com/trackback/203

HUCKABEE "MESSES WITH" THE DEMOCRATS IN TEXAS

[NOTE: GET THE LATEST COMMENTS ON HUCKABEE'S RUN HERE (http://speedzzter.blogspot.com)]

According to news reports, Governor "Iron Mike" Huckabee delivered the following remarks to a huge, enthusiastic crowd in Plano, Texas:

"I know there's some wonderful rhetoric floating out there from Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. But you need to ask yourself, do you want your taxes to up or go down?"

"Down!" the crowd shouted.

"Do you want us to protect life or disregard human life?" Huckabee asked.

"Protect!"

"Do you want us to have a strong military or do you want to drop the guns and run for your lives?"

"Strong!"

"My friends, I believe we ought to be on the offense and not the defense when it comes to terror. I believe mothers and fathers raise better kids than governments ever will. Governments ought to get off the backs of parents. I am convinced that the best government is the most local government. We don't need Washington telling everybody in Texas how to live, let Texas decide those things for themselves. And the fact is, there's one candidate in this race who's run government and been chief executive and that would be me."

WATCH "IRON MIKE'S" PLANO TEXAS RALLY HERE!

While John McCain is vowing to "go to war" with the newspaper that endorsed him before the New York primary (the New York Times) over a mostly rumor and innuendo "bimbo erruption" story and is debating an unconservative public campaign financing deal with flyweight Barack Obama, Mike Huckabee continues to lay down the gauntlet for REAL REAGAN-STYLE TRADITIONAL CONSERVATISM.

Although Mike Huckabee has been dogged by the front-loaded, winner-take-all primary schedule and the corrosive influence of the Gucci Chameleon, Bishop "Slick Willard" Mitt Romney's $42 Million Dollar attack war (egged on by the out-of-touch Eastern elitists of GOP "attack radio" and Romney's paid surrogates at the radical "Club For Growth"), Huckabee has "stuck by his guns" in using the "bully pulpit" of the 2008 nominating campaign to spread a powerful traditional conservative message.

Should McCain falter or should the surge in his "bimbo war" with the New York Times turn badly, Mike Huckabee still stands tested and ready.

He's simply doing exactly what he has promised to his loyal supporters: He's staying in until someone has 1191 committed delegates. And he's focusing on the traditional conservative issues that matter most to REAL Main Street, America-First Conservatives.

Mike Huckabee is a valuable and exciting component to the national conversation over the future direction of the U.S.A. He should be commended for continuing to give voice to the concerns of traditional social conservatives.

The "Values Voter" Blog has has an interesting analysis of the odd dynamics of 2008's unreasonable primary schedule:

"In contrast to McCain, all of former Governor Mike Huckabee's wins have come in states where a Republican must win in order to win the General Election."

"The bottom line is pretty clear: McCain has a huge lead largely because of voters who are not representative of the those who have given the GOP its most recent victories. And one additional issue is evident. Ability to attract swing voters is not such an asset in states that have a prolonged history of voting for Democrats during a year in which there are two popular Democratic candidates and an unpopular Republican President. And when the popular leading Democratic candidates is showing unusual strength in places where the leading Republican candidate needs to win but is not winning by much, it spells trouble in November according to the current course."

Mike Huckabee staying in the race is critical to preventing John McCain and the GOP platform from "drifting" too far in the "Blue State Republican/swing voter" direction. Without a strong conservative like Mike Huckabee keeping John McCain "honest," McCain could be lured too far to the left by his increasing engagements with Barack-the-crock Obama. At least one blogger, Sunlit Uplands, has identifed 10 serious risks where McCain drift could be an issue.

It is important that "Iron Mike" Huckabee continue to champion the traditional conservative issues that might be ignored if the campaign switches too early into a vote-buying contest with the "Tammany Hall" Democrats.

Still some self-important "conservative" wonks are slathering on the ad hominem attacks against "Iron Mike."

The so-called "Conservative Post" blog calls Mike Huckabee "the Huckster" and compares him to an unwelcome party guest that won't go home, a "crazy uncle," and a "clown." Then these pontificating "guardians" of conservative orthodoxy question the honesty and sanity of Governor Huckabee:

[HUCKABEE:] “Let me assure you that if it were about ego, my ego doesn’t enjoy getting these kinds of evenings where we don’t win the primary elections,” Huckabee told reporters at a Little Rock hotel.

“We’re really going against an incredible headwind every day, and what I have to remind individual voters is that their voice and their vote still counts. Nobody can take that away from them unless they just give it away,” Huckabee said.

[Conservative Post] "This guy is delusional… it is all about his ego. Like McCain, now that he got a taste of the National lime light, he doesn’t want the media attention to stop. He thinks he’s being clever - using the campaign to strengthen the Huckabee brand. What he doesn’t understand is that timing is everything in politics and show biz, and he’s missed his peak. Every day he says in the race, the guy just looks more and more like the clown he’s turned out to be…"

This vapid, ad hominem-laced "analysis" ignores the obvious fact that -- unlike any of the other candidates for the GOP nomination -- Mike Huckabee has energized a critical constituency in the Republican Party.

When self-appointed thugs like the "Conservative Post" spew their bile calculated to "gatekeep" the primary and convention process, they aren't just attacking Mike Huckabee. They are attacking millions of voters who believe that voting for Mike Huckabee is both a sacred right and a solemn privilege of citizenship.

Moreover, if in fact the "Conservative Post" is really conservative, why aren't they celebrating that SOMEONE is STILL drawing huge crowds of electrified primary voters to hear a strongly TRADITIONAL CONSERVATIVE MESSAGE? Why shouldn't the voters in Texas, Ohio and elsewhere have a real campaign and a real opportunity to vote their consciences?

Is the Republican party now so monolithic and uniform that there is no room for debate or elections?

The ridiculous, juvenile attacks of the "Conservative Post" on Mike Huckabee are inaccurate, shameful and beneath the standards of proper conduct for the Republican party. However, the "Conservative Post" telegraphs its apparent disloyalty through the following "web poll:"

"Should Conservatives Bolt the Republican Party to Form Their Own Party?
Yes, Enough is Enough!
No, I Like Compromising my Principles"

Their are no other alternatives in the "Conservative Post" poll.

"Iron Mike" Huckabee, unlike the "Conservative Post" is commmitted to supporting the GOP nominee . . . even if it's not Mike Huckabee.

CONVICTIONS PROPEL MIKE HUCKABEE

[GET THE LATEST "TRUTH" HERE (http://speedzzter.blogspot.com)]

Although the paid pundits have declared the GOP race over and even presumptive Democratic front-runner Barack Obama has weighed in on his expectation of McCain the GOP standard bearer (through a USA Today request for an "agreement" on public financing of the general election campaign), Mike Huckabee hasn't quit.

According to mikehuckabee.com:

My candidacy is, and always has been, about convictions – and the issues and core values that are critical to our country’s future, such protecting traditional marriage, the sanctity of life, individual empowerment and a revamping of our federal tax code to encourage productivity. It’s about lifting Americans up, from hope to higher ground, with a positive vision for America’s future that is grounded in a belief in our nation’s basic goodness, and defined by a ‘can—do’ spirit that knows how to gets things done. My goal is to offer Republican voters, a voice and a choice in this election."

"The last four out of five U.S. Presidents have been governors, and there is a reason for this: the challenges facing our nation require steady, experienced, executive management. As governor of Arkansas for 10 ½ years, I delivered on my promises to cut taxes 94 times, reduce welfare by half, reform health care for children and our education system, and transform our transportation infrastructure. My record of results, achieved with a Democrat legislature, gives a meaningful viability to my candidacy."

"There are millions of Republicans from across this country who have yet to be heard from. Clearly we were disappointed by the results in Wisconsin, but I look forward to campaigning hard in Texas and Ohio this week – and taking my case before the good people of those states."

Mike Huckabee is an honorable man who would, in other times and under other circumstances, be a very competitive choice for the Republican nomination. He is clever, articulate, and a traditional "Reagan conservative (notwithstanding all of the Elite GOP "attack radio" slanders of his Arkansas record).

Under the current GOP rules, however, the compressed process, the winner-take-all nature of several states and even the odd order of the primaries and caucuses have inordinately distorted the process against Governor Huckabee and similarly situated candidates.

Without either pre-existing national name recognition (i.e. John McCain) or a huge ability to self-finance (i.e. the Gucci Chameleon, "Slick Willard" Mitt Romney), it is virtually impossible to be competitive for the Republican nomination.

Although the Republican party would fancy itself as a "meritocracy," the odd results of the 2008 primary season suggest something else.

Unlike the times of Abraham Lincoln, when a little-known but highly-committed candidate could "barnstorm" and debate his way to the top through old-fashioned "retail politics", the modern Republican nomination process is designed to grossly inhibit competition and limit choice.

Thus it has produced a front-runner with little tie to the GOP base. However, the process may have unwittingly yielded a "presumptive nominee" with more appeal to non-Republicans than to the card-carrying rank-and-file.

In stark contrast, the Democratic primary, with arguably fewer built-in advantages to early victors and more proportional voting, has yielded a contest wherein both "finalists" are so beholden to their left-wing bases, electability in the general election is suspect.

Neither system is remotely perfect. The nominating system of both parties is too biased toward limiting choice and producing a rapid result.

However, if the goal is to vet the most qualified, most representative, and most competitive candidate (regardless of pre-election fame or financial resources), Mike Huckabee and his loyal supporters probably have a legitimate "beef" against the present GOP nominating process.