WHY IT'S FUN TO GOUGE RUSH IN THE EYE WITH A HUCKABEE VOTE
Speedzzter and every voter in the Speedzzter family, as well as a good number of Speedzzter's friends have now voted for Mike Huckabee on Super Tuesday.
It sure felt great!
Why?
Because Mike Huckabee is the best, most consistent conservative choice remaining in this election.
And because a vote for Mike Huckabee IS a vote against the Gucci Chameleon, "Slick Willard" Mitt Romney!
A vote for Mike Huckabee is a vote against being ordered around by certain conservative media stars.
A vote for Mike Huckabee is a vote to keep the nomination process open and to fight for true conservative values at the GOP convention and in the GOP platform.
A vote for Mike Huckabee is a vote for encouraging more conservative candidates like Mike to run in other GOP races across the country.
More importantly, a vote for Mike Huckabee is a vote against virtually everything that's wrong in the GOP and a vote for returning the Republican party to true conservative principles.
Let me explain.
A. Mitt Romney is the walking embodiment of why the GOP could lose in November:
Star Parker has pointed out that Mitt Romney's hamfisted misrepresentation about how he "saw" his pappy march with Martin Luther King, Jr. symbolizes the problem the GOP faces with much of the American electorate.
"How ironic that Romney chose to insert this apparent whopper in his 'Faith in America' speech. Perhaps the governor's idea of faith is what Groucho Marx had in mind with his line, 'Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?'"
"This kind of casualness with the truth is what has alienated good citizens across the country from the elites who are running our political machinery."
"But now Republicans have become a detached ruling elite like the Democrats that Reagan ran against. And they have alienated a chunk of the grass roots within their own party, and independents that Reagan had wooed in."
"Republicans can win back the hearts and minds of Americans. But they have to get real and get honest. Unlike the former governor of Massachusetts."
"Slick Willard" is emblematic of every negative stereotype that cuts at the core of the Reagan tradition. Romney is a plastic, privileged, aloof, Eastern, out-of-touch, self-financed flip-flopper with no particular ability to relate to Reagan Democrats, blue-collar Republicans, social conservatives and independents.
Romney has a horrific record of apostasy on bed-rock social conservative issues. He's purportedly a reformed gun controller who pushed through Democrat activist judges and a health plan/tax with a $50 abortion co-pay. Yet through the "magic" of paid media, he's tried to repackage his liberalism and sell himself as a Reaganite, notwithstanding that he reputediated Ronald Reagan when he ran for election against Ted Kennedy.
Romney represents a return to the Rockefeller Republican "daze." The forces trying to ram the Gucci Chameleon down our throats only value social conservatism when its election time or ratings sweeps week. And millions of voters in the heartland can see through this cynical charade.
A vote for Mitt Romney is a vote for Clinton/Obama in November.
B. Unlike his rival campaigns, Mike Huckabee is setting a powerful example of fiscal discipline.
Chuck Norris points out that "Slick Willard's" attempt to buy his way into the White House starkly contrasts with the fiscal responsibility of Mike Huckabee:
"Last Wednesday Romney conveyed that 'his campaign was not trying to purchase television advertisement' on Super Tuesday, when 20-plus states hold simultaneous nominating contests. Then he flip-flopped (again) the very next day, telling reporters, 'I have authorized a seven-figure – I won't give you the exact number – but seven-figure advertising buy for our campaign.'"
"The campaign question is: Does Mitt's personal financing or McCain's personal debt reflect the type of fiscal leadership we want in the White House? One avenue demonstrates that the White House can be bought, and the other mirrors a same-old political approach to getting things done –borrowing."
Norris points out that only Huckabee using a fiscally responsible approach -- only spending what he receives from contributors (who, unlike Mitt Romney, are limited to a $2,300 per-person maximum).
"[Mike Huckabee's] stewardship abilities and experience clearly separates him from the rest of the pack, Republican or Democrat. . . . And with our country being trillions of dollars in debt and our economy sluggish at best, that's also why he's my choice for president. "
C. A vote for Mike Huckabee sends a crystal-clear message that the GOP talk radio elites are growing more and more out-of-touch with social conservatives.
The Values Voter Blog has zeroed in on the manifest disservice that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and some others in the "GOP Media" have done in this primary season.
"But, one thing is different in the GOP Media's choice of victims this time. We really like some of them. In fact, we like some of them better than the pundits. And we can't understand why our media half-brethren are beginning to hate some of the things that they once used to love and love the things that they not long ago hated. A far-left socially liberal Republican is touted as Reagan Reincarnate while the protypical social conservative candidate who wants to eliminate the income tax is portrayed as a Hippie Democrat who happens to read the Bible. Just four years after 2004, when we were told that these were all key reasons to mobilize against John Kerry and for President Bush. Who woulda thunk it?"
"The pundits who have been the most unfair to Republican candidates during this Election season would do away with their self-confident smirks if they only knew how big a slice of their audiences that they're losing or have already lost - perhaps forever."
The failure of the GOP talk elites in this election cycle has materially damaged the credibility of talk radio among many conservatives.
It's time for a new birth of freedom in talk radio. It's time that true conservatives shook the crumbling foundations of the EIB/Fox/Clear Channel empire and demanded thoughtful programs which truly respect AND REPRESENT social conservatives!
The affection of many social conservatives for Rush, for example, has been mostly out of convenience. I focus on Rush because I've been a listener for eighteen years and Rush is generally credited with the emergence of modern talk radio.
Rush is an entertainer to be sure, but at times he's been a strong, invaluable counter-point to the dominant media culture (which is often hostile to all forms of conservatism). Rush has at times been a voice of reason in a tsunami of political correctness.
This has pragmatically caused many conservatives to ignore Rush's faults.
Many of us have winced at Rush's sophomoric attempts at humor, especially when they trended toward un-family friendly topics.
We have shuddered at Rush's massive egotism.
Many of us have excused Rush's problems with tobacco and drugs. We have ignored his intemperate suggestions.
We have looked the other way when Rush's private life has cratered and he's alluded to behaviors which do not track with a responsible social conservative lifestyle.
We have even endured the time-wasting boredom of Rush's accounts of elite golf outings and other gauche name-dropping.
However, given how shamefully and unfairly Rush has treated Mike Huckabee, why should social conservatives continue to make excuses for Rush?
Most social conservatives place a high value on forgiveness, which is often informed by faith. But forgiveness does not mean to continue to aid and abet the same offenses over and over. Continuing to support Rush has, in the minds of some social conservatives, reached the level of aiding and abeting a profound assault on the values and attitudes we sincerely hold as essential.
Rush is not a social conservative.
He does not take the policy concerns of social conservative seriously. He clearly does not respect his socially conservative listeners. He apparently does not practice or exude a lifestyle of evangelical faith and seems not to respect the traditions of faith. He apparently does not share our beliefs and values.
A vote for Mike Huckabee is a strong way to send a message to Rush, Sean, Laura and many others that the GOP elites must respect the concerns of social conservatives and "play fair" if the Reagan coalition is to remain viable.
It felt great to vote for Mike today!
Speedzzter and every voter in the Speedzzter family, as well as a good number of Speedzzter's friends have now voted for Mike Huckabee on Super Tuesday.
It sure felt great!
Why?
Because Mike Huckabee is the best, most consistent conservative choice remaining in this election.
And because a vote for Mike Huckabee IS a vote against the Gucci Chameleon, "Slick Willard" Mitt Romney!
A vote for Mike Huckabee is a vote against being ordered around by certain conservative media stars.
A vote for Mike Huckabee is a vote to keep the nomination process open and to fight for true conservative values at the GOP convention and in the GOP platform.
A vote for Mike Huckabee is a vote for encouraging more conservative candidates like Mike to run in other GOP races across the country.
More importantly, a vote for Mike Huckabee is a vote against virtually everything that's wrong in the GOP and a vote for returning the Republican party to true conservative principles.
Let me explain.
A. Mitt Romney is the walking embodiment of why the GOP could lose in November:
Star Parker has pointed out that Mitt Romney's hamfisted misrepresentation about how he "saw" his pappy march with Martin Luther King, Jr. symbolizes the problem the GOP faces with much of the American electorate.
"How ironic that Romney chose to insert this apparent whopper in his 'Faith in America' speech. Perhaps the governor's idea of faith is what Groucho Marx had in mind with his line, 'Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?'"
"This kind of casualness with the truth is what has alienated good citizens across the country from the elites who are running our political machinery."
"But now Republicans have become a detached ruling elite like the Democrats that Reagan ran against. And they have alienated a chunk of the grass roots within their own party, and independents that Reagan had wooed in."
"Republicans can win back the hearts and minds of Americans. But they have to get real and get honest. Unlike the former governor of Massachusetts."
"Slick Willard" is emblematic of every negative stereotype that cuts at the core of the Reagan tradition. Romney is a plastic, privileged, aloof, Eastern, out-of-touch, self-financed flip-flopper with no particular ability to relate to Reagan Democrats, blue-collar Republicans, social conservatives and independents.
Romney has a horrific record of apostasy on bed-rock social conservative issues. He's purportedly a reformed gun controller who pushed through Democrat activist judges and a health plan/tax with a $50 abortion co-pay. Yet through the "magic" of paid media, he's tried to repackage his liberalism and sell himself as a Reaganite, notwithstanding that he reputediated Ronald Reagan when he ran for election against Ted Kennedy.
Romney represents a return to the Rockefeller Republican "daze." The forces trying to ram the Gucci Chameleon down our throats only value social conservatism when its election time or ratings sweeps week. And millions of voters in the heartland can see through this cynical charade.
A vote for Mitt Romney is a vote for Clinton/Obama in November.
B. Unlike his rival campaigns, Mike Huckabee is setting a powerful example of fiscal discipline.
Chuck Norris points out that "Slick Willard's" attempt to buy his way into the White House starkly contrasts with the fiscal responsibility of Mike Huckabee:
"Last Wednesday Romney conveyed that 'his campaign was not trying to purchase television advertisement' on Super Tuesday, when 20-plus states hold simultaneous nominating contests. Then he flip-flopped (again) the very next day, telling reporters, 'I have authorized a seven-figure – I won't give you the exact number – but seven-figure advertising buy for our campaign.'"
"The campaign question is: Does Mitt's personal financing or McCain's personal debt reflect the type of fiscal leadership we want in the White House? One avenue demonstrates that the White House can be bought, and the other mirrors a same-old political approach to getting things done –borrowing."
Norris points out that only Huckabee using a fiscally responsible approach -- only spending what he receives from contributors (who, unlike Mitt Romney, are limited to a $2,300 per-person maximum).
"[Mike Huckabee's] stewardship abilities and experience clearly separates him from the rest of the pack, Republican or Democrat. . . . And with our country being trillions of dollars in debt and our economy sluggish at best, that's also why he's my choice for president. "
C. A vote for Mike Huckabee sends a crystal-clear message that the GOP talk radio elites are growing more and more out-of-touch with social conservatives.
The Values Voter Blog has zeroed in on the manifest disservice that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and some others in the "GOP Media" have done in this primary season.
"But, one thing is different in the GOP Media's choice of victims this time. We really like some of them. In fact, we like some of them better than the pundits. And we can't understand why our media half-brethren are beginning to hate some of the things that they once used to love and love the things that they not long ago hated. A far-left socially liberal Republican is touted as Reagan Reincarnate while the protypical social conservative candidate who wants to eliminate the income tax is portrayed as a Hippie Democrat who happens to read the Bible. Just four years after 2004, when we were told that these were all key reasons to mobilize against John Kerry and for President Bush. Who woulda thunk it?"
"The pundits who have been the most unfair to Republican candidates during this Election season would do away with their self-confident smirks if they only knew how big a slice of their audiences that they're losing or have already lost - perhaps forever."
The failure of the GOP talk elites in this election cycle has materially damaged the credibility of talk radio among many conservatives.
It's time for a new birth of freedom in talk radio. It's time that true conservatives shook the crumbling foundations of the EIB/Fox/Clear Channel empire and demanded thoughtful programs which truly respect AND REPRESENT social conservatives!
The affection of many social conservatives for Rush, for example, has been mostly out of convenience. I focus on Rush because I've been a listener for eighteen years and Rush is generally credited with the emergence of modern talk radio.
Rush is an entertainer to be sure, but at times he's been a strong, invaluable counter-point to the dominant media culture (which is often hostile to all forms of conservatism). Rush has at times been a voice of reason in a tsunami of political correctness.
This has pragmatically caused many conservatives to ignore Rush's faults.
Many of us have winced at Rush's sophomoric attempts at humor, especially when they trended toward un-family friendly topics.
We have shuddered at Rush's massive egotism.
Many of us have excused Rush's problems with tobacco and drugs. We have ignored his intemperate suggestions.
We have looked the other way when Rush's private life has cratered and he's alluded to behaviors which do not track with a responsible social conservative lifestyle.
We have even endured the time-wasting boredom of Rush's accounts of elite golf outings and other gauche name-dropping.
However, given how shamefully and unfairly Rush has treated Mike Huckabee, why should social conservatives continue to make excuses for Rush?
Most social conservatives place a high value on forgiveness, which is often informed by faith. But forgiveness does not mean to continue to aid and abet the same offenses over and over. Continuing to support Rush has, in the minds of some social conservatives, reached the level of aiding and abeting a profound assault on the values and attitudes we sincerely hold as essential.
Rush is not a social conservative.
He does not take the policy concerns of social conservative seriously. He clearly does not respect his socially conservative listeners. He apparently does not practice or exude a lifestyle of evangelical faith and seems not to respect the traditions of faith. He apparently does not share our beliefs and values.
A vote for Mike Huckabee is a strong way to send a message to Rush, Sean, Laura and many others that the GOP elites must respect the concerns of social conservatives and "play fair" if the Reagan coalition is to remain viable.
It felt great to vote for Mike today!
Labels: Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Rush Limbaugh
posted by Editor at 08:10
7 Comments:
I'm leaving in 10 minutes to cast my vote for Huck!
Can't wait to vote for Huck. I already sent him money (first time I've ever sent a politician money). He's the only conservative left in this race. I just got tired of the blatants lies that Sean Hannity was spewing about Huckabee. At first Huck was "too liberal"; now Sean whines that Huck is stealing conservative votes from Flip Romney. Which is it, Sean?
Good Luck to Huck.
I am voting for McCain for my own reasoning.
Huck looks to me to be an honest and capable guy. He is an astounding communicator. He deserves to do well today.
We both (Huck/McCain) got savaged by Mitt's millions. There is no other way to explain it. He had no values or record to run on so he had to creat an illusion and distort his opposition.
What binds us is a common enemy. They are the ones that just don't care that he is a lying, flipping, phoney. It has not a competition ideas because the truth about them got all drowned out with the multi-million dollar mega-phone.
Happily, with the grace of God, it will turn as it should, a measure of character. The lesson, we hope for is that it doesn't take heavy lifting to sell the truth. For Mitt the lesson is that the good people of this country are not smarter than you think and still can see truth and substance even if they do watch TV.
Good Luck to Huck's people
Vote Anyone but Willard
That's anyone but "Slick Willard . . . ."
Voted for Governor Huckabee today in a state that he will probably lose. But I really thought he was the best choice for a person like me who holds strongly to conservative virtues.
The failure of the GOP talk elites in this election cycle has materially damaged the credibility of talk radio among many conservatives.
Well, it wasn't just talk radio that shot itself in the vote. Conservative print media outlets and their pundits trashed Huckabee too.
I listen to Rush, Sean, Laura Ingraham, and Hugh Hewitt on occasion and they've all done themselves a disservice by unfairly bashing Huck on a relentless basis. That irks me because I really like and appreciate all those conservative pundits!
The problem with Mitt Romney is that he speaks too intelligently for you. You can't grasp the bigger picture. That's why you like Huckabeast. Mike would be a great speaker at a church picnic, but that's where it ends. It amazes me that people get so uptight about Mitt's money when he made it himself. Isn't that what America is all about? Huckabeast's stance on ILLEGAL immigration, taxes, and re-writing the constitution to fit God's standards is downright scary. I am glad you feel great about your wasted vote for Huckabeast. It frames well my opinion that Americans are currently too dumb fat and happy to have the right to vote.
I really appreciate Mike Huckabee, and am annoyed at all the different bias and labels that color all the candidates. The fact that he sees both the need to deal with illegal immigration as a problem and illegal immigrants as people does not, in my mind, cast a poor light at all. I do think that Huckabee is the best choice for social conservatives, though I'm sure that there are even some social conservatives who would disagree. The fact that he both lowered and raised taxes in his state means he knows all about bi-partisan comprimise, how to pick his battles, and which taxes are most important to have lowered. Honestly, even if he's not your first pick, why hate Huckabee? Then again, I can't say I like Mitt Romney at all. All that bashing Huckabee got didn't just insult him. I'm not really thrilled about McCain either. It looks like Huckabee probably won't win, but I'll be pulling for him until this voting thing is all said and done. I wouldn't be surprised if Huck accepted a post as VP if offered, but I think he'd much preffer America to decide that the whole born-again Christian thing that our country has been doing for over two centuries now isn't a bad platform to stand on.
More than anything, I realize after this Huckabee bashing how much "big business" conservatives and "just business" conservatives will step on social conservatives. Back in the Civil War days the Republicans were liberal, with Democrats being social conservatives. Republicans spent big on business and industry. Times have changed. Democrats were looking for some way to help social conservative America, centered much in the devastated south. Abraham Lincoln, who did his part to alienate the south with what was then a new thing: federal income tax. After the war Lincoln persued somewhat liberal policies by making rebuilding the south the government's responsibility. Today we still help out in case of disasters, but this re-construction lasted for a long time, during which federal troops occupied the south. I respect Abraham Lincoln, but I want to make the point that when big business and Republicans got married, social conservatives weren't invited to the wedding.
Democrats were social conservatives at the time, but, looking for ways to energize their party and help their voter base, they took notice of the government money that went to recontruction. It was an age when communism became a much debated idea. While not joining the communism debate yet, Democrats at the turn of the 20th century were pursuing liberal economic and governmental policies. The majority of them were still social conservatives. The ACLU sprang up in the 1920s with, at the time, openly communist views. It wasn't until after WWII that social liberals couldn't get away with communist leanings. Franklin Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman were the last truly social conservative Presidents. Then came JFK, and then the hippie-generation, which marks about the point when the social liberals became the majority of the Democratic party. There was still a social conservative minority in the party, however. This minority of socially conservative Democrats supported Eisenhower, Nixon, and Reagan. What became known as the Reagan coalition was mainly these two groups, the social conservatives and the business Republicans.
Yeah, times have changed. But it seems like this election has already highlighted the fact that within the Republican party, despite over 100 years of change, social conservatives are still considered the junior members.
All I can say is that we have to stop ignoring the faults of different types of conservativism just because we don't like liberal thinking. We have to look at these discrepancies and problems within the Republican party and be willing to challenge the very party we want to vote for. Otherwise I fear that social conservatives and people of faith will be sorely mis-represented.
Post a Comment
<< Home