For too long, Republican elites have said to conservatives: "Sacrifice your principles for party unity. Compromise." A lot of us are fed up with this. If you elites in the GOP, punditry and elsewhere are going to move this party to the left, you're going to take the hit for what happens.
If you think about it, this is exactly why social conservatives support Mike Huckabee. We are fed up with people like Rush Limbaugh telling us that we need to sacrifice our values for the sake of party unity--specifically for the sake of supporting Mitt Romney.
You would think that Mitt Romney is the second-coming of Ronald Reagan. We have been told to vote for Mitt because he stands for everything we all believe in. Yet when one listens to Mitt's own words, we know that this is not true.
I remember when in October 1992 Rush Limbaugh actually endorsed Bill Clinton in the first half-hour of his show... and then spent the next 2 and 1/2 hours denying that he had ever said it. Rush did this to illustrate a point: Your words mean things. Your record means something. You cannot flip-flop simply for the sake of political convenience. Character matters. Telling the truth matters.
Back in 1992, we were supposed to reject Clinton simply because he was a known liar--because he would say anything to anyone at anytime to get a vote. Yet for some reason, this standard doesn't apply with Mitt Romney.
Is it because Mitt Romney is rich? Is it because he is handsome and prim and proper? Is this some kind of pragmatism run amok? Or is it because we now define conservatism in purely dollar quantities?
A very wise man once said that "morality is not defined by individual choice." He knew that there are absolutes in life. One absolute is that you don't kill unborn children. Another absolute is that God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
For most of his political career, Mitt Romney demonstrated his belief that these tenets of morality are, in fact, defined by individual choice. Yet, for some reason, Rush Limbaugh---the man who coined the aforesaid phrase, and the man who so adeptly demonstrated that character means something---now supports Mitt Romney.
Why?
It seems to me that Mike Huckabee best reflects the virtues that Limbaugh once extolled in candidates for President. Yet, for some reason, he supports Romney.
What ever happened to the Rush Limbaugh who performed "caller abortions"?
21 comments:
Great blog Matt! I have also been wondering about this same thing. As a FORMER ditto head of many years, I can actually imagine all the things that Rush and Sean would normally say to annihilate someone like Mitt Romney. Romney ran to the left of Ted Kennedy, huge liberal, gay rights, pro abortion, www.trueromney.com, etc. Also, I have questioned why? Why would he take this crazy turn for someone like Mitt Romney? Is he Mormon too like Glenn Beck? Is it a Mormon takeover? Is it just because they are in the same rich elite club? Is it some huge conspiracy? WHAT??? Whatever it is - it does not add up!
Also, since you are an attorney, I was curious if there could possibly be ethics violations filed against Mitt Romney for leaving messages, taped in his own voice, telling outright lies to voters (saying this is now a 2-man race)on election eve? This was not some supporter ... this was him telling a direct lie to voters.
He does not support Huckabee because Huckabee is not an economic conservative. It is clear that the economy is front and center for Rush.
Our anonymous friend raises an interesting hypothesis, the underlying presumption for which may, in fact, explain Mr. Limbaugh's concern. However, I do believe the underlying premise is wrong: indeed, Mr. Huckabee is an economic conservative. In fact, he is just as conservative as Reagan, who raised taxes himself--both as governor and president--in order to meet short-term spending obligations.
Your blog is everything that is wrong with Huckabee's campaign. Mike Huckabee's problem is that he is basically traveling the country as John McCain's mascot/bitch, helping him attack Romney. Why is he even in this race? To get the VP nod - guess what, it ain't happening. Barbour is getting it. Why does your website only have attacks on Romney, and none on McCain? Why? McCain is the frontrunner in this race. Why does Mike Huckabee continually praise him, and attack Romney? Face it - your guy CANNOT win. Conservatives know that John McCain has fought against everything we stand for, and maybe we would take Huckabee seriously if he didnt appear to just be a shill for the McCain campaign.
Oh and by the way, quotes from 14 years ago is the best you can do? Romney supporters all know why Huckabee is in the race. He's in to give it to McCain. If that isn't the case, then I want to see attacks on McCain on your website and from Huckabee's campaign. John McCain is the frontrunner. You can't win unless you attack HIM. Start doing that, and conservatives will take Huck seriously. Otherwise, he needs to get the hell out of the race so the people that actually want the job can fight it out.
The idea that Mitt Romeny is the "true conservative" candidate in this race is utterly laughable, given some of the positions he's taken on issues while he was governor of Massachusetts. The guy changes his positions on issues more often than I change my shoes, and at the root of it, that's why he is losing to John McCain. Agree with him or not, people trust John McCain. People simply do not trust Mitt Romney, nor should they. It's really beyond me why Rush has supports Romeny and not McCain.
How can Rush and Hannity support Romney knowing the truth about him? The only reason that still makes sense is the Bain buyout of Clear Channel. Somewhere in there is the motivation.
voterman - John McCain not only supported, he SPONSORED a bill, only six months ago, with Ted Kennedy. The bill would have give all illegal aliens in this country a path to citizenship. These 12 million illegal aliens would give the Democrats a large majority in this country for generations to come, let alone overcrowd our schools, hospitals, and prisons. I don't care what Romney switched on, because at least he didn't fight for the eventual destruction of his party. John McCain did. And it doesn't matter to me that McCain "got the message". Guess what - a true conservative wouldn't have to - he just wouldn't do it in the first place.
Our friend, Jeff, raises some interesting points. I shall address them.
First of all, Mike Huckabee's motivation for staying in the race is completely irrelevant. The fact is that he is in the race. This is a reality for both Messrs. McCain and Romney. Perhaps, then, Gov. Romney should stop "whining"--to use his word--and deal with it.
Second, Barbour is not getting the VP nod--certainly not from Mac. He might from Romney, but not from Mac. Look, I am from Mississippi. I even voted for Haley in the last election (please don't tell my friends). But the fact is Haley IS K-street. For Mac to pick Barbour over any other candidate would be the height of political hypocrisy. Mr. "I-can't-stand-lobbyists-like-Jack-Abramoff" is not going to select Uber-Lobbyist Haley Barbour to be his running mate. Get real! Now, will he pick Huck? Maybe, maybe not... I hear Mark Sanford is being considered.
Thirdly, as for whether quotes from 14 years ago are the best I can do, my most recent quote from Romney was back in 2005 when he said that Mike Huckabee would be a "fine president." See next posting.
Fourthly, as for Mike's chances of getting the nomination... Mitt ain't doing so hot either.
And finally, why do I berate Romney and not McCain? Simple. At least you know were McCain stands. The same can be said for Messrs. Guiliani, Thompson, and Paul. At least they are consistent. You can bank on the fact that they will stand behind their principles--right or wrong. Romney won't. He's like the wind.
Pater noster, qui es in caelis:
sanctificetur Nomen Tuum; adveniat Regnum Tuum; fiat voluntas Tua,
sicut in caelo, et in terra.
Panem nostrum cotidianum da nobis hodie; et dimitte nobis debita nostra, Sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris;et ne nos inducas in tentationem; sed libera nos a Malo.
Sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris
Are we practing what we preach-oops-I mean peddle?
Smack!
Good post.
Mitt is Bill Clinton with an (R) after his name.
Fortunately for all of us, the ballots are not printed in Latin.
Well, for the sake of his supporters, I would hope Huckabee is in this race to win it. Otherwise, he is not being honest. I, by the way, do not necessarily think Huckabee is taking votes from Romney, but I do think that the "preacher" has made uncalled-for personal attacks against Romney. Just like McCain. As for Romney switching positions, so what if he had to be more liberal to be Gov. of Mass. - he was as conservative as he could be while he was there.
John McCain, the man of "integrity", supported illegal alien amnesty only six months ago - now he says we need to secure the borders first. He opposed the Bush tax cuts - now he wants to make them permanent. He voted for Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the Senate - now he wants judges like Roberts and Alito. So do we really know where this guy stands? Face it, every candidate has switched a position on something. I personally see McCain fighting against other conservatives more than against liberals. Tell you what - I do hope Huck wins some states tomorrow, though I am a Romney supporter. But I would like to see Huck take the fight to the frontrunner just like Romney is doing, because people need to know about McCain's record. However, it seems Huck's hatred of Romney is obvious.
Jeff says: "Quotes from 14 years ago is the best you can do?"
No, it's not the best I can do.
Here's one from a little over five years ago:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_w9pquznG4
And here are two quotes from 2007:
August 2007
"I never called myself pro-choice. I never allowed myself to use the word 'pro-choice,' because I didn't feel I was pro-choice. I would protect the law, I said, as it was, but I WASN'T PRO-CHOICE."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293017,00.html
December 2007
"I think I've made it very clear. I WAS PRO-CHOICE, or effectively pro-choice, when I ran in 1994. As governor, I'm pro-life, and I have a record of being pro-life, and I'm firmly pro-life today."
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hjo2zpLNAjtxCVkBA1Xn9FYQ5tpQD8TK3G500
Lots more where those came from, from 1994 to today.
Jeff, you just articulated some of the reasons why I support Huckabee.
Yes, people do sometimes change their minds about policies and issues (for the right reasons). For example, Ronald Reagan was once a liberal Democrat. Over the years, he changed his positions on certain issues. BUT, Reagan's conversion happened long before he ran for President.
May I use a analogy drawn from churches? Mitt Romney is like an atheist who converts to Christianity and then upon being baptised asks the church to appoint him as pastor.
You can't don the mantle of Reagan if you have spent most of your political life dissing the man.
Rush is moving into irrelevance, though he'll continue to have at leat 10 million lemmings at his disposal.
What is important for all to recognize is that the total hypocricy and disingenuous character of talk radio has been laid bare by their rabid scorched Earth assault on Huckabee when he was frontrunner and now McCain.
It is interesting to note that none of these guys -- Limbaugh, Ingraham, Hannity, Praeger or Beck has ever endorsed a pro-life and pro-family candidate in the primaries when there was a viable liberal in the race. If they hadn't coaleced behind Romney, it would have been Giuilani.
Now that the GOP "Blue Bloods" are wrapping themselves in McCain, the Commentocracy has simply come unhinged. They are a charicature of their once great ability to bring clarity to the dialogue among conservatives.
Now they're just bought and paid-for media Whxxxes who have noting of vlue or substance. Obviously they can't be thought of as chanpions for the social issues. Anyone with more than 18 months committment to the conservative agenda is just a little too hystericlly fundamental on social issues for their comfort.
Yes, I hope Rush has started to figure out that he went overboard for/with the wrong candidate.
If he'd have given Huckabee even close to a fair hearing, I'd be listening every chance I had during this primary season. As it is, I go out of my way to find something else to do.
I just hope there's enough former listeners who feel the same way to cause a downtrend in this ratings. That's probably the only way he'll figure out that he screwed up.
What really frosts me is that Huckabee is clearly still in the race and is running ahead of Romney in many states, and yet he's being totally dissed by virtually the entire media. Rush and Hannity could have effectively counteracted this nonsense if they'd been so inclined. And if they had, maybe McCain wouldn't be sitting so pretty.
The other thing that frosts me are all the accusations of Huckabee fronting for McCain. Talk about whining. Whew...good to get this out, I guess....feel better now.
Rush is right on the money. Romney is the best candidate in the race.
I once was a Democrat. But under Reagan I became a Reagan Democrat. Why? Because the Democrats did not have room for anyone who thought differently than their liberal agenda on such things as abortion and national defense. They became almost like fascists in their ways of dealing with Democrats who differed. Now I see some conservatives in the Republican party demanding the same sort of knee jerk loyalty.
Romney's conversion to the conservative side is recent, whereas one has only to look at McCain's record to see he has long supported such conservative causes as national defense, abortion, strict constructionist judges, smaller government and watching our expenditures.
Much of what McCain is for is in the tradition of Teddy Roosevelt/Taft republicanism. The problem with many who have been elected is that once they get there they forget what they are there for. Americans are tired of the way elections are financed and feel their voices are not heard. We are also tired of gotcha politics and want our legislators to start working together for the good of the country. The Democrats interpreted the last election wrong. They were elected because Americans had hoped they would do something positive. Instead they have been playing politics.
The appeal of Obama and McCain is that they seem to want to move on to a more statesman type of politics. Yes, there are some things McCain has been for that I do not agree with. But even on the illegal immigrant thing he has seen what the Americans want and knows that Congress has to re-establish trust with the American people by actually building the fence and securing our borders first.
I think Rush and Sean are doing something which my mom always told me to be careful not to do, "do not cut off your nose to spite your face." If a Democrat becomes President, there goes the Supreme Court and all judicial appointments and this will change America for most of the next century. We will withdraw from Iraq and bin laden will declare a victory. Higher taxes will be a given.
Matt, instead of finding Romney quotes to attack him with why don't you try to convince some of us why we should support Huckabee. I have asked a half dozen of you to provide me with some conservative actions on his part as governor of Arkansas. To date, none of you seem to be capable of telling me about your "research into Huckabee" except for the "he's a family man, pro-life, like Reagan". What did he do in Arkansas to fit those descriptions? He was really, really, REALLY, pro-life, is not the same thing as actually naming legislation, or perhaps judges that he appointed. Help me believe. Something positive from you instead of only negative, if you are capable.
On the other hand, the simple fact that Huckabee does not attack the front-runner is evidence that he is not trying to win! He can only be acting as spoiler for McCain, knowing that he will not beat him, because he isn't even trying.
In response to my anonymous friend, I have posted research on Mike Huckabee in earlier posts. I recommend that you view them, especially the ten-minute video on Mike Huckabee's first day as Governor.
Matt, if you are talking about the video "Mike Huckabee Decade of Duty" you owe me 10 minutes! You support the Huckster because when he was Lt. Governor he really, really fought to....become Governor?!! He wanted to lead the people of Arkansas so that he could....lead them?! This impressed you? No, "I am going to stop abortion" or "I will execute the law of the state" or any of those things, just, "You promised that I would step down as governor so I could be and now are not. I will not accept this, I was elected, well appointed, this position it is MINE!?
You were impressed how Mike stuck in there, with the goal of being Governor?!!! I was expecting ANY type of policy pronouncement, ANY kind, balanced budget, reduced bureaucracy, something. Instead you repeat what everyone already knows about Huckabee, he likes holding public office.
You and I clearly live on as different planets as I and the Kos kids do. While I could not disagree with you more I do commend you on publishing my comments, and others in opposition to your own, on your blog.
Post a Comment