Having to settle

Another Super Tuesday post, picking up on the theme of the one below. . .

Does this guy make sense in arguing that conservatives should support even an ideologically-imperfect candidate rather than going over to the Democrats, voting for a third-party candidate, or sulking and staying home?

Let us grant that each of the three remaining Republican candidates have their flaws: Huckabee is a strong Christian, but with welfare state tendencies. Mitt Romney is a Mormon who has recently had a somewhat suspicious political “conversion” to conservatism. John McCain is a mainline Christian who says he “doesn’t like social issues” and is strong on national defense and fiscal responsibility, while weak on immigration and freedom of speech.

How do you balance these pro’s and con’s to come to the lesser of three evils? Interestingly, we have had virtually no overt advocacy of Romney on this blog. Will someone make the case for him? And for Huckabee and McCain? I really want you to help me think through all of this, since I vote next Tuesday!

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Matt L

    I don’t vote for the least worst candidate. I refuse to. The Republicans and Democrats both, while having a few differences between them, have come to represent the same thing: Big government and existing only to increase their own power and influence. We had a Republican President for 8 years with a Republican congress for the majority of that time and in matters of sanctity of life he just prevented things from getting worse, rather than actually make an effort to end abortion and private fetal stem cell research. On the fiscal front, he was hardly a conservative just now proposing the largest budget of all time.

    As much flack as you give Libertarians, there are candidates who are very strong on matters such as life and marriage, but realize the limitedness of the federal government.

    Finally, as it stands there are 4 candidates seeking the Republican nomination. Ron Paul still has not dropped out.

  • Matt L

    I don’t vote for the least worst candidate. I refuse to. The Republicans and Democrats both, while having a few differences between them, have come to represent the same thing: Big government and existing only to increase their own power and influence. We had a Republican President for 8 years with a Republican congress for the majority of that time and in matters of sanctity of life he just prevented things from getting worse, rather than actually make an effort to end abortion and private fetal stem cell research. On the fiscal front, he was hardly a conservative just now proposing the largest budget of all time.

    As much flack as you give Libertarians, there are candidates who are very strong on matters such as life and marriage, but realize the limitedness of the federal government.

    Finally, as it stands there are 4 candidates seeking the Republican nomination. Ron Paul still has not dropped out.

  • Joe

    Ron Paul – whether he has dropped out or not is out. I would consider a protest vote for him if his foriegn policy was more sane. There are, however, many aspects of Ron Paul that I do like.

  • Joe

    Ron Paul – whether he has dropped out or not is out. I would consider a protest vote for him if his foriegn policy was more sane. There are, however, many aspects of Ron Paul that I do like.

  • Norman Teigen

    I think that John McCain has a sense of history about his campaign that Clinton, and especially Obama, do not have. His military service shows that he is a genuine patriot.

    The ‘life issue’ is a non-factor and is only a distraction.

    The major issue is survivability in a hostile world.

  • Norman Teigen

    I think that John McCain has a sense of history about his campaign that Clinton, and especially Obama, do not have. His military service shows that he is a genuine patriot.

    The ‘life issue’ is a non-factor and is only a distraction.

    The major issue is survivability in a hostile world.

  • Bror Erickson

    What candidate is ever going to be considered “perfect”. By the time you get to where you can run for president, you have ticked someone off. I do think there is some merit to the idea of voting for a flawed candidate rather than jumping ship altogether and voting for someone you completely disagree with. However it also makes perfect sense to vote for a third party candidate you know won’t win, but with whom you agree, rather than the flawed candidate you know will win but only agree a little bit. The point is it your vote gives some voice to that third party.

  • Bror Erickson

    What candidate is ever going to be considered “perfect”. By the time you get to where you can run for president, you have ticked someone off. I do think there is some merit to the idea of voting for a flawed candidate rather than jumping ship altogether and voting for someone you completely disagree with. However it also makes perfect sense to vote for a third party candidate you know won’t win, but with whom you agree, rather than the flawed candidate you know will win but only agree a little bit. The point is it your vote gives some voice to that third party.

  • http://maplemountain.blogspot.com/ samuel

    #3
    The “life” issue is a non-factor? And then you mention survival in a hostile world? Um, that is what we are talking about with “life” issues. Survival. Of human beings.

    I agree with Joe, I would vote for Paul if he were coherent on foreign policy.

    That leaves….um….?

    Huckabee?…the fair tax. Solid on life (which, somehow, matters to me).

    Geez this is a tough one.

  • http://maplemountain.blogspot.com/ samuel

    #3
    The “life” issue is a non-factor? And then you mention survival in a hostile world? Um, that is what we are talking about with “life” issues. Survival. Of human beings.

    I agree with Joe, I would vote for Paul if he were coherent on foreign policy.

    That leaves….um….?

    Huckabee?…the fair tax. Solid on life (which, somehow, matters to me).

    Geez this is a tough one.

  • Patrick Kyle

    I agree with Matt. These guys are all similar shades of grey. The Supreme Court Justice argument is probably the most persuasive in getting me to settle for one of these statists.

  • Patrick Kyle

    I agree with Matt. These guys are all similar shades of grey. The Supreme Court Justice argument is probably the most persuasive in getting me to settle for one of these statists.

  • fw

    I am not sure I would want the USA to become factionalized along religious lines in anyway. The consequences of this would be rather devastating I think.

    I consider candidates by looking at their center:

    I look for respect for the means and processes of government, quite independent of objectives. no end-justifies-means. What is their general philosophy of government?

    I look for someone who can effectively compromise. Practicality:

    The most per capita abortions happen here in brasil. abortion here is illegal and doctors go to prison for it. The least happen in Belgium where abortions are legal and women receive the most support from government , church and society to bring their babies to term and adopt out or better keep their child. I don´t think it is right to accuse those of us who favor legalization and regulation of abortion as not holding life sacredly. If I could really be convinced that outlawing abortion would produce zero or even fewer abortions than decriminalization , i would heartily embrace this cause.

    I am also readily willing to accept the idea of “welfare moms spawning children to be on the public dole” as a lesser evil than abortion or adoption or foster care. I would rather keep families together and have an adult parent at home than have a single mom working two McDonalds jobs and let her children grow up as delinquents, ala Bill Clinton´s back to work welfare reform….. None of this makes me someone who things government programs are the best idea or even a good idea. I am really willing to listen to how better to achieve these social goods…. I don´t know the answers…..

    I am willing to accept half a loaf. I don´t need to accuse those on the other side of these urgent issues as being less moral than I am, or of having some “agenda” that I have to fight with them as enemies. I am an ardent moderate. Moderation in all things. Charity in all things. My faith informs me here.

    I look for civil discourse that does not distort others or attack their characters.

    I am voting for Barack Obama.

    He has consistently shown respect for views he disagrees with. He has shown that he has a capacity to truly listen to those ideas, not be hostile to them, and to factor them into his thought processes. this is an excellent and rare quality. He charactarizes no one.

    I now think this is really who he is. not just posturing.

    Ultimately even a dictator must follow popular will. More so a democratically elected president. a president must by and large do what is “popular”. This man, Barack, will be able to shift the center of public discourse much as Ronald Reagan did, towards a center.

    I for sure will not like where that center is. but there is really no other way to govern outside of religious or ethnic factionalism and adversarialism.

  • fw

    I am not sure I would want the USA to become factionalized along religious lines in anyway. The consequences of this would be rather devastating I think.

    I consider candidates by looking at their center:

    I look for respect for the means and processes of government, quite independent of objectives. no end-justifies-means. What is their general philosophy of government?

    I look for someone who can effectively compromise. Practicality:

    The most per capita abortions happen here in brasil. abortion here is illegal and doctors go to prison for it. The least happen in Belgium where abortions are legal and women receive the most support from government , church and society to bring their babies to term and adopt out or better keep their child. I don´t think it is right to accuse those of us who favor legalization and regulation of abortion as not holding life sacredly. If I could really be convinced that outlawing abortion would produce zero or even fewer abortions than decriminalization , i would heartily embrace this cause.

    I am also readily willing to accept the idea of “welfare moms spawning children to be on the public dole” as a lesser evil than abortion or adoption or foster care. I would rather keep families together and have an adult parent at home than have a single mom working two McDonalds jobs and let her children grow up as delinquents, ala Bill Clinton´s back to work welfare reform….. None of this makes me someone who things government programs are the best idea or even a good idea. I am really willing to listen to how better to achieve these social goods…. I don´t know the answers…..

    I am willing to accept half a loaf. I don´t need to accuse those on the other side of these urgent issues as being less moral than I am, or of having some “agenda” that I have to fight with them as enemies. I am an ardent moderate. Moderation in all things. Charity in all things. My faith informs me here.

    I look for civil discourse that does not distort others or attack their characters.

    I am voting for Barack Obama.

    He has consistently shown respect for views he disagrees with. He has shown that he has a capacity to truly listen to those ideas, not be hostile to them, and to factor them into his thought processes. this is an excellent and rare quality. He charactarizes no one.

    I now think this is really who he is. not just posturing.

    Ultimately even a dictator must follow popular will. More so a democratically elected president. a president must by and large do what is “popular”. This man, Barack, will be able to shift the center of public discourse much as Ronald Reagan did, towards a center.

    I for sure will not like where that center is. but there is really no other way to govern outside of religious or ethnic factionalism and adversarialism.

  • The Jones

    John McCain. I’ve heard a couple of main rails against him, and I don’t really buy them.

    1. He’s not pro life, or at least not very pro-life.
    The National Right to Life Committee has ranked John McCain as less than perfect for the past decade or so, but those marks are all due to about 3 bills. The first was federal funding for Embryonic Stem Cell research. This was the somewhat famous case of the frozen embryoes which could be implanted in mothers and brought to term. They wanted Federal funding to use them for research. When McCain looked at the legislation, he believed that they were already dead. After all, “frozen” isn’t really used to describe something that’s alive. And anyway, if they’re already dead, and if Dems are screaming and crying about medical research with these dead things, why would this be a battle we would want to fight? A battle to defend the idea of not killing embryoes? Later, knowing the full details of the bill he changed his view on it. (according to WORLD mag)
    The second bill is McCain-Feingold. Now, this bill has nothing to do with abortions, but it makes it difficult for organizations like NRLC to make commercials ABOUT abortion during campaigns. Now while McCain-Feingold is definately not my favorite piece of legislation, it hits both ways. Think of what Moveon.org and George Soros could have done with no holds barred campaign commercials in 2004. No, it’s not great. But it’s not the end of the world. (which is exactly the way I feel about No Child Left Behind. Such an expansive federal government program is hardly good for those who fight against federal control of childhood education)
    The third bill was the Medicare Modernization Act, which once again had nothing to do with abortions. But it did include (amongst hundreds of pages) the POSSIBILITY that some federal funds could to euthenize elderly patients, barring other state laws. To me, this is a huge and complicated bill. Hardly a black and white pro-life/pro-choice vote.
    On everything else, and I mean EVERYTHING ELSE regarding the pro-life agenda, he’s right on. It amazes me that Romney can come across sometimes as “The Pro-Life Candidate” when as late as 2005, he was talking about “Keeping the status quo of Roe.” I’m not saying that his change is a sham, I’m just saying it doesn’t speak louder than the decades of pro-life votes John McCain has logged.

    2. John McCain hates Conservative Christian Evangelicals.
    Well, he did. And after looking at the 2000 primary, I would too if I were in John McCain’s shoes. A conservative evangelical political operative (I don’t know if he was actually an “operative.” Maybe he was just hyper-political, but he was connected to the evang. Christian political wing of the Rep. Party, and he did have access to an email address) started a rumor that John McCain fathered an illegitimate child. Proof: he has an asian looking daughter and he and his wife are white. Actually, he adopted that girl from Mother Teresa’s orphanage organization. Ouch.
    And yes, he called Pat Robertson some dirty names like “Right wing extremist” or something. But I don’t really feel offended as a Christian when ol’ Patty Bob gets insulted. I don’t think he represents conservative Christians very well, especially regarding political matters. After all, with his amazing moral and political prophetic powers, he endorsed Rudy Guiliani, the champion of social conservative values. Smooth, Pat. Real smooth.
    For more on this subject, read WORLD mag’s “I’m not angry anymore” article on John McCain.

    3. He opposed the Bush Tax cuts.
    Yes, he did. He thought they were not very well structured and that it was unwise to cut taxes when we were about to go to war after 9-11. Now, I’m no expert on tax cut structures, but I’m willing to bet the Bush tax cuts aren’t PERFECT, so it’s possible he had a point on the first point. And on the second point, I agree. Aren’t we spending the Iraq War on credit? Is that actually good idea??? I don’t think so. It’s also worth noting that he wants to keep the Bushcuts in place now, so he believes they’re better than nothing, unlike every Democrat on earth. Unless you define conservative as “Bush Rubber Stamp,” it is difficult to say that John McCain is not a Fiscal Conservative.

    So that’s what’s NOT wrong with McCain. Here are the good reasons to vote for McCain.

    1. McCain is tough on pork barrel spending.
    I agree that Bush was a convincing fiscal conservative when it comes to cutting taxes, but the Reagan model of smaller government involves cutting taxes AND cutting spending. McCain is great on the other half of that equasion, the half that the Republican Congress and Prez Bush have not been so great on. even voting AGAINST the Bush tax cuts in the early 2000s (for the reasons listed above), McCain STILL averages 82.7% according to Americans for Tax Reform. In my judgement, that record is not too shabby.

    2. McCain sticks to his guns even when nobody agrees.
    I have to admit, this was my favorite thing about Bush. He didn’t care about poll numbers. He stuck to his convictions. My boy J Mac does the same. Even when everybody hates him for it, even his own party, he doesn’t waiver. For example, remember when we all hated him for saying we needed more troops after the first year or two in Iraq? Remember how people wanted to kick him out of the Republican Party because of his criticism of Rumsfeld management? The Petraeus surge is based on the general complaints and policy changes that McCain was harping on back then. Now, I’m not saying McCain planned and executed the Surge, (that honor goes to General P.) but I am saying that he had his conviction, he stuck to it, and he was proven right in the end. How was he proven right, you ask? Well, nobody’s mad at McCain these days because he’s weak on defense. A couple of years ago, everyone was calling him defeatist.

    3. Straight Talk
    McCain is not afraid to tell it like it is. And often, when we see clips of him saying controversial stuff, that’s just him not being afraid to say exactly what he thinks. Now why should we be afraid of a politician who is quite open and not hidden about what he believes? All that really means is that I know when to respectfully disagree with him. And we shouldn’t be scared stiff if we must respectfully disagree with our president on some stuff.

    I also look forward to John McCain sitting in a debate with Barak Obama, and I want to see Obama start to go off on one of his “bringing everyone together” speeches. And as soon as he finishes, I want McCain to look at him and say “Barak, you talk about bringing America together as if it’s a warm fuzzy feeling. You act like a good looking and charasmatic president will turn partisan hearts to jelly. Let me ask you, “What have you done to bring the Republicans and Democrats together in the Senate?” You are hardly ever there to vote because you’ve been running for President from day one, and when you are there, your voting record is really just textbook liberal. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, I’m just saying that’s the way it is. I have teamed up with the likes Ted Kennedy, Joe Lieberman, and Russ Feingold, to name a few, in order to solve problems that I saw our nation facing. And I have been ripped to shreds for it. Bringing people together can be a nasty, nasty business, and I don’t think you know what you’re talking about when you say you’ll bring partisan and polarized forces together. I’ve been there. I’ve done it. You can see it from my record. I actually have a record in Senate. You have a lot of talk. But not much substance. You’re a joke.”

    If that happens, Republicans will win the White House.

  • The Jones

    John McCain. I’ve heard a couple of main rails against him, and I don’t really buy them.

    1. He’s not pro life, or at least not very pro-life.
    The National Right to Life Committee has ranked John McCain as less than perfect for the past decade or so, but those marks are all due to about 3 bills. The first was federal funding for Embryonic Stem Cell research. This was the somewhat famous case of the frozen embryoes which could be implanted in mothers and brought to term. They wanted Federal funding to use them for research. When McCain looked at the legislation, he believed that they were already dead. After all, “frozen” isn’t really used to describe something that’s alive. And anyway, if they’re already dead, and if Dems are screaming and crying about medical research with these dead things, why would this be a battle we would want to fight? A battle to defend the idea of not killing embryoes? Later, knowing the full details of the bill he changed his view on it. (according to WORLD mag)
    The second bill is McCain-Feingold. Now, this bill has nothing to do with abortions, but it makes it difficult for organizations like NRLC to make commercials ABOUT abortion during campaigns. Now while McCain-Feingold is definately not my favorite piece of legislation, it hits both ways. Think of what Moveon.org and George Soros could have done with no holds barred campaign commercials in 2004. No, it’s not great. But it’s not the end of the world. (which is exactly the way I feel about No Child Left Behind. Such an expansive federal government program is hardly good for those who fight against federal control of childhood education)
    The third bill was the Medicare Modernization Act, which once again had nothing to do with abortions. But it did include (amongst hundreds of pages) the POSSIBILITY that some federal funds could to euthenize elderly patients, barring other state laws. To me, this is a huge and complicated bill. Hardly a black and white pro-life/pro-choice vote.
    On everything else, and I mean EVERYTHING ELSE regarding the pro-life agenda, he’s right on. It amazes me that Romney can come across sometimes as “The Pro-Life Candidate” when as late as 2005, he was talking about “Keeping the status quo of Roe.” I’m not saying that his change is a sham, I’m just saying it doesn’t speak louder than the decades of pro-life votes John McCain has logged.

    2. John McCain hates Conservative Christian Evangelicals.
    Well, he did. And after looking at the 2000 primary, I would too if I were in John McCain’s shoes. A conservative evangelical political operative (I don’t know if he was actually an “operative.” Maybe he was just hyper-political, but he was connected to the evang. Christian political wing of the Rep. Party, and he did have access to an email address) started a rumor that John McCain fathered an illegitimate child. Proof: he has an asian looking daughter and he and his wife are white. Actually, he adopted that girl from Mother Teresa’s orphanage organization. Ouch.
    And yes, he called Pat Robertson some dirty names like “Right wing extremist” or something. But I don’t really feel offended as a Christian when ol’ Patty Bob gets insulted. I don’t think he represents conservative Christians very well, especially regarding political matters. After all, with his amazing moral and political prophetic powers, he endorsed Rudy Guiliani, the champion of social conservative values. Smooth, Pat. Real smooth.
    For more on this subject, read WORLD mag’s “I’m not angry anymore” article on John McCain.

    3. He opposed the Bush Tax cuts.
    Yes, he did. He thought they were not very well structured and that it was unwise to cut taxes when we were about to go to war after 9-11. Now, I’m no expert on tax cut structures, but I’m willing to bet the Bush tax cuts aren’t PERFECT, so it’s possible he had a point on the first point. And on the second point, I agree. Aren’t we spending the Iraq War on credit? Is that actually good idea??? I don’t think so. It’s also worth noting that he wants to keep the Bushcuts in place now, so he believes they’re better than nothing, unlike every Democrat on earth. Unless you define conservative as “Bush Rubber Stamp,” it is difficult to say that John McCain is not a Fiscal Conservative.

    So that’s what’s NOT wrong with McCain. Here are the good reasons to vote for McCain.

    1. McCain is tough on pork barrel spending.
    I agree that Bush was a convincing fiscal conservative when it comes to cutting taxes, but the Reagan model of smaller government involves cutting taxes AND cutting spending. McCain is great on the other half of that equasion, the half that the Republican Congress and Prez Bush have not been so great on. even voting AGAINST the Bush tax cuts in the early 2000s (for the reasons listed above), McCain STILL averages 82.7% according to Americans for Tax Reform. In my judgement, that record is not too shabby.

    2. McCain sticks to his guns even when nobody agrees.
    I have to admit, this was my favorite thing about Bush. He didn’t care about poll numbers. He stuck to his convictions. My boy J Mac does the same. Even when everybody hates him for it, even his own party, he doesn’t waiver. For example, remember when we all hated him for saying we needed more troops after the first year or two in Iraq? Remember how people wanted to kick him out of the Republican Party because of his criticism of Rumsfeld management? The Petraeus surge is based on the general complaints and policy changes that McCain was harping on back then. Now, I’m not saying McCain planned and executed the Surge, (that honor goes to General P.) but I am saying that he had his conviction, he stuck to it, and he was proven right in the end. How was he proven right, you ask? Well, nobody’s mad at McCain these days because he’s weak on defense. A couple of years ago, everyone was calling him defeatist.

    3. Straight Talk
    McCain is not afraid to tell it like it is. And often, when we see clips of him saying controversial stuff, that’s just him not being afraid to say exactly what he thinks. Now why should we be afraid of a politician who is quite open and not hidden about what he believes? All that really means is that I know when to respectfully disagree with him. And we shouldn’t be scared stiff if we must respectfully disagree with our president on some stuff.

    I also look forward to John McCain sitting in a debate with Barak Obama, and I want to see Obama start to go off on one of his “bringing everyone together” speeches. And as soon as he finishes, I want McCain to look at him and say “Barak, you talk about bringing America together as if it’s a warm fuzzy feeling. You act like a good looking and charasmatic president will turn partisan hearts to jelly. Let me ask you, “What have you done to bring the Republicans and Democrats together in the Senate?” You are hardly ever there to vote because you’ve been running for President from day one, and when you are there, your voting record is really just textbook liberal. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, I’m just saying that’s the way it is. I have teamed up with the likes Ted Kennedy, Joe Lieberman, and Russ Feingold, to name a few, in order to solve problems that I saw our nation facing. And I have been ripped to shreds for it. Bringing people together can be a nasty, nasty business, and I don’t think you know what you’re talking about when you say you’ll bring partisan and polarized forces together. I’ve been there. I’ve done it. You can see it from my record. I actually have a record in Senate. You have a lot of talk. But not much substance. You’re a joke.”

    If that happens, Republicans will win the White House.

  • http://brandywinebooks.net Phil W

    Well, I voted for Romney today in Georgia. I believe he will govern more conservatively than the other candidates. He has a few draw backs, but I think Huckabee and McCain will lean toward more federal spending, possible tax increases, and worse with McCain on domestic policy.

    Romney has strong business experience, and I think he will fight budgetary matters better than the others—smaller federal budget, reduce federal departments, continue welfare reform and even social security reform. He seems to have a better head for foreign policy than Huckabee too.

    I tend to think McCain personifies most of what’s wrong with the GOP. If he gets into the White House, we’ll hear about good ol’ boys and old-money white guys—all the tired things we hear from democrats about republicans which are usually exaggerations or lies, but this time will be mostly true. And that may be a big reason a Democrat gets in next time. One may get in this time too. Shows the need for good congressmen and governors all around.

    If the talk I heard today is true, that McCain will choose a VP who is a pro-choice moderate, I believe he will maximize the potential for his anti-McCain voters. And if he runs against Mrs. Clinton, then we’ll get to see who have the stronger anti-candidate voting block. That would be some battle.

  • http://brandywinebooks.net Phil W

    Well, I voted for Romney today in Georgia. I believe he will govern more conservatively than the other candidates. He has a few draw backs, but I think Huckabee and McCain will lean toward more federal spending, possible tax increases, and worse with McCain on domestic policy.

    Romney has strong business experience, and I think he will fight budgetary matters better than the others—smaller federal budget, reduce federal departments, continue welfare reform and even social security reform. He seems to have a better head for foreign policy than Huckabee too.

    I tend to think McCain personifies most of what’s wrong with the GOP. If he gets into the White House, we’ll hear about good ol’ boys and old-money white guys—all the tired things we hear from democrats about republicans which are usually exaggerations or lies, but this time will be mostly true. And that may be a big reason a Democrat gets in next time. One may get in this time too. Shows the need for good congressmen and governors all around.

    If the talk I heard today is true, that McCain will choose a VP who is a pro-choice moderate, I believe he will maximize the potential for his anti-McCain voters. And if he runs against Mrs. Clinton, then we’ll get to see who have the stronger anti-candidate voting block. That would be some battle.

  • Booklover

    Romney makes me incredibly nervous. Assumedly he was raised with strong moral beliefs, yet turned his back on those beliefs when he became leader of a state. Then a couple of years ago, he announced that he has embraced the moral values again. That behaviour makes me nervous. I would rather vote for a flawed person who has retained the same essential character within himself.

  • Booklover

    Romney makes me incredibly nervous. Assumedly he was raised with strong moral beliefs, yet turned his back on those beliefs when he became leader of a state. Then a couple of years ago, he announced that he has embraced the moral values again. That behaviour makes me nervous. I would rather vote for a flawed person who has retained the same essential character within himself.

  • Greg

    I ended up voting for Huckabee. It was a tough choice. I was going back and forth right up to the moment I marked my ballet. At some time during this season I have been for every gop candidate except Guiliani and Romney. Even Paul. In many ways he is the most conservative candidate running. He is John Birch Society conservative. ( I don’t mean he is a member of that org.) Yet I ultimately decided that would be wasting my vote. A vote for Huck sent a message on the social issues and perhaps after time as VP Huck might one day make a good candidate. Thats how I ended up.

  • Greg

    I ended up voting for Huckabee. It was a tough choice. I was going back and forth right up to the moment I marked my ballet. At some time during this season I have been for every gop candidate except Guiliani and Romney. Even Paul. In many ways he is the most conservative candidate running. He is John Birch Society conservative. ( I don’t mean he is a member of that org.) Yet I ultimately decided that would be wasting my vote. A vote for Huck sent a message on the social issues and perhaps after time as VP Huck might one day make a good candidate. Thats how I ended up.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/17639370291865261582 Cindy

    George Weigel has a good essay in Newsweek entitled “The War Against Jihadism.” Here’s an excerpt:

    “Such a complex war, which could last a generation or more, cannot be the prerogative or burden of one political party. The war against jihadism must be owned by both political parties. Thus one measure of any presidential candidate’s seriousness is this: can he or she build a bipartisan coalition capable of sustaining the long-haul struggle required to defeat jihadist nihilism?”

    In my opinion, McCain and Obama are the candidates most able to accomplish this–especially McCain.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/17639370291865261582 Cindy

    George Weigel has a good essay in Newsweek entitled “The War Against Jihadism.” Here’s an excerpt:

    “Such a complex war, which could last a generation or more, cannot be the prerogative or burden of one political party. The war against jihadism must be owned by both political parties. Thus one measure of any presidential candidate’s seriousness is this: can he or she build a bipartisan coalition capable of sustaining the long-haul struggle required to defeat jihadist nihilism?”

    In my opinion, McCain and Obama are the candidates most able to accomplish this–especially McCain.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X