If Arizona Senator John McCain wants to win the White House come November he needs to sit up and take heed of what some people have been saying. There is an important group of voters that he needs to befriend and assure that he will not throw them under the bus. Social Conservatives. He has all but ignored us, especially here in Iowa where he skipped the Iowa Caucuses. This has not endeared him to social conservatives across the country; instead it has alienated many of us. He has continually ignored us and thumbed his nose at our beliefs. This is not the way to win the White House this November. The only reason that he has ratings anywhere close to the two Democrats is because they seem to be intent on destroying not only each other but their party as well.
Without the millions of social conservatives across this country Senator McCain does not stand a chance come November. He is known as being soft on illegal immigrants; he sure doesn’t seem to have any moral values. These two issues do not make him the ideal candidate for President from our point of view. Because of this it would make sense for McCain to choose a socially conservative running mate. And yet he has still not chosen one at this time. Many social conservatives are worried that he would choose Rudy or Romney for a running mate. It would be a mistake of catastrophic proportions for him to do this as it would ensure that his campaign would fall in flames.
Social conservatives are the ones that go out to campaign for candidates, how else could former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee defeat Mitt Romney in Iowa, even though Huckabee was outspent by an enormous amount. Think about what McCain could do with that kind of grassroots support, he could handily defeat the Democrats. However this will not happen if he chooses a running mate that is anything other than socially conservative. The thing that McCain needs to realize is that we are not stupid, we know how to effectively use the internet to research his running mate’s political background. This means that he can claim anything that he wants, but we will be able to locate the truth.
While you are not alone, by any means, with your rightful anger towards and serious concern about McCain, his liberal policies and his choice of running mate, lets really explore how Juan rose to the level of our nominee by default in a Come To Jesus chat of our very own, right here, right now;
Pray tell us, the other two legs of the conservative party stool, exactly why you broke away, as a group, by not only demanding your intentionally limited priorities came first, foremost and exclusively but also, with the added nerve to actually dictate how they must be accomplished through Constitutional Amendments?
You correctly point to the strength you have in numbers so you should also realize that by The Huckster’s clear and resounding defeat that you can not elect a candidate who was only capable of pandering to your exclusive issues. In other words, you intentionally left your friends behind in completely ignoring the fact that there are MANY issues critical to conservative principles and values wherein he possesses none of them.
You offer you are “not stupid” and “know how to research on the net” then, why didn’t you all know that seeking Constitutional Amendments are;
1) WRONG to attempt according to the instructions of our founding fathers who specifically offered ‘Federalism’ as the means for us to limit bad science and bad law which is inevitable to crop up on occasion in a democracy straying from a republic through judicial activism and/or over-reaching legislators.
Treat the cause, never the symptom. Appoint only strict constructionist judges who will interpret the law but, will never make new law according to our Separation of Powers which protects democracy and forestalls tyranny. Stick to the remedies provided by the men who designed the government or there will be ‘unforeseen’ and unwanted ramifications.
2) IMPOSSIBLE to obtain the supermajority vote required evidenced by our previously wrongheaded attempt to pass a pro-life amendment at the time we had the largest majority in Congress we’ve ever enjoyed. The NRLC saw this was the truth and gave their full support to the candidate who showed them that accomplishing goals in the federal government is an incremental endeavor, inthat they must be gained a little at a time with the right plan or it will blow up in our faces wherein if we’re very lucky will only set us back and not into chaos.
Therefore, banging our heads against the wall in futility with religious leaders, such as James Dobson and Paul Weyrich, publicly dictating we will reverse or prevent societies moral decay by demanding candidates platform be based upon quick-fix pipedreams is not hardly intelligent nor is it adapting to the reality of our circumstances.
Further, for social conservatives to support the Huckster who once took his stance with Federalism only to flip that correct position to pander to the uninformed merely for their votes is unconscionably immoral at face value. In so doing and seeing the same type of depravity in his past and records, he has vividly demonstrated that he is not worthy of occupying the office of the presidency…nor any other public office.
This all leads us to how we wound up with McCain as our nominee. The following articles continue the explanation of our current situation so, let us now see if you really can be smart and also put the effort out to actually be informed in realizing social conservatives have only to look at themselves for the great amount of the ‘credit’;
How the Republican Party Committed National Suicide By JB Williams
http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_19227.shtml
Who Hijacked the Primaries? by Brett Winterble
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24726
The Death of Conservatism? 43 Mistakes and the GOP’s Dobson’s Choice
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1961546/posts
GOP Leads Astray
http://gopleadsastray.blogspot.com/
Conservative Blackout by Lisa Fabrizio
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12517
Mike “The Huckster” Huckabee
http://mikeyhuckabee.blogspot.com/
Now, if you’ve finished the research, that had to be handed to you after the fact, remind yourself of how angry you are at McCain to merely guess at how angry your like-minded friends that you left behind are with you for handing McCain to US!
By: Winghunter on April 14, 2008
at 2:42 pm
[...] http://huckabeealliance.wordpress.com/2008/04/13/advice-for-john-mccain/#comment-133 [...]
By: A Social Conservative Has A Come To Jesus Chat : Conservative Superiority on April 14, 2008
at 4:02 pm
It’s sad that you’d be so misled as to blame this nomination’s turnout on Mike Huckabee, Winghunter.
Romney tried to buy the election, and he was just a liberal in conservative clothing. He and his supporters tried to “guilt-trip” and “only-shot” all other conservatives into voting for him, but they didn’t ultimately succeed, although they may have succeeded in handing the nomination to McCain.
Thompson contributed to McCain’s nomination as much as anyone, as he lamblasted Huckabee leading up to South Carolina, but coincidentally left McCain–the other frontrunner in the Palmetto State, and also Fred’s longtime friend–alone.
McCain’s narrow victory in South Carolina, caused by Thompson’s futile “last stand,” was the catalyst to McCain’s nomination. Preceding South Carolina, polls showed a four-way race in Florida. Had Huckabee won South Carolina, he would’ve gained the momentum to perhaps win or place a close second in the Sunshine State. But McCain’s Thompson-aided win shot him into a contest with the well-financed Romney in Florida.
Then, there’s Giulani, who conducted one of the most ill-advised (or ill-executed) campaign strategies that you can imagine. After losing his “firewall” state in Florida, he dropped out and endorsed McCain at the most opportune time to boost McCain to frontrunner status by handing him the liberal primaries that took place on Super Tuesday.
The blame game is oftentimes a pointless exercise, but Huckabee is certainly not the first name that should get thrown around. In fact, Huckabee continued to fight when Romney surrendered. Romney, having already spent a ton of money and realizing that he couldn’t compete with McCain and Huckabee simultaneously, called it quits. Huckabee kept fighting until there was virtually zero percent chance that he could take the nomination to a brokered convention (the delegate counts were still disputed after March 4th).
By: kingdomadvancer on April 14, 2008
at 8:29 pm
Digg This!
By: ecwoodrow on April 14, 2008
at 8:38 pm
Constitutional amendments are wrong? So I guess the Founders provided for them just to tempt us to destroy ourselves?
So I guess you wouldn’t mind, then, if slavery were still legal in some states, if women still didn’t have suffrage in some states, if blacks still couldn’t vote in some states, or if states could set a random and/or arbitrary age which you must be in order to vote.
And its impossible to get the majority? Well, I’m one who takes into account the practicality of a matter, but I’m not going to give up on protecting the most vulnerable and innocent among us because I lack a majority. I won’t give up because people like you, who apparently lack conviction on the issue, say something is “impossible.” Lives are at stake. Our country is at stake.
By: kingdomadvancer on April 14, 2008
at 9:21 pm
Also, I don’t believe that Huckabee ever opposed a HLA. Rather, he supported Federalism in the sense of opposition to Roe v. Wade, which was unconstitutional and the result of activist judges.
By: kingdomadvancer on April 14, 2008
at 9:25 pm
I’d like to correct a few of your comments Windhunter. First you say social conservatives “broke away” from the other two legs of the conservative movement. I ask, Who broke away from who? The conservative movement has always been grounded in moral social principles. Its the social principles that drive the economic ones. If we are morally and socially strong, the effect is less government regulation and a more limited form of government. Ronald Reagan truly recognized this especially after his defeat in the 1976 primaries to Gerald Ford.
You say it is WRONG to amend the Constitution. The framers of our Constitution realized that changes may be necessary from time to time to cope with the growth of our nation. So without Constitutional amendments we would not have the Bill of Rights and slavery would still be legal and women would still not be allowed to vote.
Now that the major points of your argument have bullet holes let get back to the fact of the matter. Mike Huckabee not only presented but lived and govened with conservative principles not just when it came politically expedient for him. If Mitt Romney didn’t have his personal fortune, he would have never been a major player. He would have not been able to fool many into thinking he was a conservative. But he fooled enough people for long enough to assist the “moderate” into getting the nomination John McCain just happened to be that benefactor.
By: adams6kids on April 14, 2008
at 9:46 pm
Winghunter said:
[quote]You correctly point to the strength you have in numbers so you should also realize that by The Huckster’s clear and resounding defeat that you can not elect a candidate who was only capable of pandering to your exclusive issues.[/quote]
Huckabee didn’t have the support of people that liked him but didn’t get behind him because they believed their “leaders” that said he couldn’t win. Some of them were basing it on their own failure. Mike Huckabee had PROVEN he was electable by actually being elected as Lt. Gov. and re-elected twice as governor. Then he had the Romney and Paul camps spreading lies provided by disgruntled former employees. Not to mention the talk show pundits like Rush, Ingram, Coulter, and Hannity spreading lies; Hannity’s infamous “Huckabee has dropped out of the race.” (when he didn’t; the majority of us KNEW that was Hannity’s way to try to help Rudy win) “McCain has won.” ((when there was still a good chance to force a brokered convention) Rush and Dick Morris encouraging Republicans to vote for Democrats; instead of voting for who best supported their values.
By: Granny T on April 14, 2008
at 10:03 pm
Winghunter said:
[quote]You offer you are “not stupid” and “know how to research on the net” then, why didn’t you all know that seeking Constitutional Amendments are;
1) WRONG to attempt according to the instructions of our founding fathers [/quote]
If it was WRONG then WHY did they explain how to do it?
[quote]Article V: Amendment
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.[/quote]
[quote]2) IMPOSSIBLE to obtain the supermajority vote required[/quote]
Which was achieved as recently as 1992; so it is not impossible.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article5
By: Granny T on April 14, 2008
at 10:07 pm
Sorry, I should have posted this first.
Winghunter said:
[quote]Pray tell us, the other two legs of the conservative party stool, exactly why you broke away, as a group, by not only demanding your intentionally limited priorities came first, foremost and exclusively but also, with the added nerve to actually dictate how they must be accomplished through Constitutional Amendments?[/quote]
Everyone admits Mike is strong on the “leg” of moral issues.
Conservative means “disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.”
Not to mention all of the improvements accomplished in Arkansas (schools, nursing homes, roads, parks, health care, etc.) while working with a Democrat majority and doing these on such a limited budget. The tax cuts leveled out the small increases to accomplish the improvements.
How much stronger could he be on the fiscal issues than championing the Fair Tax
Mike is very strong on the military. He wanted to build it up to what it was like under the Reagan administration. He [b]had[/b] his veterans’ bill of rights posted on his website under issues.
And he even has one more leg to support the “elephant” ticket: he believes “we the people” are the boss (like our founders expected)
By: Granny T on April 14, 2008
at 10:10 pm
Winhunter said:
[quote]evidenced by our previously wrongheaded attempt to pass a pro-life amendment at the time we had the largest majority in Congress we’ve ever enjoyed.[/quote]
Everyone wonders why they didn’t work hard enough to get that done. Could it be that some of them weren’t as pro-life as they claimed to be; or didn’t realize that science could define life to begin at conception? How many wimps were there that refused to take a stand for what was right? Some of them voted against any type of Amendment; even if it were for the good of all. I’m sure glad they weren’t around to stop congress from passing the first 10! Some of the other Amendments were improvements in making our country better, too. (Personally, I especially like the 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th)
The 16th should have never been included since from what I’ve read it was never approved by all the states.
By: Granny T on April 14, 2008
at 10:21 pm
Winghunter said:
[quote]How the Republican Party Committed National Suicide By JB Williams
http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_19227.shtm [/quote]
We base Huckabee’s conservatism on Gov. Huckabee’s record getting things on the conservative agenda passed in a highly Democratic state. Huckabee lead the movement to get the Marriage Amendment passed as well forwarding pro-life issues. When he had trouble getting the Dems to work with him; he would explain it to the people in a way that they would help get things done.
By: Granny T on April 14, 2008
at 10:26 pm
Obviously our founding fathers wanted to provide an avenue to amend the Constitution. Fact is, we wouldn’t even have a Constitution or a country if a provision had not been made for amendments. If you review history, most of the 13 colonies were not willing to ratify the Constitution without a provision for the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments. With that point made, Mike Huckabee has often said that he feels life and the institution of marriage are such an important component in the fabric of our society that Constitutional amendments should be pursued to ensure these rights. Many other primary candidates have said the same thing. One can only guess why Huckabee was singled out as an opposition.
One cannot ignore the consequences to business and national security if life is not valued and strong families do not exist. Mike Huckabee and his supporters are not one leg of the three-pronged principles of conservatism – they are the embodiment of all three.
By: hsmith4huck on April 14, 2008
at 10:31 pm
[quote] Who Hijacked the Primaries? by Brett Winterble
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24726 [/quote]
The author conveniently left out Michigan; where the Dems had a highly organized effort to help Romney win. Why? To get even for the Republican’s messing with their elections in the past. The Dems in Michigan had only one name on their ballot AND they were denied delegates because they moved the primary date up. So, why not help Romney win. In their own words from a Democrat website:
[quote]Democrats for Mitt because the GOP deserves the very worst. [/quote]
Read how organized they were and the reasons why they were doing it here:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/10/2713/87225/55/434206
By: Granny T on April 14, 2008
at 10:34 pm
Quote by Winghunter: “You correctly point to the strength you have in numbers so you should also realize that by The Huckster’s clear and resounding defeat that you can not elect a candidate who was only capable of pandering to your exclusive issues. In other words, you intentionally left your friends behind in completely ignoring the fact that there are MANY issues critical to conservative principles and values wherein he possesses none of them.”
Winghunter, I would beg to differ with you on several points. Governor Huckabee’s primary/caucus run is certainly an indicator–but of what?? Rather than call it “a clear and resounding defeat” I would call it an eye opener. This primary/caucus season showed that many of the red states supported him. It showed that one third to a half of the voters in other states, not only red, supported him in spite of the efforts of the Republican pundits and negative, misleading ads produced by his opponents. It showed that some states have systems of voting which do not result in a true picture of the desire of the people. It showed that a candidate can run a viable campaign without the financial support of “leaders” who decided to wait and see what happened and then “follow” if it was to their advantage. It showed that ALONG WITH policies having to do with the economy, education, preventative health care, immigration, veteran’s rights, Second Amendment rights, support of a strong military defense, many voters feel that protecting the lives of all in America (including unborn infants) and emphasizing the importance of keeping our families strong is vital to our future.
I believe that our “friends” who pay lip service to social conservative issues have left behind those of us who feel that these matters are of paramount importance. We believe that they cannot be ignored as we look to the future of the nation we cherish.
By: Mary Thom on April 14, 2008
at 10:34 pm
[quote] The Death of Conservatism? 43 Mistakes and the GOP’s Dobson’s Choice
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1961546 [/quote]
The part where the author was praising Fred Thompson really made me laugh out loud. Dobson didn’t endorse Huckabee until just before the Texas primaries. It was the first time in history that Dobson endorsed any candidate in the primaries; so he can’t blame Fred’s failure on Dobson. Fred deserves the credit for his failure all to his lazy self. I was trying to make up my mind between Fred and Mitt when Huckabee won my vote at the debate Fred didn’t think was important enough to attend. Fred was the main cause of Huckabee’s loss in SC.
By: Granny T on April 14, 2008
at 10:45 pm
Abregar:
In order to actually legislate an agenda one has first to be elected. An unfortunate fact of politics is the necessity to practice the art of compromise. While John McCain is far from perfect, he is close to electable.
Current voter statistics show those who identify strongly as either Conservative/Republican or Liberal/Democrat as somewhere around 25% each. Those who say they are Moderate/Independent tally in at 49%. As one of the 49% majority, I plan on voting for McCain even though he was not my choice in the primaries.
I would think you, as a social conservative, would be delighted with a candidate who plans on appointing strict constructionist justices to the Supreme Court—the only place a socially conservative agenda has even a faint hope of succeeding. Polls show that there will be little change in the political makeup of the House and Senate this election cycle. This means more partisan gridlock, very little legislative progress and a less than zero chance of socially conservative legislation even seeing the light of day in committee.
There is a very good reason most churches used to have a policy of staying out of politics. True believers operate from a point of moral certaintude that does not allow for compromise of principle. That point of view lends itself far better to education than legislation.
Convince enough voters to follow your socially conservative agenda, and you will have no problem getting a candidate attractive to you elected. Try and force Moderate/Independents to bow to your theology, and you will have the fight of the century on your hands, as you have just seen.
I am not advocating that you take your toys and refuse to play. I am advocating you convince other like minded social conservatives to vote their conscience. If you do a good enough job of attracting others to your point of view, you will become the majority. It was the message, not the messenger, that was the problem.
By: lrobb on April 15, 2008
at 1:22 am
Wow, I must have really struck a nerve with this article.
Winghunter, place your blame where you think it should go. It is rather obvious that you cannot do your own thinking. Most of the links that you posted were opinion pieces, as well as already having been addressed on numerous occasions by many others.
You seem to want to go off of track in your ramblings. The topic that I addressed in my article is the fact that true social conservatives will very likely not vote for McCain unless he chooses a socially conservative running mate to act as a counter balance to his liberal tendencies. I am sorry if you are so narrowed minded and hateful to see this.
As for your so called research, I look at what the candidate has done in the past, not what some opinion writer says they have done. All you did was to take someone else’s opinion and spit it out as your own. This gives you a total lack of credibility.
By: abregar on April 15, 2008
at 3:38 am
All I know is that Mike Huckabee should be the next president and it is a shame that media bias and Washington’s shun (plus failure of some of the conservative leaders to get on board soon enough) cost him this election. We need Mike and his innovative ideas, moral character and great communication skills in Washington. Smart men surround themselves with the best and Senator McCain is a smart man. I hope he realizes what he has in Governor Hucakbee and adds this great man to the ticket. We need him so badly in Washington!
By: Linda Rayborn on April 15, 2008
at 4:23 am
Irobb,
I would vote for McCain if I felt that I could trust him to nominate strict constructionist judges. However I can’t that is why I wrote my article. I feel that a good strong conservative is needed to act as a counter balance to McCain not so conservative tendencies.
If he were to pick a conservative running mate I would be more than happy to vote for him.
By: abregar on April 15, 2008
at 1:25 pm
The acts of non Huckabee people were the 1/2 of the cause of his primary defeat.
It would be the half that pretty much was addressed as much as Huckabee could do.
Huckabee’s other problem is with supporters causing him problems by running contrary to his beliefs.
Push-Pull, attacking other candidates (are you listening Chuck N), and other actions that made Huckabee look weak because he constantly had to say “I wish the wouldn’t do that”.
This is still going on. The primary is over.
If Mike does not address this weakness in 2012 or 2016 he will loose again. I really do not want to see that happen.
He needs to go on national news and say if you want to help me, tell people were I stand on the issues. Do not help me by attacking the other candidates. I can’t use you and do not want your help if you do that.
He needs to do what Reagan did when getting the KKK endorsement. He said he did not want it.
Leave attacks on the other candidates to the supporters of other candidates.
By: Timothy D Lynch on April 16, 2008
at 7:25 pm
Winghunter: I do believe that you are intoxicated with the exuberance of your own verbosity!
By: David Anderson on April 16, 2008
at 8:58 pm
Every single one of you;
I’ve never seen the level of denial and/or stone ignorance outside of the Daily Kos or Media Matters.
Get a real thought here people and stop your drooling;
Mike “The Huckster” Huckabee
http://mikeyhuckabee.blogspot.com/
Mike Huckabee’s Skeleton Closet
http://www.realchange.org/huckabee.htm
By: Winghunter on April 19, 2008
at 12:36 am
Fine, Winghunter. Just call us stupid. That’s not exactly a great rhetorical technique.
By: kingdomadvancer on April 22, 2008
at 2:08 am
Huckabee would be a great asset to McCain.
Mike Huckabee
By: Jonathon P. Cooper on May 24, 2008
at 2:01 am
[...] the advice he’ll get from the Huckabee Alliance and others, McCain should choose Tennessee Rep. Marsha Blackburn or Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. Both [...]
By: McCain’s best VP choice–and when he should name her « James McPherson’s Media & Politics Blog on June 18, 2008
at 6:23 pm