January 18, 2008
An Ayatollah from Arkansas
A day before the South Carolina Republican Primary, David Limbaugh has cast his support behind Fred Thompson:
Commentators are citing the unpredictability of the Republican primary contests as proof that Reagan conservatism is dead when precisely the opposite conclusion is warranted.The main reason the conventional wisdom is being shattered in the primaries is that conservative voters, so far, have not been persuaded there is an electable, reliable conservative in the race.
But as I've stated before, I believe Fred Thompson is a reliable, consistent conservative. There are others in the field I could support, but not without some reservations. The more I learn about Fred and observe him in action, the more convinced I become that he's the right choice...
...Supporters have asked Fred to step up, and he has -- he has shone brilliantly in the last month, setting himself head and shoulders above the pack in many cases. Now it's time for conservative voters to step up and quit placing artificial limitations on Fred, and on themselves.
Fred has answered the conservatives' call. Shouldn't we answer his?
For those of you who don't know, David Limbaugh is the brother of talk radio powerhouse Rush Limbaugh, who refuses to endorse any Republican candidate during the primaries as a matter of policy—a policy, I may add, that has not kept Rush from slamming many (if not all) of the other Republican candidates—while singing Thompson's praises on more than one occasion.
The "conventional wisdom" (which I think is batting "O-fer" this primary season, so take it FWIW) is that South Carolina will knock either Thompson or Mike Huckabee out of the race with a poor showing.
I've made no secret that as an evangelical Christian myself, Mike Huckabee makes me cringe, and that of the candidates we have, I think Thompson is certainly the best choice.
If South Carolina is a "race for survival" between Thompson and Huckabee, I hope that South Carolina Republicans who generally support the other candidates—Huckabee, Romney, McCain, Giuliani, and Paul— would instead consider casting their vote for Thompson tomorrow.
Why?
I have to tell my fellow conservative Christians that Mike Huckabee is the worst possible representative of our faith and our conservative principles in the race.
His stated intentions to change the Constitution to follow his interpretation of the Bible will only earn us distrust among the vast majority of Americans who aren't Southern Baptists, and his unsolicited support for the Confederate flag is politically tone-deaf and will alienate many voters not already turned off by his desire to ban political free speech—except when his supporters use it to tar other candidates, that is.
We deserve better than an ayatollah from Arkansas.
I'd like for you to consider casting your vote for Fred Thompson if you want a Southerner to continue in the race, but I'd ask that whatever you do, you vote against Mike Huckabee.
Our religion, our region, our party, and our country deserves better.
Hear, hear! This conservative, Reformed Christian thinks exactly the same.
Posted by: Grey Fox at January 18, 2008 11:26 AMTo paraphrase Something Positive, not everything that wears a cross is a brother of mine.
Huckabee is the Jimmy Carter of the Republican party and will be a disaster of Clintonian proportions if elected.
Posted by: DaveP. at January 18, 2008 12:48 PMYankee,
The Paul people will vote for Paul only. The poll numbers are irrelevant. The Paul people will vote with their conviction of the U.S. Constitution not whether someone is electable. I will vote for Paul only. Rudi and Thompson are the fringe candidates now.
BTW, your conviction is to be commended. You are endorsing Thompson even though he is considered a long shot. I disagree with your endorsement but I respect you.
Posted by: TTexas at January 18, 2008 01:30 PMWe are all Reagan military moderate Republicans in this household and get as nervous when we hear this constant talk of a "true conservative" as we do at the word liberal. I think the further West you come, the more likely the candidates are to run into those who equate the "true conservative" label with far right social conservatives. We are hardline national security/economic Republicans. As much as we like Fred Thompson, the more he is pushed as the "only true conservative," the less appealing he becomes to about 2/3 of those who are looking for a candidate with more Reaganesque inclusiveness.
When I talk to Republicans in my area, So. Calif., I hear from those who rarely go to church, are often active duty or retired military, very patriotic, spiritual but not overtly religious, pro-life, pro-business. While doing a stint at the local Repub. HQ phone bank recently, a man said to me, "what is with those Eastern states? Do they really think we want a Jimmy Swaggert in the White House?" referring to Mike Huckabee. The consensus was that Mitt Romney is a more "well rounded" Republican, so I think he plays very well out here. Those who supported McCain, who was trounced in this area in 2000 by GWB, do so more as a fallback than because they really want to see McCain get the nod, although when taxes are mentioned, McCain has serious trust issues with this group. Duncan Hunter is popular, but considered unelectable nationwide. And since we live everyday with the fruits of a porous border, border security is #1 on the list, but at the same time, most found the use of the word "shamnesty" offensive and out of touch with the facts on the ground as we know them. Where Thompson makes points, it is on his position of providing the fence and electronic border surveillance and employer sanctions while allowing attrition to do the rest. And now, with the collapse of the real estate boom, many are looking to Romney as the man most able to handle a declining economy. And, if the Chargers beat the Patriots and go on to the Super Bowl, no one in this area is going to be paying any attention to politics between Sunday night and February 3rd, two days before Mega-Tuesday.
My unscientific mini-poll of about 60 Repub. activists might not be the whole story, but it is certainly indicative of my large So. Calif. county.
Posted by: Sara at January 18, 2008 01:32 PMSara, Reagan was never that inclusive. He told it like it was... if you agreed, you were welcome, if not, you were invited to find another party.
The "Big Tent" is a media-fabricated myth. There is no such thing, and never has been. The media wants the GOP to become "Democrat-lite," still advocating a bigger government, just at a slower pace... and that's what we got with Dubya.
I stand firmly behind Fred.
Posted by: C-C-G at January 18, 2008 08:17 PM"I have to tell my fellow conservative Christians that Mike Huckabee is the worst possible representative of our faith and our conservative principles in the race." Amen, Amen, Amen!
Posted by: CliffA at January 19, 2008 09:08 AMLet the Ron Paul kamikazis do what they like. Their irrelevance is bound to sink in to the brighter ones sooner or later. The others are free to join the Church of Scientology. The Republican party doesn't need 'em. If Fred Thompson was serious about this, he would have gotten hair plugs like Joe Biden and a face lift to get rid of those bags. In case you've noticed, it's been a while since an old, unattractive man was elected president. Sorry, but that's the way it is. Rudy's dragging too much personal baggage. That leaves Mitt and the preacher man.
Posted by: Banjo at January 19, 2008 09:50 AMMy, my... what deep consideration, basing one's vote on hair plugs.
Posted by: C-C-G at January 19, 2008 10:21 AM
