Mitt Romney @ MindSay

Mitt Romney -  In a conversation with Wolf Blitzer on CNN said something that struck me funny; he touched on the phrase "Leader of The Free World" - and Romney suggested Obama, as the leader of the free world, is apparently not doing the job right.

I take offense to that in two ways;

1.  I don't see Romney as the one to judge Obama, sorry IMHO Mitt is not even near presidential!
   
2. Obama is the leader of the US,  not the free world.

It irks me that there is still this prevalent attitude that the border that marks The World, or at least The Free World is somehow the same border surrounding the United States of America. I know the average person thinks far more broadly than this and am discouraged that those in leadership positions still don't get it! Just wish these misinformed people would wake up to the rest of the world that exists beyond their vision!

Super Tuesday has come and gone. The waters are a little less muddy but they are still muddy.

 

For the Democrats Hillary asserted herself as a front runner however by no means eliminated Obama from nipping at her feet.

 

For the Republicans the once down for the count McCain has beat the ten-count to be ahead in points. Romney had a surprisingly disappointing showing and Huckabee had a surprisingly strong showing; however that combination seems to have cancelled each other out giving the old man McCain new vigor toward a nomination win.

 

In politics things can change but it appears Huck's strong show may embolden him to go all the way through the primary process even if it is a loosing effort in the hope that miracles will continue to boost him toward an unlikely nomination.

 

Romney was seriously hurt by Super Tuesday. He has the money to stay in the race; however at this point the businessman needs to calculate the profit and loss and decide on a strategy that could make him a king maker or part of the winning nominee's team in some influential manner. Of course as I have said, politics change. Any unforeseen occurrence could rearrange the fortunes of the Republicans top three candidates at any moment.

 

Which Republican do I support? I just cannot come up with a clear choice; however I do not suffer from a McCain Derangement Syndrome that might lead to a certain Democratic Party victory. A Dem victory although expected is not a shoe-in and is abhorrent to me.

 

I cannot vote for a Mormon to win the nomination because of my religious beliefs; however I will vote for a Mormon over a Democrat any day of the week especially in November 2008.

 

I like Huck’s self-proclaimed Social Conservatism and his stand of not being ashamed to be a Christian; however there are elements of taxation and immigration that bother me about Huck. Still I will vote Huckabee in November above any Democrat nominated. The Democrats are simply to fringe to the Left and although I know they think they are helping Americans by denigrating military confrontation with Islamofascists they are really emboldening the Islamofascists with greater confidence to continue acts of terrorism that could once again reach the land of Purple Mountain’s Majesty.

 

I’ll see at the Republican Convention who I will ultimately vote for in November. And may all Republicans set aside their differences and stand united behind whoever that winner is. The Democratic Party platform of “Change” is a change to the Left and that will not be good for America.

 

Well at least on the Democratic side.  Things are pretty much the same. Hillary Clinton with a slight edge over Barak Obama. No clear winner and the demographic of  their supporters are not very surprising.  Hillary Clinton had an edge with woman and Hispanic voters, while Barak Obama had the edge with white male voters, black voters and young voters.

 

However, on the Republican side, Mike Huckabee gained some momentum and Senator John McCain seemed to emerge as the front runner. So does this still make Huckabee a spoiler or does this mean he is still pretty much in the race? Or both? Should Mitt Romney be concerned?

 

Look today is Super Tuesday. Since Fred Thompson dropped out because of a lack of support from those who should have supported the only true Conservative in the Republican race, I have been in a disappointing funk as to who I should support.

 

Frankly all the remaining candidates have just as many knocks as plusses and I truly do not know who the best is.

 

Although McCain has a history of teaming up with Leftists, he does have a decent Senatorial voting record on Conservative causes. The many pundits that are hysterical about McCain being the front runner as of this date are way overboard on the venom if you look at McCain in balance. Some pro-McCain Republicans have called this McCain Derangement Syndrome.

 

Romney has a solid record as an administrative person in the private sector and in government as the Governor of Massachusetts. However as a politician he has had to comply with a mostly liberal voter constituency in the State of Massachusetts thus he has made some politically social stands that are abhorrent to the social Conservative; viz. on abortion and homosexual rights. Being a politician and seeking to gratify a larger constituency – viz. the entire USA. This has given him the appearance of a flip flopper as Romney has recanted on some of his gubernatorial stands. The issue for me about Romney though is his religious faith. Yeah I know, to the secularist it sounds bigoted; however I am a Bible believing Christian that has always viewed Mormon theology as not even close to Christian basic theology that even Catholics, Protestants and Eastern Orthodox Christians agree on. Saying all that, if Romney was to pull out the Republican nomination, I would vote for him. Any Republican is way better that than the obviously Socially Left moral relativists who continue a Secular Humanist transformation of American society.

 

Then there is Mike Huckabee. At this stage Huckabee probably does not have enough money to make his case to the American people. Ironically Conservatives criticize Huckabee for being fiscally Leftist and acknowledge his Social Conservatism. Just today I ran into a website that is critical of Huckabee’s potential connection to “Reconstructionist Christianity.” The Reconstructionists (aka Dominionists) believe the Law of the land in America should be closer to that of Old Testament laws (bad news since Christ redeemed Believers from the curse of the Law in the Old Testament) than the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution. That is the knock; however from actual readings of Rushdoony’s (father of Reconstructionism) writings, he appears to be more of an advocate of inserting Christian principles into the Constitution rather than abolishing the Constitution of or the Bill of Rights. One other Huckabee gaffe was a December 30, 2007 interview with Leftist Tim Russert in which Huckabee is caught saying homosexuality is a matter of personal choice. Of course anti-Huckabee people wanted to make the Christian Right aware that Huckabee might not be as Socially Conservative as he proclaims.

 

I call it a gaffe because what the anti-Huckabee people fail to point out is Huckabee’s explanation of his “homosexual statement.”

 

Although Huckabee asked Russert to understand that "when a Christian speaks of sin, a Christian says all of us are sinners," he asserted that "the perfection of God is seen in a marriage in which one man, one woman live together as a couple committed to each other as life partners."

 

 So here’s the thing. I am voting Republican in 2008 for whoever wins the nomination. For me there is no clear cut choice. However if I was pinned down on who to vote for today, I would lean toward Christian Social Conservatism and that would be Mike Huckabee.

 

Here is a good clip for a Christian to vote for Huckabee:

 

I owe a hat tip for the information to Jim Phelan.

 

I love Ann Coulter’s stinging wit and prose that are most often reserved for moonbats on the Left. Coulter is caught up in the GOP race for President which is understandable since she is obviously a Conservative.

 

Thus the Candidates that Ann does not endorse on the GOP side have been the recipients of the usually magnificent vitriol reserved for Leftists. Ann has been railing on McCain for some time; here is her latest post on Senator McCain. Here is a piece critical of Huckabee. And way back in October 2007 she tag teamed on my man Fred (since folded) and Huckabee together.

 

As of mid January it appears that Ann has settled to write favorably about Mitt Romney as a true Conservative.

 

In some of her articles attacking other Republicans Ann (and remember I think she is a sharp double edged sword for Dems) harangues Republican voters for not doing their home work when Romney lost or came in a close second.

 

If you have read my posts about Romney, the biggest negative I have against him is his Mormon faith which I consider a cultic knock-off of Christianity. Incidentally I do support Romney’s choice of practicing Mormonism for there is Freedom of Religion in America; however as a Christian I have to point out the attributes of Mormonism do not run true to Christian Faith (Catholic, Protestant or Eastern Orthodox). Secularists would say religion should not be a factor in voting. I say if a Candidate contradicts your values and faith, then religion is a factor.

 

Here is the irony about Mitt Romney. As Governor of Massachusetts he often voted on the side of social Liberalism and not social Conservatism as a good Mormon should. Mormon’s may be a cult; however they endorse good Christian morality such as pro-life and anti-abortion as one example. As a Governor, Romney voted pro-abortion. Romney has claimed to have a moral transformation in his beliefs in 2004; however it sounds like a political transformation to hook the Christian Right.

 

Do I think Romney would be a good Administrative President? I would have to say yes. AND if he was the nominee for the GOP I would vote for him; however in the GOP selection stage Romney is not the guy.

 

I don’t know who the GOP guy is either. McCain would also be a good Administrator but he leans toward too many Leftist causes. I think McCain would be excellent to steer America toward victory on the War on Terror. Huckabee has become the darling of the Christian Right because of his open support of for social Conservatism; however like McCain and Giuliani he has a past of aiding illegal aliens. Huck has sounded profoundly ignorant on foreign affairs and he has a reputation for raising taxes (even if the taxes were mandated by the Courts). Giuliani is also a social Liberal and soft on illegal immigration; however he is tough on crime and would at least be a leader to win the War on Terror.

 

When the primary hits my neck of the woods, I won’t vote for Romney and I am extremely uncertain about whom else to vote for. I do no I will not vote for Ron Paul because he has not been forthcoming about Newsletters written in his name that were racist in his past. Paul has only taken responsibility for an error he was unaware of and that is not a believable defense. I would be more impressed if he disavowed the Newsletters as an aberration of a Southern cultural past and he has moved into the 21^st century as many Southerners have indeed transformed from bigotry of the past to a more equality minded bent in the present. This has not happened.

 

Back to Coulter’s support of Romney: in this case I do not think she has done her homework or if she has, Coulter is less a social Conservative and more a fiscal and political/secular Conservative. This would disappointingly mean Coulter does not place a premium on Biblical morality and values.

 

The President of the American Right to Life Action has criticized Coulter for supporting a pro-abortionist in Mitt Romney. I would add Mormonism.

 

JRH