Prominent Christian and conservative leader Pat Robertson has endorsed Rudy Giuliani for President. (Think Mitt Romney is surprised?)
Conservative U.S. Senator Sam Brownback announced he's backing Sen. John McCain for President. (Think Mike Huckabee is miffed?) "While I respect all of the Republicans running for president this year, John McCain is the only candidate who can rally the Reagan coalition of conservatives, Independents, and conservative Democrats needed to defeat Hillary Clinton or any other Democrat in the general election next year," Sen. Brownback said in a statement. "John McCain has spent a lifetime standing up for human rights around the world, including a consistent 24-year pro-life record of protecting the rights of the unborn. John McCain alone has the courage, leadership and character to lead our party to victory in 2008 while keeping faith with our most cherished values -- life, faith and family."
But can Huckabee really win Iowa? Dick Morris thinks so.
3 comments:
I am not shocked at Brownback's endorsement of McCain. The bombshell was the Robertson endorsement of Giuliani. I'm of two minds on this: Robertson is acting pragmatically on the calculus that Rudy is the only Republican who can win. On the other hand, what price victory for conservatism would this be? In other words, would a Rudy win vanquish Hillary while at the same time vanquishing time-testing conservative principles.
In my view, the best candidate for the GOP is Fred Thompson. I suppose some like Kit Bond and Pat Robertson are wagering that he cannot win. I feel much the opposite. Fred Thompson is the most Reagan-esque candidate since Reagan himself. He has a longer and truer conservative track record than any other candidate in the field.
But, as Chuck Todd said months ago, if the GOP as a whole believes that Rudy is the only candidate who can beat Hillary, then Rudy will be the nominee. This is what I believe is occuring. Rudy is becoming more and more the likely GOP nominee every day. Fred Thompson for all his strengths cannot overcome this. Neither can Mitt Romney.
I don't think there is anyone closer to Reagan than Ron Paul, and considering Ron Paul just took in 4.2 million dollars in 24 hours breaking the all time online
contribution record, so do alot of other people.
I am a traditional Republican and like what I seen in Ron Paul now that I have found him. Fred Thompson lobbied for a Pro Abortion group, voted against some very important 2nd amendment rights legislation and also supported McCains immigration policy.
The charge with Thompson and the abortion group is a red herring. He was a part of a law firm and was asked to look into an issue for a client. He made one phone call. At any rate, your charge is a moot point because Thompson has a lifetime 100% rating from the National Right to Life. Besides, aren't attorneys supposed to represent their clients zealously within the bounds of the law? Chief Justice Roberts did similar work, yet no one questioned his commitment to strict constructionism. President John Adams represented Redcoats in the aftermath of the Boston Massacre. Using the same logic you apply to Thompson, John Adams would be a British sympathizer.
Comparing Ron Paul to Ronald Reagan is an insult to Reagan's legacy. If Paul were president during the 1980s, the Soviet Union would still be on the march around the world. Ronald Reagan engaged the Soviet Union. He put modernized missiles into Europe, a move Paul would no doubt call provocative. Paul embraces a foreign policy that's naive to the point of danger. Ron Paul either would not or cannot keep this nation safe from Islamic terrorists. Paul's plan is retreat and defeat. He is a marginal candidate who has very committed supporters. Dr. Paul is in the wrong party- he should be a Libertarian. And remember, if raising money equaled electoral success, Howard Dean would be president today!
Post a Comment