DOCTOR NO, THE 3 MUSKETEERS &
THE 7 DWARFS
There’s reluctance among conservatives to see the ideological flaws of the current crop of president-wannabes but unless we’re willing to line up each one of the 11 Republican contenders and strip off his 3 piece posturing to look deep into his political past, we’ll simply be fooling ourselves (again) when it comes to supporting a candidate for president.
Much like a woman who wants to get married so badly she ignores those ‘deal-breaking’ flaws, when it comes to the Republicans vying for the nomination, we just don’t want to face the truth, because well, it would hurt too much to say, once again, “He’s not for me,” and move on, when there might not be anyone else to move on to. That kind of thinking always leads to desperation and ultimately disappointment.
For those who’ve been saying “he’s good enough, you can’t have everything” I offer the following perspective of the Republicans in the ’08 lineup.
Mitt Romney: Nice hair, easy on the eyes, good suits, and lousy standard-bearer for the pro-life, pro-family, pro-limited government constitutionalist crowd.
First off, Romney’s lightning bolt conversion to a pro-life candidate isn’t fooling many. His RomneyCare health plan, which he signed into law just over a year ago, forces the taxpayers of Massachusetts to pay for the gruesome slaughter of thousands of pre-born children in the state each year.
Romney campaigned for Governor of Massachusetts as a pro-choice candidate, and was endorsed by a pro-abortion political group. Regarding his position on abortion he said: “… [W]hen asked, will I preserve and protect a women's right to choose, I make an unequivocal answer: Yes.”
If, after hearing Romney wax conservative in the recent GOP debates you're confused about Romney's stand on abortion, marriage, gun control, gay rights or immigration, don’t feel too badly. Up until recently he was a hard core liberal on all of those issues.
Mitt’s hoping people will pay attention to what he says these days,
not to what he did while governor of Massachusetts. While in office,
In 2002 Romney had this to say about some of the most draconian gun laws in the nation: “We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them,” Mitt said. “I won’t chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety.”
Fred Thompson: Sorry folks, the kindly actor you’ve come to know through the TV series “Law and Order” is not who you’d like him to be. Despite the polls (AP/ IPSOS 6/9/07) which tout Thompson as a darling among conservatives, most are apparently ignorant of his political pedigree. Like his friend, McCain and other GOP leaders, he is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, a main group behind the North American Union.
Thompson’s “Pro-Life” position in his own words: "Abortions should be legal in all circumstances as long as the procedure is completed within the first trimester of the pregnancy.”
After 8 years as a US Senator from Tennessee, Thompson racked up some votes that should be cause for concern. He voted YES:
in support of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act- the law
to silence grassroots conservative groups.
Thompson also seems to believe in a robust military presence worldwide and apparently advocates continued US military involvement in Iraq. (Freemarket news.com) Prior to his run for U.S. Senate, he was a Washington lobbyist for 20 years.
Newt Gingrich: Not even close… In 1995 the 104th Congress’ House of Representatives, led by Speaker Gingrich was made up of 73 spanking new representatives who had their sights set on reducing the size, scope and cost of the federal government. They weren’t allowed to. Gingrich saw to that.
Remember Newt’s “Contract with America?” While it was portrayed as a way to fix our country’s problems it did nothing of the sort. The policies therein were unconstitutional, NATO was expanded, the feds got more control of law enforcement, laws affecting children and more. Within a year Gingrich’s approval rating had tanked. CFR member Gingrich tried to portray himself as a true ‘conservative’ twelve years ago, now he’s doing it again as a possible candidate for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination.
Gingrich’s globalist pedigree was evident back in 1994’s lame-duck session of Congress. His cheerleading for GATT and the WTO made sure the votes on those two sovereignty-bludgeoning tools got a pass. The vote on GATT should have been held off for a month when a more conservative Congress convened in January of 1995. GATT, that 120 member trade alliance that now dictates our trade policies has become part of the underpinning for the implementation of the North American Union. Thanks, Newt. (Seeing a pattern here?)
Gingrich, in 1978, supported the creation of the Department of Education. Our kids have been paying for the expansion of federal control over schools ever since. Can you say: “way down the list of industrialized nations in math, science and literacy scores?” Sure you can!
After that, Newt went on to support giving taxpayer money to the evil power that is Communist China, then voted to approve most-favored-nation trading status for the regime so fond of murdering political dissidents and harvesting the organs of those they’ve deemed “criminals.” This, from the man labeled one of America’s foremost “conservatives.”
Sam Brownback: Kansas Senator, elected in 1996 to the seat held by Bob Dole. On marriage Brownback said: “The right to marry is not the right to redefine marriage. Marriage is the union of one man and one woman.”
Brownback is staunchly pro-life saying: “Abortion ends a human life.” His votes have resulted in a 0% rating by NARAL. However, Senator Brownback softens his otherwise pro-life stance by saying he could support a pro-abortion nominee for president.
A voting record indicative of the senator’s decidedly unconstitutional political positions include:
YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security.
Disappointingly, Senator Brownback voted to send American troops to fight in Iraq. He’d do well to read the Constitution; not just because he sits on a House subcommittee regarding that august document, but, like his colleagues, he swore an oath to uphold and defend the principles therein; chief among them, no unauthorized wars. Brownback said that he never read the National Intelligence Estimate (the justification for the war) in advance. This lack of preparation is inexcusable.
Mike Huckabee: Governor of Arkansas for over 10 years, a Southern Baptist preacher, he’s pro-life, unapologetically Christian and is vocal in his rejection of the theory of evolution.
His “nanny-state” tendencies are evident in his consideration of a law to ban pregnant women from smoking and his support for laws that require school children be weighed for obesity.
These state-level policy decisions are an indication Governor Huckabee takes a ‘more-is-better’ approach to the federal government’s role. Those who subscribe to a constitutionally-sound political ideology could not support Huckabee for president.
“How’s that working for you” is a phrase TV psychologist and author Dr. Phil is fond of asking those he counsels. After listening to those troubled by chaos and failed relationships, Dr. Phil asks the simple question to make a simple point: Continuing certain behaviors that have repeatedly failed to produce a desired outcome is just plain nuts. Yet that is what American voters are considering when they register approval for candidates like John McCain and Rudy Giuliani.
John McCain: Anger issues aside, John McCain sponsored a major piece of legislation so destructive to the republic it’s mind-boggling that the man could still be considered a “conservative.” These two words should send chills down the spines of every liberty-loving American: McCain-Feingold.
The result of this and most ‘campaign finance reform’ was to make sure that only the richest people would even consider running for office. By making it so that a wealthy person couldn’t give more than a couple of thousand dollars to anyone running for office except himself, now only rich people will go for it.
The New York Daily News came up with this estimate of the candidates’ finances: Mitt Romney $250 million, Rudy Giuliani $70 million, John Edwards $62 million, John McCain $25 million, Sen. Hillary Clinton $15 million, and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson $10 million.
What makes the McCain-Feingold bill even worse, much worse, is it effectively restricts the content of political speech through advocacy groups.
The Senator from Arizona, one of the states most affected by the flood of illegals, has totally ignored the folks back home and the severe impact illegal immigration is having on their daily lives by leading the effort for the Bush amnesty plan.
Other inexplicable behavior which should give those contemplating supporting a McCain candidacy in ’08 pause includes McCain’s opposition to tax cuts in 2001. McCain sounded like a true Marxist when explaining why he opposed the cuts saying: "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief." For part 2 click below.
here for part -----> 2,
© 2007 Mary Starrett - All
are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale
Mary Starrett was the Constitution Party candidate for Oregon governor in November, 2006, a TV news anchor and talk show host for 25 years and a radio talk show host for 5 years.
Executive Director, Oregonians for Life, Board of Directors, Christian Family Adoptions.
She is currently the Communications Director for the Constitution Party. The Constitution Party is the fastest-growing minor political party (www.ballot-access.org) and is made up of Americans who believe a return to constitutional government is imperative.
John McCain: Anger issues aside, John McCain sponsored a major piece of legislation so destructive to the republic it’s mind-boggling that the man could still be considered a “conservative.”