|
A Constitutionalist’s View of the GOP Presidential
Hopefuls
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.
Now 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, Romney:
- supported and promoted legalizing homosexual civil unions
- opposed the Boy Scouts’ ban on homosexual scoutmasters
- refused to endorse original Massachusetts’ constitutional
amendment
defining marriage as between one man and one woman
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:
1. in support of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act-
the law
to silence grassroots conservative groups.
2. to expand NAFTA. Modeled after the European Common Market,
NAFTA
was a first step toward open borders in North America and the
North
American Union.
3. on allowing more foreign workers into the US for farm work.
(Jul 1998)
4. on authorizing use of military force against Iraq. (Oct 2002)
5. for permanent normal trade relations with China. (Sep 2000)
6. for funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. (Aug
1999)
7. to fund the GOP Medicare prescription drug benefit
debacle.
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:
1. YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social
Security.
2. YES on enlarging NATO to include Eastern Europe. (NATO does
nothing to
protect the United States and again, brings us into foreign
alliances
our Founders warned against)
3. YES on implementing CAFTA for Central America free-trade. (If
you liked
what NAFTA did for the US economy you’ll love CAFTA!)
4. YES on permanent normal trade relations with China.
5. YES on funding GOP Medicare prescription drug debacle.
6. YES on reauthorizing the un-patriotic PATRIOT Act.
7. NO on getting troops out of Iraq by July 2007.
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.
Huckabee:
- has been criticized for raising taxes but says he cut taxes 94
times while in office.
- says he would have made the decision to go to war in Iraq if
he were president.
- supports a guest worker program and has commented that
"racism" could be responsible for those who oppose it.
- signed one of the highest minimum wage laws in the
region.
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."
Rudy Giuliani: "I cannot, and will not, vote for Rudy Giuliani in
2008". Those were the words Christian psychologist and commentator
Dr. James Dobson. Dobson echoed the sentiments of many Republicans
who are horrified that Rudy Giuliani would actually be their party’s
choice in ’08. The former NY mayor’s positions on abortion, gay
rights, gun control and illegal immigration, among other issues have
conservatives seeking a lifeboat should Rudy get the nod.
The former mayor stated, "I understand the Second Amendment" and,
regarding owning guns for hunting or collections, Giuliani believes
"there is a right to do that." So that’s what the second
amendment is all about, hunting and collecting antiques!
On immigration Giuliani has said he believes illegals should be
able to "acquire" citizenship. I believe that’s called "amnesty",
Mayor. Finessing liberal stances to make them more palatable is sure
to fool some of the people, some of the time, to be sure, but those
who’re paying attention aren’t buying it. Many suggest (Rasmussen
poll 5/9/07) that they’d consider voting for third party candidate
before they’d vote for Giuliani.
In addition to the ultra liberal Giuliani’s positions on the
issues there are other considerations that do not bode well for the
republic should this man become president. According to journalist
Cliff Kincaid, Giuliani’s law firm is acting as legal counsel for
the Spanish company (Cintra) that has been given the go-ahead to
operate a toll-road in the Trans Texas Corridor project. This NAFTA
Superhighway conduit would be the first time a foreign interest was
awarded a building contract for a massive highway system. (Note that
the silence about this project, not to mention Rudy’s unholy
alliance with it, is deafening. Neither Congress nor the mainstream
media has touched either subject).
As our review of this
first group of candidates points out, they cannot be counted on to
wage the much needed battles for constitutional government,
therefore they have been dubbed, "The Seven Dwarfs." Moving in a
more positive direction we turn our attention to several contenders
who, thankfully, have taken solid positions on issues important to
conservatives. We’ve dubbed those candidates: "The Three
Musketeers."
Tom Tancredo: We sure do love the Colorado Congressman’s
principled stance on illegal immigration. Tancredo has taken hits
for his unwavering insistence that we close our borders and reject
amnesty in any form. There are areas in which Tancredo disappoints,
though. Tancredo says it’s ok to attack Iran if they develop nuclear
weapons. If that’s the case then why haven’t we attacked Russia,
North Korea and China?
On the LIFE issue Tancredo is solid. He received a 0% approval
rating from NARAL. Considering the source, that translates into a
100% pro-life voting record. He said: "The greatest day in history
will be when Roe v Wade is abolished."
Tancredo’s less-than-acceptable record
includes voting:
- NO on bringing the troops home within 90 days
- YES on authorizing the war in Iraq
- YES on warrant-less wiretaps
- YES on federalizing drivers’ licenses (REAL ID, the de-facto
National ID
card)
However, Tom Tancredo has some rock-solid positions and they
include supporting the repeal of the 16th Amendment and abolishing
the IRS. Tancredo received an approval rating of 84% by the National
Taxpayers Union. Tancredo voted well when he voted NO on
implementing CAFTA and YES on withdrawing from the WTO.
Duncan Hunter : The southern California Congressman is a strong
supporter of secure borders. His efforts have resulted in over 59
miles of fencing in San Diego County. Hunter wrote the Secure Fence
Act, extending the San Diego fence 854 miles across California,
Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.
Hunter holds a strong position on trade issues: ". . . China is
cheating on trade and using billions of American trade dollars to
build ships, planes and missiles at an alarming rate while, at the
same time, taking millions of American jobs." Hunter’s positions on
NAFTA, GATT and the WTO appeal to those concerned about the
vanishing industrial base and loss of American jobs.
Hunter is solidly pro-life. He has said he would aggressively
promote a Right to Life Amendment to the Constitution, defining
"personhood" from the moment of conception.
About the Second Amendment Hunter said: "It seems every election
year, some liberal politician dons an NRA cap and grabs a shotgun
for a hunting photo-op, as if that means they support our right as
Americans to keep and bear arms. But the second amendment is not
about hunting. It is about the right of you and me to be secure in
our homes."
On education, Hunter said: "I believe we can educate students
more effectively by returning school curriculum prerogatives to the
states, local communities and, most importantly, to the family.
State agencies charged with conducting education policies do not
need expensive and inefficient mandates from a federal agency."
A big disappointment however is Congressman Hunter’s position on
the war in Iraq. Citing his experience on the House Armed Services
Committee for 26 years he says he supports the mission
wholeheartedly. Hunter’s son has served two tours of duty
there.
Jim Gilmore: Former Governor of Virginia, Gilmore set laudable goals
during his campaign for governor and actually accomplished them. He
signed an executive order reducing all state spending, except for
education, and kept the state’s budget balanced even during a severe
economic downturn. Imagine if we had a president do that at the
federal level!
Instead of education debacles like ‘No Child left Behind’,
Gilmore implemented school reforms in Virginia’s public schools that
actually showed results. Scores on state and national standardized
tests increased in math, English and social studies.
Gilmore served as Chairman of the Republican National Committee
for one year (2000-2001) but was considered a dismal failure in that
role. He resigned under pressure after the party lost key races and
overall lost ground heading into a congressional election year.
Like Sen. Fred Thompson, Gilmore talks out of both sides of his
mouth when it comes to abortion. Gilmore defends past pro-life
positions noting that as Governor, he signed a law establishing a
24-hour waiting period for women seeking abortions, as well as a ban
against partial birth abortion and human cloning and increased
funding for adoption services. Those measures do deserve praise,
however Gilmore has been unequivocal throughout his political tenure
in saying a woman has a "right" to end the life of her unborn baby
in the first trimester. We would ask Governor Gilmore this: If an
unborn baby is worth saving, does it really matter how big the baby
is?
Somewhere in the lineup there just has to be a keeper. There is,
it’s just that the Republican jihad against the man is drowning out
his message. The mainstream press, too, has ignored, then vilified,
then ignored him once again. However, the groundswell of support for
the man is nothing short of astounding.
Ron Paul:
The Congressman from Texas is quite simply, ‘the best they’ve
got’. The physician is the only candidate who has a 100%
constitutionally-correct voting record. Because he votes against
unconstitutional bills every time, he earned the label "Doctor
No."
He alone in the entire GOP lineup is the only one who voted
against the war in Iraq. On every single issue he is a pure,
unadulterated, founders-woulda-loved him conservative.
Paul never voted to raise taxes. Not once.
Paul never voted for an unbalanced budget.
Paul never voted for any infringement on gun rights.
Paul never voted to raise his pay.
Paul voted against the blatantly-unconstitutional power grab that
is the Patriot Act.
Paul does not participate in the congressional pension program
and he returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget
to the U.S. treasury every year – a rare Congressman who practices
what he preaches!
The attempts to ignore Congressman Paul have been calculated and
sinister.
Though MSNBC reported that Ron Paul scored the highest
positive votes in both Republican presidential debates and the polls
showed he beat Romney, McCain and Giuliani, the media took no
notice. Next, a text message poll after the Fox News GOP debate
showed Ron Paul winning handily; still no notice from the media
lapdogs.
Sean Hannity was less than fair and oh-so–off-balance the night
of the Fox News debate when he "refused" to believe Paul won the
debate. In fact, Hannity was downright apoplectic. Within short
order, the poll numbers quickly showed a lagging Giuliani had
overtaken Paul. Kind of makes you want to say "hmmmm."
In the words of former Treasury Secretary William Simon, Dr. Paul
is the "one exception to the Gang of 535" on Capitol Hill. So many
men, so few true Constitutionalists.
A very natural question at this point would be, "Why is the
Constitution Party not supporting the campaign of Ron Paul?"
The Constitution Party presidential candidate will be selected at
its convention in the spring of 2008. We can’t say for sure what
will be decided by the convention delegates, but as the party who
puts principle above party loyalty, it seems that in the unlikely
event that Doctor No is able to capture the Republican nomination,
we would stand behind him 100%.
The dilemma we have is that
we cannot sit around and wait to see what the Republicans are going
to do but must build the ark that true Constitutionalists can find
refuge on when it dawns on them that the Republican and Democrat
parties will let them drown. To that end we must work to secure
ballot access in all 50 states NOW and find a candidate who can
carry our principles into a presidential campaign which will more
than likely find a left-of-center candidate carrying the Republican
mantle.
If the Grand Old Party does choose to return to its
conservative ideals by supporting Congressman Paul, then there will
be ample opportunity to throw our support behind him should our
delegates so decide. If he does not win the GOP nomination we will
have done much of the work to gain the ballot lines necessary to
field a candidate who shares our values and who will govern
constitutionally. That candidate could be Ron Paul should he decide
to continue his race by seeking the Constitution Party
nomination.
At this critical juncture in our history it is with firm hope we
work toward the election of a true statesman who will seek to
maintain the Founder’s vision in adherence to our great
Constitution. | 
