Huckabee campaign infused with religious dogma and Chuck Norris
admin - January 17th, 2008By Ben Neilson
The race for the GOP nomination is well underway. The mud is being tossed, the slander flying about. Celebrities with no real political credentials at all are endorsing their favorite candidates and encouraging you to as well. It is American democracy at its finest.
Attention all you NAU Republicans: do not vote for Mike Huckabee. Why? Where do I start…
Why would any sane, intelligent, presidential candidate publicly let Chuck Norris endorse them? The only semi-acceptable answer I can see is to strike some sort of physical fear in to his opponents. The likes of Mitt Romney, John McCain, etc., would do very well to avoid a roundhouse kick. “Our backward culture is reflected in the fact that we measure and value people by what they do, instead of first who they are,” Norris once said. I’d like to submit that what we do says much more about who we are than anything else. Norris should stick to endorsing the Total Gym, not presidential candidates.
Huckabee, an ordained Baptist minister, has on more than one occasion inappropriately attacked Romney’s faith. This is a sad effort on his part to incite those who either do not like or do not understand the Mormon faith to vote against Romney. It is odd that Huckabee would use another candidate’s religion against him, when he is the candidate that so brashly wears his religion on his sleeve. Hasn’t America had enough of a president who wears his religion on his sleeve?
Another reason that one should avoid voting for Huckabee is because there are much, much stronger Republican candidates. McCain is the obvious choice for the War on Terror, and Romney seems to be the best for the economy. Furthermore, Rudy Giuliani, former mayor of New York, was tested and survived the largest terrorist attack this country has ever seen. Huckabee was governor of Arkansas, which unfortunately reminds me of Bill Clinton, who was also the governor of Arkansas before becoming president.
America wants change. Mike Huckabee seems all too much like more of the same. He has the same cavalier, “cowboy endorsed” attitude and campaign. He is considered by some as a frightening religious extremist, much more so than President Bush. It is my hope that his presidency will end before it begins, much like Walker, Texas Ranger should have.
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Arbitrary celebrity endorsement is what liberal politics is all about. You can ignore Huckabee’s record on tax increases, you can disregard his soft stance on illegal immigration, you can even forget his inclination towards large government spending, but when a presidential candidate dumbs himself down to the social status quo and garners support from a celebrity with no business in politics, you know without a doubt you have a liberal on your hands. He may not be a social liberal (it was Chuck Norris after all, and not a Baldwin), but not a true conservative either.
You’re right, there is far too much emphasis on the superficial differences between candidates, and there should be more debate on fundamental policy differences instead. Between the Democratic and Republican nominees, I am of the inclination that the Republicans have far more diversity among them than the Democrats. Both Hillary and Obama are for national health care, withdrawing from Iraq, some sort of amnesty for illegal immigrants, and rolling back the Bush tax cuts. If you take a look at the republicans (even a quick glance will suffice) you see that not everyone is for the war in Iraq (Paul), or against amnesty (McCain), or for keeping the bush tax credits (Huckabee), or even for maintaining the status quo on the international stage (Romney).
Hillary may be the first woman nominee with a definite chance at the white house, and Obama may be the first black man with any considerable possibility of being our nation’s president, but the four white guys running for the Republican ticket are far more diverse on what really matters… the issues.