2012 primary looks like 2008; Gingrich likely to drop out soon

In the wake of Super Tuesday, this year’s Republican primary is starting to look a lot like 2008. In the primary of that year, initial results were also muddled with a large field of challengers. This made the outcome unpredictable as large voting blocs split for different candidates.

Two of the current candidates were also in the 2008 final four. Mitt Romney and Ron Paul were among the candidates that were not winnowed out after the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary in January. Mike Huckabee and John McCain, the eventual nominee, were the other major players. Alan Keyes stayed in the race until April, but received even less support than Ron Paul. Rudy Guiliani and Fred Thompson, also candidates in early races, helped to further muddy the waters.

As in 2012, a social conservative scored a surprising win in Iowa. Mike Huckabee won the caucuses in 2008 while Rick Santorum got the nod in 2012. In both cases, the candidate went on to have little traction in other states.

In 2008, the candidate that nobody seemed to like was John McCain. McCain was decried by pundits, bloggers and talk show hosts as a RINO (Republican in name only) who derided him for not being a real conservative. Much of the criticism sounds the same and comes from the same people as this year’s attacks on Mitt Romney.

When the voting started, the broad primary field aided McCain. According to data from USelectionatlas.org, McCain scored a decisive win in New Hampshire with 71 percent of the vote. In many other states, however, particularly those that voted on Super Tuesday of 2008, McCain won largely because Huckabee and Romney split the vote of the economic and social conservatives. McCain won less than a plurality in South Carolina, Florida, California, Illinois, Missouri, Oklahoma, Arizona, Delaware, and Washington. In many cases, McCain won by only a few percentage points above either Romney or Huckabee and in almost all cases the combined total of the two candidates was greater than McCain’s percentage of the vote.

It was only after Super Tuesday, Feb. 5, 2008, that McCain started consistently winning. Ironically, after the Super Tuesday losses, the campaigns of Huckabee and Romney floundered. Mitt Romney suspended his campaign almost immediately on Feb. 7. Mike Huckabee continued until March 4, when McCain clinched the nomination. Huckabee was never able to win beyond the socially conservative states of the South. Romney’s wins were primarily in the upper Midwest, along with his home states of Massachusetts and Michigan.

In the results of 2012’s Super Tuesday, Mitt Romney played the role of John McCain while Rick Santorum continued in Mike Huckabee’s place. According to the Associated Press, Mitt Romney won seven of the 11 states holding primaries or caucuses on Super Tuesday (Alaska, Idaho, Massachusetts, Ohio, Virginia, Vermont, and Wyoming). Rick Santorum won three states (North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Tennessee), all with less than 40 percent of the vote. Newt Gingrich won only his home state of Georgia and Ron Paul, who failed to win any states, almost certainly peaked with 40 percent of the votes and three delegates in Virginia, where Santorum and Gingrich were not on the ballot.

As with McCain in 2008, several of Romney’s wins were very close, particularly in the hotly contested swing state of Ohio, and if he had faced only one or two challengers instead of three, the end result might have been different. As it is, Gingrich and Santorum (and in some cases Paul and Santorum) split the not-Romney vote, which had the effect of giving Romney a majority, if not a plurality.

According to the AP’s estimated delegate count, Mitt Romney now leads with 415. Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich are neck-and-neck with 176 and 105 respectively. Ron Paul trails the pack with 47. A total of 1,144 delegates is needed to secure the Republican nomination.

With a firm lead in the delegate count, fundraising, and momentum, Mitt Romney is now almost assured to win the Republican nomination. The question is how long the other candidates can afford to stay in the race. According to the N.Y. Times, Ron Paul, who has not won a single state, has raised the second-highest amount of money after Romney. Gingrich, who has won only Georgia and South Carolina, places third in the money race. Santorum, in spite of his electoral victories, has raised the least of any of the candidates still in the race.

Both Gingrich and Santorum will likely find donations harder to come by as their hopes of winning the nomination fade. Gingrich’s website today had replaced its home page with a solicitation for $2.50 donations to “help bring gasoline prices down to $2.50.” Ron Paul, with his fanatical supporters, will not likely face the fundraising limitations of Gingrich and Santorum.

It is likely that the campaigns of Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum are reaching their ends. In particular, Newt Gingrich, who has had to spend heavily to combat negative ads and who has only won two states, is likely to decide that further campaigning is not cost effective as the race moves further outside the South. Gingrich will probably withdraw from the race before Santorum.

Santorum has had more electoral success than Gingrich, but has also spent much less. According to the N.Y. Times, Santorum is ranked ninth of nine GOP candidates on spending. This means that he has spent less money than five candidates who are no longer in the race. The Santorum campaign is used to making do with little and can conceivably stay in the race for several more weeks or months.

Ron Paul will likely be the last holdout. His fundraising is second only to Romney’s and his supporters are the least willing to support any of the other candidates. During the 2008 campaign, Paul continued his campaign until the bitter end. His campaign continued until June even though John McCain secured the nomination in March. His 2012 campaign will probably be similarly long-legged.

If the primary in 2012 looks like the 2008 primary, the general election probably will not. In 2008, the Democrats benefitted from an unpopular Republican incumbent and a high level of excitement surrounding Barack Obama, the charismatic first black man to win the nomination of a major party. In 2012, Obama is the unpopular incumbent and the excitement is gone.

 

Originally published on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/elections-2012-in-atlanta/republican-field-likely-to-thin-after-super-tuesday

Meet the candidates: Mitt Romney

Romney (Jessica Rinaldi/Wikimedia Commons)

Voters who followed the 2008 presidential election will probably be familiar with Mitt Romney.  Romney is a conservative businessman who ran a three-way race with Mike Huckabee and John McCain for the Republican nomination before finally being defeated by John McCain.  Many voters probably remember Romney best for the controversy over his Mormon religion.

Willard Mitt Romney was born in Detroit on March 12, 1947.  His father was a CEO of American Motors and a three-term governor of Michigan.  His father ran unsuccessfully against Richard Nixon for the GOP nomination for president in 1968.  Mitt graduated from an elite private school and then attended Stanford University in the midst of the turbulent ‘60s.  At Stanford he was known as a clean cut student and at one point was part of a counter-protest to a sit-in against the draft.  After a year at Stanford, he became a Mormon missionary to France for two and a half years.

When Romney returned to the U.S., he enrolled in Brigham Young and married Anne Davis, who he had begun dating before he moved to France.  He graduated from Brigham Young with a B.A. in English in 1971.  He also earned a joint Juris Doctor/MBA from Harvard in 1975.  While in college and the mission field, Romney received deferments from the draft.  When he graduated, he was not drafted due to a high number.

Romney’s first job was with Boston Consulting Group as a management consultant.  He later became a highly successful management consultant for Bain and Company.  Romney became Bain’s vice president in 1978.  In 1983, Romney headed up Bain Capital, a new venture capital firm.  Bain Capital later focused on buyouts of other companies, which would then be rehabilitated using Bain’s management consulting methods.  Romney earned a reputation for being frugal, cautious and moral.  He once opted out of a deal involving a movie studio because they produced R-rated films.  In 1990, he returned to Bain and Company, the consulting firm, to save the company from bankruptcy.  He drew a salary of one dollar while restructuring the company over the next year. 

In 1994, Romney challenged the re-election of Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy.  Romney won the Republican nomination in a landslide, but lost to Kennedy by 58-41 percent.  This was partly due to Kennedy’s ads that questioned Romney’s flip-flops on issues and treatment of workers at companies that Bain owned. 

Romney is well known for managing the 2002 Olympic Games in Salt Lake City.  When he took the helm of the organizing committee, there was a $379 million deficit.  Under Romney, the games turned a profit and were widely considered to be one of the most successful Olympics in U.S. history.

In 2002, Romney was elected governor of Massachusetts.  Romney cut spending, closed tax loopholes and increased fees to turn a billion dollar deficit into surplus.  He is most remembered, however, for presiding over the enactment of Massachusetts’ universal health care law, known informally as “Romneycare.”  The law is very similar to the Affordable Care Act, “Obamacare,” and contains an individual mandate to buy health insurance and fines for those who do not. 

In 2008, Romney competed in the Republican presidential primaries.  After he failed to win the nomination, he endorsed fellow Republican John McCain and vigorously campaigned for him.  In Georgia, Romney finished third with six percent of the vote.  Mike Huckabee finished first with 34 percent followed by John McCain with 32 percent.  After the election, he founded the Free and Strong America PAC to raise money for Republican candidates.  Romney has also written two books.

One of the largest drawbacks for Romney in the 2012 campaign will undoubtedly be his connection with an Obama-like health care reform law.  The Wall St. Journal reports that already Massachusetts is increasing fines and taxes in a desperate attempt to keep the program solvent as its costs skyrocket.  According to the article, current governor Deval Patrick is considering spending caps as well as excluding coverage for certain services. NPR notes that the large increase in people with health insurance in Massachusetts has led to a doctor shortage where many doctors are not accepting new patients.  Five years after the reform law passed, Massachusetts is still the second most expensive state for health care (just behind Maine) according to the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council.  An April 2011 poll shows that 49 percent of respondents don’t believe that Romney’s reform is working.

Romney recently attempted to defend his Massachusetts law in a major speech and an op-ed letter to the Wall St. Journal while at the same time attacking President Obama’s version.  An important distinction is that the individual mandate is widely believed to be unconstitutional under the commerce clause of the federal Constitution.  Many state constitutions may permit such a mandate.  Voters, however, may not like such an expansion of government power even if it is legal.  The bottom line is that the reform is not working. His record on health care reform is the biggest problem for Romney to overcome. 

Many voters might also be leery of Romney’s record of flip-flops.  In particular, Romney is known for having reversed his position on abortion.  As a candidate for governor in 2002, Romney said in a televised debate that he would “preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose [abortion].”  By 2007, prior to his presidential campaign, Romney claimed that he had come to see abortion as immoral.  A sister of Romney’s brother-in-law died in an illegal abortion in the 1960s.  Charges of past flip-flops make it difficult for Romney to distance himself from his health care reform record without looking uncertain of himself.

Another Romney scandal is his involvement with Damon Corp., a company that plead guilty to defrauding the government.  Romney sat on the board of directors while the fraud was taking place, but none of the directors have ever been implicated.  Romney claimed to have asked Bain’s lawyers to investigate the illegal activity and helped to correct it, but court records indicate that the fraud continued until after Bain sold Damon according to Deseret News.

More recently, in February 2010, Romney was involved in an air-rage incident with Sky Blu, a rapper with LMFAO.  The two were on a flight from Vancouver to Los Angeles when Romney asked Sky Blu to raise his seat back and a fight resulted.  Sky Blu claimed in a video that Romney grabbed his shoulder and he then tried to punch Romney in self-defense.  The plane returned to Vancouver where Sky Blu was arrested and removed.     

Mitt Romney is currently the frontrunner among the GOP candidates.  A recent Gallup poll (after the departures of Huckabee and Trump) puts him at seventeen percent, two points ahead of Sarah Palin.  If Palin does not run, Romney would move up to nineteen percent.  This would give him a comfortable seven point lead over Newt Gingrich, his nearest rival.  Of course, Romney has been disappointed before.  He was widely considered to be the likely GOP candidate in 2008, only to be confounded by McCain and Huckabee.  

http://www.examiner.com/elections-2012-in-atlanta/meet-the-candidates-mitt-romney"> 

Obama and racism

Barack Obama (Elizabeth Cromwell)

It is inevitable that racism would become part of the discussion about Barack Obama’s presidency.  After all, President Obama is the first black president of the United States.  As the son of a Kenyan father and an American mother, he is an authentic African-American and that makes him unique among American presidents. 

Many liberals and Democrats present the flap over President Obama’s birth certificate as a racial issue.  This is partly true, but it is essentially a constitutional question.  Most black candidates would not be subject to the question of whether they were a citizen.  It was Obama’s unique background, and his refusal to provide the long form birth certificate for three years, that fueled the fire of the birther movement.  Further, a white president, Chester A. Arthur, was opposed by a similar birther movement that believed he was ineligible to be president because he was born in Canada.  (He was actually born in Vermont.)   

There are doubtless some Americans who do not want to accept President Obama purely or primarily on the basis of his skin color and ancestry, but these people are obviously a small minority in the United States today.  In an AP poll taken in April 2008, only eight percent of white Americans indicated that they would be uncomfortable with a black president.   

A useful comparison can be made by comparing exit polls for the 2008 presidential election between John McCain and Barack Obama and the 2004 election between George W. Bush and John Kerry.  In 2004, white voters voted for George Bush by a margin of 58 to 41 percent.  This is almost exactly the same as John McCain’s margin of victory among white voters, 55 to 43 percent.  On the other hand, black voters supported Kerry in 2004, 88 to 11 percent.  In 2008, to no one’s surprise, the number increased markedly when black votes chose Obama by 95 to 4 percent.  Hispanics showed a similar increase.  In 2004, they were split almost evenly with 44 percent voting for Bush and 53 percent for Kerry.  In 2008, Hispanics chose Obama in a landslide with 67 percent voting Democrat and only 31 percent voting for the Republican, McCain.  Results are also similar for Asian voters.  In 2004, Bush won almost half of their vote (44 percent to Kerry’s 56 percent), but McCain lost by a wide margin (62 to 35 percent in 2008). 

In Georgia, the results were similar to national averages.  In 2004, President Bush won 76 percent of whites, leaving John Kerry with 23 percent.  The tally from 2008 is identical with John McCain winning 76 percent and Barack Obama 23 percent.  Among black voters, Kerry won with 88 percent to Bush’s 12 percent in 2004.  In 2008, Obama won 98 percent of Georgia’s black voters leaving John McCain with only 2 percent. 

These statistics would seem to indicate that race did make a difference for Obama, but not the way that most people would have thought.  White voters did not stay away from Obama in large numbers because he was black, but minority voters did flock to him.  Was this because of race?  The fact that the surge was not present among white voters lends credence to that idea.  Does this make minority voters racist?  Some probably are, but other factors, like the heated debate on immigration reform in 2007 undoubtedly pushed some minority voters into the Democratic camp.  Racial pride certainly played a role in boosting the black Democratic vote, which normally heavily favors Democrats anyway. 

As the Wall St. Journal’s James Taranto points out, “One other thing we expect is to start hearing about race again--not from the president himself so much as from his supporters, especially in the media. Here again, the message will be a negative one: not 'Wouldn't it be cool to have a black president?' but, 'If you vote to fire the first black president, you're racist.' "

Herman Cain (Gage Skidmore)

The argument that Obama’s opponents are racist assumes that President Obama was losing support primarily among white voters; however an April 2011 Gallup poll shows that this assumption is incorrect.  Obama’s support is falling among all racial groups.  Among whites his support has fallen from a high of 56 percent in January 2009 to 39%.  His approval has also fallen among Hispanics (54 percent from 73 percent) and blacks (85 percent from 93 percent). 

If Obama’s approval rating is falling among all racial groups then there are only two possibilities.  The first is that all racial groups, including blacks, are prejudiced against President Obama’s racial group.  It is conceivable that blacks and other racial groups would be prejudiced against Obama because of his mixed race heritage, but the statistics from 2008 do not bear this out.  The second possibility is that voters from all racial groups are turning on President Obama because of his job performance and the results of his policies. 

The second possibility is borne out in unemployment statistics.  Unemployment rates have been chronically high since the recession started in 2008 and have hovered just under ten percent since Obama’s inauguration.  Current statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that the national unemployment rate is 8.8 percent for March 2011.  When broken down by racial groups, the unemployment rate among whites is 7.9 percent, 15.5 percent for blacks, and 11.3 percent for Hispanics. 

In Georgia, where the unemployment rate has been consistently higher than the national average, the total unemployment rate is 10.0 percent according to the Georgia Department of Labor.   Unemployment for black Georgians was not available on the DOL website, but a Huffington Post article citing statistics from the Economic Policy Institute put black unemployment in Atlanta at 15.7 percent, more than twice the unemployment rate of white Atlantans. 

Given these statistics it is no surprise that minority groups are starting to fall away from Barack Obama.  His policies, including the massive stimulus bill of 2009, have not only not reduced unemployment, but minority groups are demonstrably worse off than whites.  This is true at both the state and national level.

Moreover, a Kaiser Family Foundation survey found that 72 percent of blacks are dissatisfied with the national economic situation even though 51 percent are satisfied with their personal financial situation.  These numbers are consistent with the opinions of both whites and Hispanics.  Further, blacks reported that their three largest economic concerns are the job situation, the rising cost of health care, and rising prices.  These three issues have all been negatively impacted by Obama’s policies.  Health care reform has actually increased the cost of health care and the Federal Reserve’s quantitative easing is fueling inflation.  If the economy does not recover, Obama’s large margins among minority voters are unlikely to be repeated in 2012.

Rep. Allen West (R-FL)

Also conflicting with the Democratic charges of racism is the success of Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain.  Cain is a Georgia native and a successful businessman and talk radio host.  He is a supporter of the Fair Tax and a staunch conservative.  He also happens to be black.  Cain not only emceed a Tea Party in Douglasville, Ga. last year, he won a straw poll at a Tea Party summit in February 2011 in which he beat out such notables as Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin.  In addition to Cain, the ranks of black conservatives are beginning to grow. 

One of Obama’s lasting legacies may be a seismic shift in racial politics.  The Republican landslide of 2010 saw the first black Republicans elected to Congress in seven years.  Although there were numerous black Republican candidates in 2010, the two who won congressional seats were Lt. Col. Allen West (Ret.) in Florida’s 22^nd district and Tim Scott in South Carolina’s first district.  West is an Atlanta native.  As the popularity of Obama and the Democrats continues to slide, there will doubtless be more black conservatives to join them in the halls of Congress as well as state capitols around the country. 

In 2010, there were other black Republicans around the country as well who did not win.  For example, in Colorado’s seventh district, Ryan Frazier lost to incumbent Ed Perlmutter, a white Democrat.  There were no charges of racism on the part of Democrats who voted against Frazier.

Rep. Tim Scott (R-SC)

In a historic moment, Georgian Ashley Bell, a Hall County commissioner, became the first elected black Democratic official to switch parties and become a Republican in December 2010.  According to Red County, Bell said, “I’m joining the Republican Party because I’m a conservative and simply feel more at home as a Republican.  I have worked to make government more efficient and less intrusive in citizens’ lives and plan to continue those efforts as a Republican.”  Bell was followed closely by Andre Walker, a member of Georgia’s Democratic executive committee.

This is fitting since the Republican Party was actually founded on the principles of abolition and racial equality.  For most of the last one hundred fifty years, the Republicans were the party of equality while the Democrats stood for Jim Crow laws, separate but equal, and the Ku Klux Klan.  Jefferson Franklin Long, a black Republican from Knoxville, Ga. became the first black congressmen to speak on the floor of Congress in 1871.  This only changed when President Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  Since then, no Republican candidate has gotten more than 15 percent of the black vote.

If conservatives want to win in the future, they should reach out to minorities and point out that conservative policy will benefit us all.  As President Kennedy said, “A rising tide lifts all boats.”  Electing conservatives, whether Republican or Democrat, who will keep taxes low and shrink the size of government.  This, in turn, will foster economic growth and lead to national prosperity for all Americans.  Many members of minority groups are business owners and entrepreneurs who would greatly benefit from an administration and congress that are more friendly to business. 

To that end, organizations such as the National Black Republican Association are attempting to reach out to minority voters.  Black conservatives who ran and lost in 2010 may try again in 2012 with the benefit of more experience and name recognition.  There will probably be many new black Republican candidates as well.

Rep. Jefferson Franklin Long (R-GA)

More importantly, conservatives should reach out to minorities because they are not a simply members of a voting bloc.  Minority groups are made up of real individuals who have much to offer and share many of our common goals and the American Dream.  If we work to erase racial distinctions and move toward a world where, as Martin Luther King said, people are judged not “by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character,” we will all be richer for it as we realize that the most important diversity is diversity of thought.

To see the author’s perspective on race relations, read “Race, slavery and the Bible”

http://www.examiner.com/elections-2012-in-atlanta/the-return-of-the-black-republicans"> 

Please click the SUBSCRIBE button at the top of this page to receive future updates.

8 Reasons Iraq is Important in the 2008 Elections

There are myriad reasons why Iraq will remain an important issue for the 2008 elections in spite of the fact that the current successes of the surge have largely removed it from the headlines.

The most obvious reason that we should continue to fight for a free and stable Iraq is that, if the terrorists win, they will establish a national base for terrorist training and support, just as the Taliban did in Afghanistan (1). A failure in Iraq would leave a terrorist state from which al Qaeda could launch further attacks on the United States.

A terrorist state in Iraq would be much worse for us than Afghanistan, however. Iraq is country rich in oil. If the terrorists gain control of Iraq’s oil, they will not only have a base from which to launch attacks; they will have a way to fund their war against the west (2).

A retreat from Iraq would also endanger Iraqi civilians (3). Terrorists in Iraq are known for their torture and murder of innocent civilians who support the elected government and coalition forces. If the coalition forces leave and the elected government becomes ineffective, Iraqi civilians would be at the mercy of bloodthirsty terrorists and militias. The death toll would be staggering and refugees would flood neighboring countries, much the same way the “boat people” escaped the clutches of “People’s Republic” of Vietnam after the fall of South Vietnam. A glimpse of the human tragedy to come can be seen in the murders and torture chambers revealed in areas of Iraq formerly held by Al Qaeda.

Iraq would also be strategically important in the looming confrontation with Iran (4). As President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad moves his country towards the acquisition of nuclear weapons, he must contend with the fact that US troops and aircraft are already based on two of Iran’s borders, its western border with Iraq and its eastern border with Afghanistan. This puts Ahmadinejad at a huge disadvantage in a conventional conflict and makes it easier for US forces to stage an attack, if necessary.

Some politicians claim that Iraq has been a distraction from the War on Terror for the United States. In truth, it has been more of a distraction for the terrorists (5). Al Qaeda has poured men and resources into Iraq to fight Coalition forces. When these terrorists are in Iraq, they can be hunted down by Coalition forces and killed. When they are in Iraq, they are not making their way into the United States or attacking Americans abroad. It is not a coincidence that there has not been a major terrorist attack in the US since 9/11.

Politicians speak of ending the war in Iraq, but a US withdrawal would not end the war. In fact, the presence of US troops may the only thing preventing escalation of the war into a larger regional conflict (6). Iranian forces have already sent Revolutionary Guards troops and weapons into Iraq to assist Shiite militias. There is little doubt that they would expand their assistance, or launch a full-scale invasion as Syria did in Lebanon, to fill the power vacuum if the US were not present. Saudi Arabia has stated that if the US leaves, Saudi troops will intervene to protect their Sunni brethren from the Shiite majority. Iranian and Saudi troops would likely end up fighting each other and other countries might join in both sides. Additionally, Turkey would probably attack Kurdish bases in northern Iraq as well.

A premature US withdrawal would also erase the enormous gains made by US and Iraqi forces since the beginning of the troop surge a year ago and make vain the sacrifices of the US, Iraqi, and Coalition soldiers who have been killed or wounded in the struggle against Islamic terrorism (7). Violence is down by almost every measure. Al Anbar province, a year ago considered a lost cause, is now the model of cooperation between Iraqi tribes and US troops. Car bombs, kidnappings, and other terror attacks have become rare enough that they have almost disappeared from news reports. The exit of US forces would enable the terrorists to move back into areas now controlled by the Iraqi government.

Finally, a retreat from Iraq would damage US prestige and destroy the trust that our allies place in us for years to come (8). The US has a history of walking out on our allies when the going gets tough. If we want other countries to trust and respect us, then we need to follow through on our national commitments. Countries such as Pakistan, Taiwan, and South Korea are no doubt watching particularly closely. If nations doubt our resolve, they may choose to align themselves with one of the numerous nations who consider themselves a challenger to our sole superpower status, such as Russia or China, or a regional competitor, such as Iran or Venezuela. A decline in US prestige could negatively affect national security or the US economy.

The US is winning in Iraq. A withdrawal before the Iraqi government is ready to stand-alone would only help the terrorists. Candidates who advocate a pullout are advocating a return to the dark days of an out of control insurgency or, worse, to a theocratic terrorist regime, as in Iran or Afghanistan under the Taliban. We should let the presidential candidates know that we will not allow them to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

CaptainKudzu Endorses Huckabee

After examining the platforms and records of the presidential candidates for 2008, I have arrived at the conclusion that my vote will go to former Arkansas governor, Mike Huckabee. Huckabee has faced criticism from both Democrats and Republicans during the primary season, but an examination of his record reveals him to be a populist conservative of the Reagan mold.

I first gave Huckabee a close look last summer when it seemed that Senator Fred Thompson would never enter the race. I still like Senator Thompson, but his campaign has never really picked up momentum. I believe this is a factor of being the last entrant in a presidential primary that started earlier than ever before.

Governor Huckabee passed my first cut by standing strong on the Iraq War and the War on Islamofascist Terror. Every Democrat candidate, as well as Ron Paul from the GOP, want to withdraw US troops and sacrifice our gains in Iraq. I will not support a candidate who seeks to appease terrorists at the expense of American lives. Withdrawing US troops prematurely would embolden the terrorists and cost us the gains that we have made in Iraq. This would cost more US lives in the long run.

Closely related to the war is US border security. Currently thousands of illegal immigrants cross our border without government knowledge or approval. Most of these immigrants are merely workers seeking jobs, but it is not realistic to assume that terrorists will never sneak across our border. Governor Huckabee has been endorsed by the founder of the Minuteman, a volunteer border security group, and favors securing our borders.

A second big issue is tax policy. As the US inches toward a recession, tax hikes for any reason would further slow the economy. Democrats propose various taxes to pay for healthcare or to discourage use of carbon fuels. On the other hand, Governor Huckabee supports the Fair Tax, which would eliminate the income tax. The Fair Tax would attract business and investment to the US, stimulating the economy.

Another traditional issue is gun control. I am strongly in favor of Second Amendment rights, as is Governor Huckabee. I generally find that if a candidate supports the Second Amendment, they can be trusted on other civil rights issues as well.

Abortion is a national tragedy. Most Americans believe that abortion is murder and should not be available on demand. Governor Huckabee supports a constitutional amendment to protect the life of unborn babies. In contrast, most Democrats oppose even minor restrictions on the “right to choose,” which evidently trumps the baby’s right to live.

Healthcare is a big issue for this election, but I believe that the Democrats are on the wrong track. Instead of giving the government control over 14% of the US gross domestic product, we should get government out of the way. Fewer government restrictions on health insurance would make policies more affordable. Private companies, such as Wal-Mart, are already using their mass marketing expertise to open clinics in their stores that often cater to the uninsured. I believe, as does Governor Huckabee, that we should restore competition to the healthcare industry, not create a government monopoly.

I do have some misgivings about Huckabee. His record does show a large number of pardons in Arkansas, some of which resulted in additional crimes being committed. He has also committed several foreign policy gaffes in recent months. On the whole, however, his positives outweigh his negatives.

On some issues, such as school vouchers, which I favor, but which Huckabee opposed in Arkansas, his position is very conservative. He favors the ability of state and local governments to enact vouchers in their school systems. This small-scale experimentation is just what our nation’s founders intended.

Huckabee also favors judges who will interpret the law, rather than rewrite it to suit their beliefs. Liberal judges have twisted many of our laws so that they are enforced in direct opposition to their wording. The first amendment freedom of religion being interpreted as a separation of church and state is one example.

Mike Huckabee is a true compassionate conservative and an entertaining and engaging speaker. He has the charisma to compete with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and his command of the issues will clearly trump the socialist agenda of the eventual Democrat candidate.