Time for our Finest Hour

Friends, we are down by a touchdown at halftime. Therefore it is time we come out of the locker room for Super Tuesday with a full head of steam. None of us wanted to see John McCain leave Florida with the momentum of a more than paper-thin victory if any at all. Unfortunately, 36% to 31% is a solid win for him.

We need to dig in and realize that some misguided conservatives (or at least misguided registered Republicans) WILL vote for McCain if we cannot help them see the folly of their ways. Oklahoma is one of 22 states to cast their ballots next Tuesday. Sen. Coburn surprisingly endorsed McCain recently and we saw how endorsements by Sen. Gonzalez and Gov. Crist helped boost McCain in Florida. Let's make sure we rally behind Gov. Romney and don't let another state slide out of his column.

Our candidate is still very much in this ... and not JUST because of his money, as the media will no doubt say. He has the best positions and handles himself extremely well. Plus, as volatile as Sen. McCain is, one never knows when he may blow his top & implode completely.

The main thing is, we can't spot McCain another big score. We can't let him get too much momentum going. Oklahoma going for Mitt would be a very, very big key on Super Tuesday.

Let's win one for the Mitter!

McCain's words come back to haunt him

Even John McCain's cuddly friends at the ultra-liberal New York Times have admitted that McCain's claims about Mitt Romney wanting timetables publicly set for withdrawal from Iraq were off-base. Below is from a Jan. 27 story by Michael Luo and John Broder:

The charge appears to be misleading. The McCain campaign pointed to remarks Mr. Romney made last year in which he said he believed that President Bush and Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki of Iraq should have “a series of timetables and milestones” that they discussed among themselves but did not announce publicly.
But Mr. Romney has not called for setting a date for withdrawal. Mr. Romney has said he supports the president’s current strategy, although he has said he anticipates more and more American troops moving into a support role in Iraq in the next year — similar to what Gen. David H. Petraeus outlined in his testimony before Congress last year.

Thoughts on Huckabee

Bruce Wilson wrote this insightful piece on what social conservatives will really get if they vote for Mike Huckabee. It was on WorldNetDaily.com and is worth repeating.

By Bruce Wilson
I like Mike Huckabee. He is the candidate whose values are most like mine. His ommunication skills and ability to think on his feet are remarkable. His ascendance from truly humble beginnings is compelling and inspiring. And, unlike most ocnservatives, I even agree with Huckabee's charge that Republicans in recent years have been overly kind to Wall Street while turning a tin ear to Main Street. But I won't be voting for Huckabee, and I hope that most evangelical voters in Florida and beyond reach the same politically pragmatic decision.

Why?

First, even the most ardent supporter has to face the reality that Huckabee will not win the Republican nomination. His marginal victory in Iowa and close second in South Carolina were only possible because 60 percent of the voters in those two states were evangelicals who voted heavily in his favor. Nationwide, only around one-third of all Republicans are evangelicals. The proportion of evangelicals participating in upcoming primaries will average about half of the Iowa and South Carolina levels. More tellingly, Huckabee's level of support from non-evangelical Republicans has been almost miniscule, averaging less than 9 percent in all primaries to date. Huckabee may score well in the few remaining states where evangelicals exist in large numbers, but in most states it's not mathematically likely that Huckabee will finish any better than third or fourth.

And if you think Huckabee can significantly increase his proportion of non-evangelical support, think again. Primary results to date prove that he can't seriously compete with McCain or Giuliani for voters most concerned with national security, and because of his somewhat populist economic views, cannot compete with Romney, McCain or Giuliani for voters most concerned with economic issues.

Secondly, one has to recognize that a vote for Huckabee is likely a vote that would otherwise have gone to Romney. It's true that many evangelicals have significant heartburn over Romney's religion and his recent pro-life conversion, but any concerns evangelicals have with Romney pale in comparison with the heartburn caused by Giuliani and McCain. Giuliani openly supports abortion and gay marriage. McCain has refused to support constitutional amendments to ban abortion and gay marriage, is the author of the infamous McCain-Feingold Act that stifles evangelical political advocacy and not so long ago repeatedly expressed his extreme displeasure with the influence certain evangelical leaders have in the Republican Party.

Conversely, though many evangelicals reject Mormon theology, they recognize the Christian values Romney tries to live by are the same Christian values they try to live by. And though many in the pro-life movement – including this writer – have taken Romney to task for not being pro-life from the start, they recognize it's better to work with a convert than someone who ignores or even works against the cause. Romney's 100 percent pro-life record as governor of Massachusetts is a good indication that it's highly unlikely he would revert to his former position. It's probably more likely that Romney will be like many converts to new causes who are anxious to prove their fidelity and make amends for past mistakes.

And finally – and most importantly – if Romney can't significantly increase his share of the evangelical vote, the survivor between McCain and Giuliani will consolidate the national security vote and pick up enough support from the fiscal conservative faction to win the Republican nomination.

Many Huckabee supporters will conversely argue that Republicans should coalesce around Huckabee and not Romney. But that idealistic argument doesn't align with reality. Huckabee has been and will continue to be soundly rejected by fiscal conservatives. If Romney recedes, those votes go to McCain or Giuliani, not Huckabee. That's why evangelicals who vote for Huckabee are almost certainly aiding the nomination of either McCain or Giuliani. Hopefully, evangelicals will pragmatically recognize the very real danger of such an unintended and undesirable outcome and coalesce around Romney before it's too late.

How a Baptist went for Romney

I have been on the Romney bandwagon since spring or early summer. At the time I was considering taking a stand, I waited for a week or so to see if Mike Huckabee’s sails would be filled by any sudden divine wind. As a fellow Southern Baptist I felt just a tad hesitant to publicly go against a fellow SBC candidate. When that divine lift didn’t happen, I plunged in for Gov. Romney, a candidate whose religious beliefs are considerably different than my own. I have to admit that if Huckabee’s later hot spell had taken place then I might well have landed in his camp instead. Looking back, I am glad things went as they did.

I think conservatives should keep three points in mind. One, what candidate has the best positions on the greatest number of important issues? Two, what candidate has the best chance of winning the general election next November, while sufficiently representing traditional conservative values? Three, which candidate has the best overall experience and background to actually be president?

I hope we in the conservative base – especially the conservative Christian base – do not fall into the trap of merely going with the candidate whose faith appears to be most like our own. This is tempting, certainly. Yet we are voting for commander-in-chief, not pastor-in-chief. I urge readers to step back, watch, listen and read, seeing just where each man stands on issues and how each one answers questions about his record and his plans.

I will also address the second of the three points very quickly. The 2008 election will be a crucial one. For conservative voters, I strongly believe that having a strong social, fiscal and national defense conservative in the White House 2009-13 is the real goal. If the Democrats retake the White House, I see no way that this will happen. The party that fields some conservative candidates therefore must nominate someone who is electable outside of a handful of very “red” states. I strongly believe that the Judeo-Christian beliefs of this country make up its bedrock of support and that God has clearly been present throughout our history. Yet as a graduate history student, I have seen no apparent cases of the Lord directly intervening in a presidential election. Therefore I would not necessarily count on a miraculous divine hand lifting a candidate to a totally unexpected victory in 2008 just because he has been a pastor in a denomination we feel is close to the Lord’s heart. In fact we already see Rev. Huckabee starting to fall by the wayside.
In my mind a person of faith and integrity, with impeccable family credentials, outstanding leadership, management and organizational skills who has grown and matured in his positions on positions as an adult is our best hope. This sentence may well describe more than one candidate. I leave it to each reader to do his or her homework and see which one it really describes best.

For me it is clearly Mitt Romney, family man, devout religious man, social, fiscal and militarily conservative and an apt leader and manager. To me, anyone who votes for or against a candidate merely based on his/her denomination is not using the vote wisely.

Please check out Evangelicals For Mitt (evangelicalsformitt.com) for more on this topic, or get hold of Hugh Hewitt’s outstanding book, A Mormon in the White House?.

Mitt vs. Hillary

Hearing Democratic strategists say then hope Mitt is the GOP nominee floors me. I hope they continue to ‘misunderestimate’ him, as a less articulate Republican once said. Could Mitt beat Hillary – or Barrack? I see no reason why not! He would line up much better against either one than John McCain would. I won’t even dignify setting up a Mike Huckabee vs. Clinton or Obama scenario.

First let’s look at baggage. Mitt has virtually none. He changed his position on abortion. He got a little Al Gorish for a brief moment, saying he had “seen” his dad marching with Martin Luther King. He took his delighted dog on vacations on top of the family station wagon. Anything else? That’s about all the skeletons I’ve seen after a year of being in the spotlight.

What about McCain? Of course the South Carolina garbage about consorting with the North Vietnamese is total nonsense. The man’s military record is outstanding. His courage is great. His personal judgment and willpower, though, seem to have had some chinks in their armor at times. There is the Keating Five scandal, the leaving the loyal wife after cheating on her scandal, the new wife’s drug use/stealing scandal – made into much more of a scandal by McCain firing the individual who threatened to blow the whistle on it.

We won’t even go into the Clinton baggage … and Obama’s closets have barely begun to be investigated.

Secondly, let’s examine likeability. If Hillary runs, some 40-45 percent of registered voters will vote for virtually anyone to vote against her. Sadly, if Obama runs, there will probably be a percentage (hopefully much, much lower than 40 percent) who vote against him because of his race. If Mitt is the GOP nominee, a percentage of people will vote against him because he is a Mormon (and some southerners, perhaps, because he is a Yankee).

Likeability is a key. It shouldn't be the No. 1 key, but it probably is. With his fellow Republicans no longer sniping at him, I think voters will see Mitt as a charming, honest, unflappable leader who makes a very attractive alternative to Hillary. I would be astounded if Hillary would beat Romney, despite what pre-primary polls may say. The Clintons would certainly run a dirty campaign. Yet, as I stated earlier, how much could they find on Mitt? Mitt and his people, meanwhile, have shown they can play hardball, too. And, my lands, the Clintons may not want to throw many rocks from their glass penthouse!

Obama would be a tougher foe for Mitt. Still, Mitt would have a real edge in experience – both political and real life. The prejudices (And, let’s not forget that some would probably not vote for Hillary due to her gender!) would more or less balance each other out. I hate to think of anyone not voting for a person because of either race OR religious, but there clearly would be some of each. (Wouldn’t Condi Rice or former Oklahoma congressman J.C. Watts be great running mates for Mitt?) All prejudices aside, in a protracted campaign, despite the media bias we would no doubt see, it would become clear that Mitt has much more substance than Obama.

In closing, I think a divided Republican party or some loopy third party candidate would be the only things that might keep Mitt from beating either Democratic nominee. Hopefully that won’t happen. If Huckabee, Thompson and perhaps even McCain join forcefully behind him, I don’t see how Mitt could lose in Novemeber.

Welcome to OKforRomney

Greetings and salutations!

This is a blog for Oklahomans who support Mitt Romney for the Republican nomination for president. After doing a google search I was disappointed to see that such a site did not already exist.

As future posts will show, I believe Gov. Romney is the clear-cut choice for president in 2008. I hope my fellow Oklahomans will join me in backing him on Super Tuesday and again in November.