This is Not a Two Man Race

As the sun was about to set on the primary election in the Sunshine State, a lady called "conservative" talk show host, Sean Hannity seeking his advice on how to vote. She explained that she supported Huckabee and opposed McCain. Like many conservatives, she was not comfortable with McCain because of his frequent alliances with Democrats against his own party. She was not comfortable with Mitt Romney either. Like many conservatives, she was skeptical of Romney's recent conversion to conservative issues and his penchant for nasty campaigning.

False Dichotomy

How to choose between the candidate you believe in and one of two you cannot believe in? Sean Hannity, carrying the water for the GOP establishment, said with finality that it was now a two-man race and Mike Huckabee was no longer relevant. The lady sounded despondent and acknowledged she would have to pass on her candidate of choice and vote for Romney, if for no other reason than to stop McCain. Her choice may have been the right choice, but it was one made based on faulty logic that is disconnected from the dissent and dialogue the Founders intended in the political process by which we select our leaders.

The next morning, all of the local and national "conservative" talk shows, "conservative" columnists and establishment types were wetting themselves because the unthinkable happened: McCain took the Florida GOP primary by a margin far less than the percentage of votes Huckabee and Ron Paul drew away from Mitt Romney. The story line was not that the establishment and their mouthpieces in talk radio pushed a poser candidate on the conservative wing of the party. Instead, it was the Constitutionalist and the Reagan Conservative who were to blame for this "debacle". Never mind that the Florida race was touted as the proving ground for McCain's candidacy. "It's a closed primary," Limbaugh and his clones mphasized, "McCain can't win if only Republicans are allowed to vote!" Unfortunately, talk radio was wrong yet again. Their spin inevitably will be that a lot of Northeastern liberals and senior citizens who live in Florida were behind the McCain victory. That too may be true, but again it skirts the issue of why Romney can't attract enough of the conservative base to build his own coalition -- and that is why this is not a two man race.

Other choices.

Ron Paul's supporters have been able to help him raise enough funds for a successful grassroots operation. However, his views are largely Libertarian and in a Republican field, they can't win more than 6% (if you believe conventional wisdom). In Florida, a state that should have been more "Libertarian friendly", he only earned 3%. What would have happened if Huckabee had raised the kind of funds Ron Paul earned early on? Nobody -- not even the vaunted talk radio drivers of conservative thought -- can say for certain. However, I can't help but believe that more people in the Republican Party can relate to Huckabee's appeal to entrepreneurs, the middle class, and blue collar Reagan Democrats. Huckabee's view that the 10th amendment should lead the federal government to stay out of state issues should be appealing to federalists of the Fred Thompson mold. His view that human life and the institution of the family are worth protecting should appeal to social conservatives, and even the Fair Tax, when given fair consideration should be attractive to people in all income ranges.

I mention Huckabee here because if it is not a two man race and if conservatives can find no authentic comfort level with McCain or Romney, a second look at Mike Huckabee may be well worth the effort. Even after more than $20 million of Mitt Romney's own personal wealth was invested in trashing Huckabee as a liberal, and the investment was supported by Romney's apologists in conservative media, Huckabee remains in the race. The reason is that people were driven to his Website, www.mikehuckabee.com to see just what all the noise was about. That's where anyone can read his Issues Page to see where he actually stands. The establishment must grant that if Romney has been a liberal in the past and we should only believe what he says now, that should be even more the case with Huckabee. Mike Huckabee has been consistent on his core principles. On issues where more detail has evolved, such as his tough immigration policy, his positions have been consistent. Huckabee more resembles the Ronald Reagan that was. Romney represents the repackaged Ronald Reagan of the moneyed establishment.

Emergence of Free-Thought.

As long as voters in the remaining GOP primaries think for themselves, read the candidates' positions and consider the recent record of Mitt Romney -- "almost conservative" only after he began his race for president -- there remains a possibility that Mike Huckabee can become the candidate of choice for truly conservative Republicans. I would only ask that you actually do the due diligence of considering who you believe, and with whom you agree. Then support that person. It may seem simplistic and even naive, but as long as Huckabee is willing to stay in the race and regular people are willing to support him, conservatives will have a voice in this race. Your vote for the candidate you believe in instead of the guy you think will win the nomination is a strategic vote in favor of giving voice to all three legs of the stool that was once the Reagan Coalition.

Are we wise to ignore the conventional wisdom that voting for the guy you believe in will draw votes away from the lesser guy you "could" believe in? I'm the wrong guy to ask that. I have always voted my conscience and committed myself to the principle that merely settling for someone who panders to my issues is unacceptable and un-American. If McCain wins the nomination and if he is far from the ideal choice, I can't be held accountable for his nomination. It is never wise to compromise your principles for strategic reasons -- especially if the people offering the strategic reasons have a hidden agenda. Such is the case with the establishment media. Ron Paul's supporters should consider that truth when it's pointed out that with only 3% of the vote, he cannot influence the outcome. I believe that, but I would ask Ron Paul's supporters to consider instead, whether they can find value in another candidate after giving an honest look at his positions and record. That is essentially what the "conservative" media is asking all of us to do in the case of Mitt Romney. Do so without considering all of the nasty rhetoric and accusations McCain and Romney have hurled at one another and at Huckabee. I trust what you'll find this is not a two-man race. There are at least four choices remaining. It is your decision and you should feel secure in making the choice that best represents your interests.

The Choice is Yours.

I've said my piece. The rest is in your hands. If you agree that the GOP primaries should be decided by voters and not by talk radio hosts and "conservative" columnists in back rooms with a bunch of establishment operatives, I urge you to forward this article to people you know. Ask them to consider the record and positions of the candidates, and vote for the person they want to win and not the person the "conservative" media says can win. Remember: At this stage of the game, if the "conservative" media says it's a two man race, they're really promoting one man -- and he may not be the man you would want to advance.