Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69
Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70
I have been evaluating my position with regards to the presidential candidates – specifically those in the Republican party. Right now there is a front runner that I don’t think I could be compelled to vote for in the general election no matter who his opponent was. I could give up all hope except that I really do think that Mitt would make a good president and despite any of the early questions about whether he could get the nomination he has shown that he has a legitimate shot to win the primaries.
My conundrum is that I really like Mike Huckabee as well. In fact I wish that he were in the top tier on par with Mitt (unless that would split the votes and pave the way for Giuliani to get the nomination). I think that Mike would make a much better president than McCain or Thompson. So my challenge is deciding how much to support Mike Huckabee without inadvertently helping Rudy Giuliani.
I have talked to Laura about this and also sought input from some other family and friends. Does anyone have any suggestions about how they might face this conflict of hopes?
14 replies on “Political Conundrum”
Solution: Vote for somebody who upholds the Constitution.
Translation: Vote for Ron Paul.
Thanks for the solution but that does not address my conundrum. My conundrum did not include any mention of Congressman Paul who has as much chance of getting elected as Dennis Kucinich (although Paul would be a much better choice than Kucinich). If you want to see the breadth of my research visit my endorsements post or search my archives for the name of any candidate. (Ron Paul for example.)
Obviously we part ways on this one David. From his website, he says his “faith doesn’t influence his decisions, they drive them.” As an ordained Southern Baptist minister, I have fears he would use the apparatus of the state to enforce his own world view on others. Obviously, someone’s faith will influence how they govern. Huckabee seems to take it to new levels. As an atheist, I have my doubts that Huckabee would value the input of myself or any of my peers. I’ve already got that in the current President.
Best regards.
Imagine that – an atheist who is not enthusiastic about supporting a minister in public office. I would suggest that you look at his record in Arkansas except that I’m sure that would not be comforting to you as you and Governor Huckabee have very different political leanings.
Assuming that you are more interested in the Democrats running for President (that’s a safe assumption isn’t it?) do you feel comfortable with the choices before you? The news reports Republicans being less comfortable with their field than Democrats, but I have not asked any Democrats to confirm that. (The Republican discomfort is sometimes palpable.)
I can only speak for myself. I think Obama has some appeal though I wonder about his lack of experience. I personally support Biden but recognize that he is a long shot.
I think Huckabee has a very conservative record and he is obviously proud of that fact. I don’t see him as a uniter, but as a divider in an already divisive country.
Obviously, I recognize that someone who has religious beliefs will end up in the white house, whether it is Hillary, Mitt or Huckabee. Southern Baptists I know believe in the hearts that they have more of a birthright to this country than those they disagree with. I disagree with that perspective. But as you know, I’m not generally siding with the majority.
I would not have said that Southern Baptists believed that they have a birthright to this country – I would have said Protestants – but you might be right, it might be strongest among Southern Baptists.
As for Joe Biden – he’s one of my favorites among the remaining Democrats (My favorite was easily Tom Vilsack, but he’s out now). In some ways Biden is like Huckabee – he’s a candidate who deserves more media coverage and a better shot at the nomination than he’s likely to get.
Thanks for sharing.
I wonder why you consider this a conundrum.
You vote doesn’t matter.
Vote for Huckabee if you think that’s right but in the end Utah’s Republicans will go for Romney in the primary unless he commits a huge moral indiscretion.
My vote is not the only thing at stake here. However small it may be, there is also the issue of my influence as a politically active person.
How the candidates fare in the race is not determined by how much money they spend but by what people think of them. The money is spent in an effort to influence the perceptions of the voters but the perceptions of the voters is also swayed by polls – which generally target politically active adults. Perception is swayed by the tone of public discussion about the candidate. Those who are active in the public discussion set that tone and it can alter the tone of the media coverage for that candidate.That tone of conversation and the relative levels of enthusiasm for any given candidate affect the amount of money they can raise to spend in their efforts to influence voters.
Though my personal influence is not large the issue is a serious one, especially as my influence is likely to grow over time as I increase my political activity in the future.
Fair enough. I’ll admit that I’ve been influenced by some of what you published so maybe you have a good point!
I take it as a compliment that my writing has influenced you.
Simple answer. Romney-Huckabee. Slogans: Vote for the E’s, Go E’sy, ‘E’s my man! ad nauseum.
Of course I can only vote for one in the primaries – and I have no control over who the eventual nominee will chose for a running mate . . .
David, to answer your question – almost all of the Dems I have talked to are very comfortable with almost all of their choices for nominee. Some (like me) aren’t comfortable with Hillary, but (with her as an exception for some) I think that most of us would be happy to vote in the General Election for any of them.
I’m all for Obama, of course, but I don’t think that Edwards or Dodd would be bad for our country. Even Richardson would be ok, but I’d really like to see him as Secretary of State because his skills really match up to our country’s needs for that position.
I don’t really consider the rest of the candidates as having a shot, and when I initially considered them, none of them thrilled me. But each of them have a topic they’re bringing to the table, and fostering discussion, so I think it’s good they’re running, at least.
Thanks for sharing Misty.
What topic do you see Mike Gravel bringing to the table? All the coverage I hear about him is how unconventional his campaign is.
What do you think the Democrats gain if they nominate someone other than Hillary? (I ask this considering that Republicans are not very enthusiastic about their choices, but they are generally quite set in their opposition to Senator Clinton.)
Also, do you have any thoughts (as a Democrat) on the possible candidacy of Newt Gingrich?