Dick Morris: Huckabee is a Fiscal Conservative

Dick Morris has published an article today respecting the false attacks against Huckabee. Here is the article and a comment I left at another blog:

Dick Morris: Huckabee is a Fiscal Conservative

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/11/huckabee_is_a_fiscal_conservat.html

You should bear in mind that Morris is not a social conservative and was a Giuliani supporter last time I checked. Hugh Hewitt and the Hewittettes will say that’s why he is defending Huckabee: to hurt Romney and help Giuliani. But Morris has watched Arkansas politics for a long time. He worked for Huckabee and this other guy before him named Clinton.

I responded on another blog that conceded Huckabee might win Iowa but couldn’t carry on in New Hampshire and would drop out after losing in South Carolina:

“What happens if Huckabee wins in Iowa, finishes 3rd in NH, and wins SC? A poll yesterday, showed him moving into 2nd in Florida. If he wins SC and gets to 20% in MI (I predict around 19% in NH, right now), he can still compete strongly in Florida.

He definitely has to have an answer to the conservative critics. But 1) the people in Iowa don't seem to be buying it. And 2) they are mostly untrue and disingenuous. There is plenty of information available online to refute this stuff, including an article today by Dick Morris: Huckabee Is A Fiscal Conservative. Of course, Morris is not even a social conservative and in fact got into this contest as a Giuliani supporter. He did, however, work with and observe Huckabee in Arkansas and cites that experience in his case.

To me, that is the question: can the establishment Republicans make some mud stick to Huckabee? Maybe the old political strategy of throwing mud and expert endorsements is weakening with the facts immediately available on the Internet.”

NARAL: Giuliani Victory 'Would Help' Pro-Choice

NewsMax published the below bulletin, today. NARAL isn’t about to publish an actual endorsement of Giuliani. We “wicked anti-choice” types could only dream of that.

The pro-Giuliani Republicans are either tragically deluded or secretly pulling for Hillary (incidentally, you do recall that Mayor Giuliani endorsed Democrat Mario Cuomo over Republican George Pataki, don’t you? Check it out! YouTube - Rudy Giuliani -- Fiscal Conservative?) And Pataki didn’t even differ with Giuliani on abortion. Pataki was “pro-choice," too. So OK, if you’re pro-life, you differ with Giuliani on abortion (for me, this is not just a difference, but an incapacity to understand American principle – and he wants to be a Republican president!?).

But plainly, there is more going on than just social liberalism with Giuliani’s endorsement of the liberal icon, Cuomo. The trumpeted justification for backing Giuliani is that “he can win.” But, the opposite is true: Giuliani can’t win. Social conservatives put a lot of the phone-bank-envelope-stuffing-pushcard-passing into Republican campaigns, in addition to getting out and voting. With all of that gone, Republicans can kiss the election goodbye.

To me, Rudy Giuliani is a fun guy. But, he’s bad for the Republican Party and bad for American principle. And even if he could make it, he would be a bad American President. In one of the debates, Giuliani was asked about the similarity of today’s defiance of the respect of life to the defiance of liberty 150 years ago, with slavery. I don’t know how many listeners accepted Giuliani’s response: “I can’t imagine anyone defending slavery…” But, that was a perfectly horrible response to the question from the perspective of debating a proposition. At the time, there was a very live and bitter debate about slavery. We should overcome this American atrocity, just as we overcame that one. I’ll never vote for an American president who can’t even understand the problem, much less engage the question.

1. NARAL: Giuliani Victory ‘Would Help’ Pro-Choice

The pro-choice political action organization NARAL believes a win by Republican Rudy Giuliani in the 2008 presidential race would be a boon to pro-choice forces.

Giuliani’s stance on abortion rights has alienated many social conservatives and evangelical Republicans. But NARAL’s political director Elizabeth Shipp told the Huffington Post that a Giuliani victory “would help” the pro-choice movement by showing it is possible to win the presidency while still supporting abortion rights.

“The Republican Party used to be about the conservative principles of limited government intervention in private life,” she said.

“It seems to me if they went back to that and stood out from the wicked mainstream, anti-choice agenda, I think yeah, it would be good for the movement.”

But Shipp stopped short of saying that NARAL would support Giuliani’s candidacy, although she acknowledged that he is the only GOP candidate in the field who could conceivably win the group’s backing.

NARAL — formed in 1968 as the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws — has endorsed only one Republican presidential candidate in the history of its political action committee, the Huffington Post notes.

In 1980, the group made a donation to Rep. John Anderson around the time he was leaving the GOP to launch an independent White House bid against Ronald Reagan.

Giuliani had a pro-choice record as mayor of New York City. He said in Republican debates in May that “it would be okay” to repeal Roe v. Wade, but added that he “would respect a woman’s right to make a different choice.”

Some Christian conservative leaders have threatened to bolt the GOP and support a third-party candidate if Giuliani wins the Republican nomination, and a number are urging Republicans to support Mitt Romney’s candidacy as a way of heading off a Giuliani win.

The Republican To Unite And Win

Rudolf Giuliani can only win the Republican nomination if social conservative leaders remain divided and enough other candidates stay in the contest. He wins a plurality in polling among 8 candidates, but he will never win a majority among 2 or 3. Giuliani wants…Giuliani needs to have a lot of other candidates in the race. He relies on a profile of media celebrity and division of the great part of the vote that is not his. Plainly, social conservatives don’t want Giuliani to be the nominee. And, I am one that you can count on not to participate in The Republican Party’s abandonment of America’s first and most fundamental principle: the inalienable right to life. The most nefarious crime is not the abortion perpetrators. It is a society that assimilates the idea that any notion of personal convenience trumps the respect of human life, even our own offspring! That is a civilization in certain demise.

Mitt Romney has invested a considerable fortune into the campaign already, and he will invest more, more quickly even than he will tack on his issues positions, including a fierce attack on anyone other than himself whom social conservatives unite behind. So, if they unite behind someone else, they’d better be certain that person has enough money to defend himself against those inevitable attacks. I don’t believe social conservatives want to see a Romney nomination, either.

Fred Thompson is a lawyer and a lobbyist. He is not a dim man. But, he is not in possession of a clear blueprint of what is moral and proper for American government. If he lacks passion it’s because he lacks the clarity of conviction to drive assert it. He is unpredictable because he has no clear philosophy. Like McCain, he was a big booster for the so-called “campaign finance reform that has made a hash of The Republican campaign, today. Thompson and McCain meant well. They just didn’t have a clear picture of what had to be defended. Thompson and Romney are the vague conservatives that are embraced not out of conviction and passion, but out of a spirit of fear.

2 Timothy 1:7 (New King James Version)

7 For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind.

John McCain is out of money and in the wilderness in Iowa, not to mention the ambiguity of principle that he shares with Thompson and which repeatedly rears its head with him. He doesn’t understand the full implications of the 1^st Amendment, and like Bush before him, despite his pro-life confession, he would accomplish nothing either in policy or rhetoric to restore the American respect for the sanctity of life. It’s not his fault! Yes, of course he’s a hero and I love the resolve with which he says, “I’d rather lose a war than a campaign…” But relative to American principle and The Constitution, he doesn’t get it! That’s not particularly unique, these days: after so many years in Washington, perhaps he’s gone native. He has a good heart and has run his course loyally. It’s time to put him out to pasture.

I’ll mention Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo. They are good men who haven’t a broad enough focus or an appealing enough style. Sam Brownback finally ended his campaign. They will, too and, for the sake of essential American principle and the integrity of The Republican nominee, the sooner, the better.

Ron Paul isn’t going anywhere and neither is his 5-10% of followers…forward or backward.

Mike Huckabee is closing on Mitt Romney in Iowa and has always been on a rising curve in national polling. He’s clear on American values. He’s clear on the 10^th Amendment separation and propriety of powers. He’s clear that defense and security are the first responsibility of the federal government and the president. And, he’s clear on and attentive to the legitimate concerns of most American citizens. He may well be the target of that inevitable Romney attack…and be certain that he has the money to defend himself!