A Time for Choosing
Dean Barnett of the Weekly Standard writes an insightful piece drawing an analogy between the Huck-a-boom and Pat Buchannan’s 1986 run against Bob Dole. I recommend reading it all, but here are some key excerpts:
Mike Huckabee is this cycle’s Pat Buchanan. A lot of Republicans wanted to believe that he was the answer to the flawed deck of frontrunners that the political gods have dealt us. I can’t honestly say I was ever rooting for Huckabee, but a month ago I expected him to win the nomination. All he had to do was come across as a credible commander-in-chief for the five weeks leading up to Iowa and he would have pulled it off.
But Huckabee went the Buchanan route. Rather than assure the Republican electorate that he was more than a one trick pony who could speak beautifully on social issues and spiritual concerns, he doubled down on his pastor side. Perhaps with good cause. When he ventured opinions about serious policy matters outside his comfort zone, especially regarding global affairs, he showed an ignorance that was quite frankly stunning for someone who had the audacity to seek the presidency at a time of war.
And there’s also Huckabee’s past. Every politician has a past–issues he flip-flopped on or positions he took that his party dislikes. But Huckabee’s past has caused Republicans to remember the Arkansas mores that drove us nuts during the Clinton years. Seemingly every day, another piece of, er, stuff, hits the fan. Over the weekend, it came out that Huckabee received $35,000 in honoraria in 2006 from a company that does stem cell research, the very same company that social conservatives blasted Mitt Romney over because his blind trust had invested in it. Huckabee’s take of $35,000 from the stem cell researchers was but a small sliver of the roughly $378,000 in outside fees that Huckabee raked in during his final year as Arkansas’ governor. Too bad he didn’t have Hillary Clinton’s facility with commodities trading–such a skill probably would have made things easier for Huckabee.
Barnett goes on to predict that Romney will win Iowa and that he will be able to seal the nomination if he can sieze the moment and deliver a serious, substantive speech that sets him above the rest of the field.
Barnett cites Ronald Regan’s famous 1976 “A Time for Choosing” speech as an example of the type of speech Mitt must follow. As I watched it (embedded below), I was struck at how relevant his words remain to our current geo-political situation.
I was also struck by how much it reminded me of a certain other Conservative Republican candidate for the Presidency…
Mitt’s speech at CPAC remains one of his best. It helped cement my support for Mitt Romney in the early days of the campaign. It feels like an eternity since he first delivered it back in March. If you haven’t seen it, please watch it. If you’ve seen it before, it is well worth watching again.
This is, indeed, a time for choosing. Choose Mitt!
Sponsor and ad in Iowa, South Carolina, Florida, or New Hampshire!
December 26th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
I’m glad you posted that CPAC speech. That’s the speech that won me over in the first place.
December 26th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
Genius, yes, a new speech after winning Iowa! The media won’t “give” us press after Iowa, to capatilize on our victory we need to “make” the press, with a big speech the the media would look stupid to try to ignore, especially after the last Speech. It won’t be about religion, it should focus on the future and play to Romney’s strengths on the economy, about his buisness experiance, people want to hear about how he started an investment firm called Bain Capital. It would buy companies, retool them, and resell them at a profit. For Mitt Romney’s 15 year tenure, Bain Capital had an astonishing record, on average doubling its return on realized investments every year. Its ”one of the great stories of American capital.” THEN, Romney will win New Hampshire, which was already his. Then, people with conclud that his speech may of secured it, and they’ll keep talking about Romney to no end.
December 27th, 2007 at 2:24 am
“I predict we’ll be around alot longer than say.. the Newspapers will be around”
No wonder the newspapers are giving Romney such a hard time