On the eve of the New Hampshire primary I find myself at a cross roads.  I have tried to find a candidate I could throw my support to for months and until recently I have come up empty handed.

 

I knew that Giuliani was out automatically.  While I respect his gifts of leadership and solid free market economic policies I simply can not bring myself to vote for someone who does not believe life begins at conception.  No matter how much he promises to appoint constitutionalist judges, the mere fact the GOP has nominated someone pro-choice will politically cripple the pro-life movement and family values movement for years to come.  And of course as icing on the cake there is his abysmal record on protecting 2^nd Amendment rights.

 

My next hope came in the form of Fred Thompson.  This actor/senator from Tennessee had all of the right positions on nearly every fundamental conservative issue, except campaign finance reform, which for me is a negotiable.  On top of his impressive resume he has probably the best position on Immigration of any of the major candidates, focusing on attrition and deportation.  My problem with Fred is his lack of conviction.  I do not see the passion in his eyes or in his voice for the principles he is exposing.  Sometimes it seems he does not even want to be there and he is just running for president because he has nothing better to do.  I realize that this is just a personality issue, but the man we nominate for these next 4 (8) years will have to do ideological battle on a regular basis with who seek to make everyone a ward of the state.  When you are playing the Super Bowl, the last person you want playing quarterback is the water-boy.

 

Next, out of nowhere came the force of nature that is Mike Huckabee.  His campaign is brilliant.  He portrayed himself consistently as the proud conservative evangelical.  This SBC preacher was making waves on his unapologetic Christianity and defense of life and marriage.  As the Huckaboom gathered momentum people began to do the strangest thing, they actually looked at his record.  As it turns out, this “conservative messiah” could generously be described as a pro-life Democrat.  He raised taxes left and right, allowed illegal immigrants in-state college tuition rates and scholarships, and supports government intervention in many areas of your life that would make you think you were talking to John Edwards.  Then came the populist rhetoric of “main-street vs. wall-street” and anyone with half a brain would realize that while he is great on issues of life and traditional marriage he is misguided on nearly everything else.  The nail in the coffin for me was the endorsement for Huckabee from the Dallas Morning News, which you can read here.  The readers digest version is that they endorse Huckabee because he reminds them the most of a Democrat.

 

My desperation grew to such heights that I nearly considered the little known Libertarian Republican from Texas, Ron Paul.  As I did my research on Dr. Paul I discovered that I liked him quite a lot.  In fact I would give my full fledged support for this candidate if it were not for his “head in the sand” foreign policy.  I love his libertarian domestic issue platform.  No more income tax, promote homeschooling, drastically reduce government agencies and entitlements, and everything else one would do to throw off the shackles of the nanny state.  However my problem with Ron Paul is (not surprising) the same reason I am not a registered Libertarian; isolationist foreign policy.  While I love the idea of dumping the UN and staying clear of international courts, removing ourselves from the world stage is just madness.  He fervently opposes the Iraq War (which I support) and somehow links it to every problem here in the US.  Mr. Paul’s solution to global terrorism is to remove all US influence from anywhere other than our own shores, and we will be left alone.  While I admire his commitment to the constitution, his stance on limiting any and all military action to declarations of war from Congress is just not feasible in today’s geo-political environment.

 

As I reflected on these issues I came across another candidate that I had dismissed at the beginning.  Mitt Romney was someone I had never heard of, was governor of a liberal state (Massachusetts), had an inconsistent record on abortion and homosexual unions, and was a Mormon.  And as we all know Mormon’s simply should not be president…..or so I thought.  When I returned to Mitt Romney for consideration I began to deal with the issue of: “Could someone who is not a Christian be President?“  A quick glance at my desk copy of the U.S. Constitution revealed there was no requirement for a certain religious affiliation to hold the office of President.  I then begin to consider the fact that when it comes to political leaders it is more of an issue of their world view rather than the specifics of their salvation that is in question.  Ultimately we do not know if those political leaders who even profess Christianity have truly been called to God by His grace.  We are setting ourselves up for disappointment if we require simply a religious label for our political leaders, rather than a way of seeing the world and the condition of those in it.  Mitt Romney is not a Christian, and Mormonism is a Christian derived cult, but his world view is based on a Judeo-Christian morality.  We are casting our vote for the person, not for the religion/cult of the candidate. 

 

Once this hurdle was crossed, and I evaluated the candidate as a whole, I saw Mitt Romney as the Republican candidate best suited to lead our country through the times ahead of us.  In my next post I will lay out the top 10 reasons why I am supporting Governor Romney as my candidate for the Republican nomination.  Until next time……

 Governor Mitt Romney for President!