As Fred Thompson exits the race for the GOP nod I find myself deciding between Mike Huckabee and John McCain, having already decided against voting for Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani.  And while I certainly will get heat for these comments, I make these comments with the intent of helping the Republican party win, not just the White House but also down ballot. 

I know some of you reading this are paid staff, committed delegates and/or VIP's for Rudy or Romney and have invested time, money, and/or your reputation in their campaigns.  All I ask is for you to take a few steps back and contemplate what I have to say. If I am wrong point out my fallacies in a reasoned manner, however if I am right forward this article on, whether you add your own comments or not is up to you.

I decided to not vote for Rudy Giuliani, due to both his dismissive attitude (of the Moral Conservatives and the 2nd Amendment Conservatives) and the scandals of which we have only been treated to a taste (Bernard Kerik's troubles, a pedophile priest as a confidant, using tax payer dollars to pay for security for his mistress, conflicts of interest arising from business relationship) which the Clinton machine will cart out to obscure any scandals that would otherwise harm Hillary.  His dismissive attitude of two important parts of the Reagan coalition seem to suggest either that they are merely being tolerated or are no longer needed, if that perception remains they will either stay home or vote for a third party candidate, due to the unaddressed conflict of ideologies.  The scandals that the Clinton machine will dredge up will make the headaches of 2006 look pleasant and will hurt our down ballot candidates, while Rudy is placed by the mainstream media and the Democrats in the same company as Jack Abramoff, Duke Cunningham, Tom DeLay, Bob Ney, and Mark Foley.

I decided to not vote for Mitt Romney, because he has made it so easy to label him a panderer who will do, say or promise anything to get what he wants and because of his stance on the Employment Non-Descrimination Act, that it is a state's rights issue, will undermine 1st Amendment freedoms.  His interview with Tim Russert was the real clincher for me on deciding to vote for someone else.  (The Employment Non-Descrimination Act because of how it is written lets a radical of different sorts sue to get employment at a business of a group that they are targeting, example a militant athiest suing to gain employment at a Christian bookstore or an islamist suing to become employed at a Jewish Holocaust Museum.) In that interview he showed that all the stances he has switched on in the past two years can be reversed again if he needs to make a deal. The promises he made in Michigan to bail out that state's heavily socialized and unionized auto industry reverses some of the economic commitments he made to fiscal conservatives.  He has also recently reversed himself on his Massachusetts version of Hillary Care claiming it as a model for the rest of the country, after running away from that piece of legislation and the mandates it imposes for most of last year.  At best he is our John Kerry who is with us but bends his words to pander to his audience, at worst he is a national version of Arnold Schwartzeneggar who campaigns as if he is with us and then when times get politically tough cuts his losses and adopts the Democrats policies ignoring his Republican legislators, even those who helped him into office. I have not yet found a reason that he can be trusted on the issues in a way that will satisfy any conservative, until then I cannot vote for him in good conscience in the primary. 

Remember in politics perception is reality.

And while I am not completely comfortable with some of the stances John McCain and Mike Huckabee have made or some of the actions they have committed, I believe that they won't step on the anti-Hillary news that is bound to appear as much as the other two and I think I know what their basic motivations for what they do are. McCain, from his actions as Senate Commerce Committee Chair, strikes me as someone similar to Theordore Roosevelt.  While Mike Huckabee strikes me as having the mindset of a pastor looking after his flock.  Whoever, I believe will be more receptive to calm and reasoned discourse will probably end up with my vote.

Anyway here is the article by John Linder followed by a link to the site where I retrieved the article:

Huckabee presents the best choice for Reagan supporters
By John Linder

I was first elected to the Georgia House of Representatives 34 years ago. I have watched this party change for a long time. Some changes have been better than others.

Two years after that first election, I went to work on the Reagan campaign for the Republican presidential nomination. I was one of the leaders of that campaign in Georgia, and my friend, Paul Coverdell, led the establishment's efforts to nominate President Ford.

It was the typical establishment-versus-interloper campaign. Most of the friends I had made in the party were in the establishment. Most of them thought the nomination of Ronald Reagan was not only impractical, but would destroy our party.

Reagan had just served two terms as the governor of California. His record was not all that conservative. He signed the biggest tax increase in the history of the state. He got the best he could get with a Democrat-dominated general assembly. He signed a bill legalizing abortion. But governors have different challenges than presidents.

Frankly, most of the establishment couldn't have cared less about abortion. They thought the discussion of it was, well, tacky. But we were, at the time, the party that Barry built, and the new foot soldiers cared about abortion.

Their concern with Reagan was that he just wasn't up to it. What did he know about foreign policy? How could he stand up to the Soviets? Did he understand detente?

During that campaign, as in all campaigns, the establishment sat at the head table, and the rest of us milled around the small round tables below.

Coverdell approached me, after Ford had won the first several primaries, and urged me to switch sides. Paul was convinced that Ford had the best chance of winning. Paul recited all of the reservations mentioned above and then said, "John, Reagan cannot win. No one will take him seriously." That was also the consensus of the Republican writers and commentators.

I said, "Paul, I think politics is all about what you believe. I know what Reagan believes. I have no idea what Ford believes. But you need to watch Reagan connect with the people. He is the best communicator I have ever seen. He is bringing new people into the party. And these are folks you won't be meeting at the club for lunch. They carry a lunch bucket to work. Or a brown paper bag."

Four years later, I worked again for Reagan and Paul worked for George H. W. Bush. Again, the Wall Street crowd sat at the head table, and the Main Street crowd sat at the small round tables on the floor.

The same arguments came from the establishment. His tax cut idea was a "riverboat gamble." In fact, his tax cuts doubled the size of the economy and doubled revenues to the treasury. Unfortunately, they spent that and more.

Reagan didn't understand that the world is a dangerous place and dealing with the Soviets required a more "understanding" policy. It also required a willingness to sign more treaties. They didn't know that Reagan had no interest in understanding the Soviets. He wanted communism consigned to "the ash heap of history."

It was a neverending series of put-downs until New Hampshire. Then it was over.

Reagan won that election with the support of Larry Lunch-bucket and Betty Brownbag. They were called the Reagan Democrats. When we celebrated that victory, I asked some of them why they chose to join us. They said, "When he talked, we felt that he was talking to us." The Reagan Democrats believe they have been ignored since 1988.

The establishment doesn't like change. They have always felt that their seats at the head table were threatened by those new to the club. The establishment that so ardently opposed Reagan's nomination in 1980 crawled all over each other to chair his 1984 race.

Today they now see themselves as those who put Reagan in power. His presidency was their presidency. They believe they are the keepers of the flame.

Today's establishment includes elected officials, consultants, lobbyists and even conservative writers and commentators. Unless you allow them to write the rules and approve of your positions you are unwelcome. Anyone who does not genuflect before their altar is "not conservative."

When you look at the many fine candidates seeking the Republican nomination for president, who do you believe can best speak to those Reagan Democrats?

I believe that candidate is Mike Huckabee.

When Reagan became president, one of his first moves was to reduce income taxes from 70 percent to 50 percent and ultimately down to 28 percent. As pointed out above, both the size of the economy and the federal revenues doubled in eight years.

Huckabee doesn't want to lower income taxes. He wants to abolish them - along with the IRS, the most intrusive, coercive and corrosive federal agency ever. Mike would replace those taxes on income with a sales tax - the FairTax. Every American will become a voluntary taxpayer paying taxes when you choose, as much as you choose, by how you choose to spend. How conservative can one get?

Rep. John Linder, R-Duluth, has served in the House of Representatives since 1992.

http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=10019&SectionID=17&SubSectionID=116&S=1