Another Huckabee supporter in New Hampshire

Here is an article from the Milford Observer which I shall publish in it's entirety for your convenience. Any highlighting is my own for emphasis of important points:

Posted Saturday, November 3, 2007

Supporting Huckabee
By Loreen Daniels
Milford

It is very important for me to help the people of this area to understand the importance of knowing that the purpose of a primary is NOT to vote for the most popular person who they think has a good chance of winning the election, unless of course, that person has all the qualities to lead our country; but the purpose of a primary is to vote for the best person who one thinks will make the best president, no matter how much or how little press he gets.

There are candidates out there with little money to spend, but would make much better candidates for the presidency than all the ones with the big bucks that make the headlines every day! The one I am supporting is Gov. Mike Huckabee. He has no baggage, has genuine integrity, a real vision for America and the most COMMON SENSE I have seen in a candidate so far as well as successful experience in his home state of Arkansas as governor. You can go on the internet and find out what Mike is all about and I encourage you to do so via his website: Mike Huckabee.com, so you can make an informed decision come primary day.

I encourage you to do the same regarding any other candidates that are running but not getting any press because they are considered an "underdog". Voting in a primary or in the general election shouldn't be a popularity contest! It's the time to vote with your heart of who the best candidate for the job should be. Choose who you think should win, not what the press envisions as the winner.

Thanks to Loreen Daniels for her honest article!

Republican Party Degeneration?

When I look at the field of presidential candidates on the Republican side, I wonder whose side they are running for. The 'front runner', Rudy Guiliani, has social views that line up with the Democrat front runner, Hillary Clinton. He's not a real conservative. Fred Thompson, seen as the 'great hope' for conservatives, doesn't seem to know how to run a campaign, nor what work to do in order to gain popularity. We wonder if he would be able to debate Clinton. Romney seems to have changed his mind about critical issues when convenient to do so.....like being "pro-choice" until deciding to run for President.

Is the Republican party so diluted that locally a person cannot clearly distinguish the party of a candidate by looking at their stand on issues alone? Why do we have to go to our party headquarters to find out who the candidates are? Are the candidates afraid to make their position clear?

The lack of clarity of position is evidenced by Republican dissatisfaction with the current slate of leading presidential candidates. I happened upon a poll in the sidebar of a random blog today. Here are the results:

Who is your favorite Republican Presidential Candidate?

• None of the above. I want a real Conservative! (38%, 279 Votes)
• Fred Thompson (28%, 207 Votes)
• Rudy Giuliani (16%, 116 Votes)
• Mitt Romney (8%, 59 Votes)
• Newt Gingrich (8%, 57 Votes)
• John McCain (2%, 17 Votes)

Total Voters: 735

There are so few Republican candidates that really exemplify what "conservative" means. The only one that talks the talk and has real world experience that will transfer to the role of President is Mike Huckabee. He would be a natural choice to lead the nation because of his successful experience as governor of Arkansas, and because he is a true conservative. I hope his hard work in Iowa and New Hampshire bears fruit, and that Republicans will not dismiss him as unelectable.

Why the Name Dropping???

Even though I disagree with Hillary Clinton politically, I know she is a formidable presidential candidate. She is highly intelligent, persuasive and influential. My husband and I see her as a shoo-in as the Democratic nominee for the next presidential election. Hillary has so much going for her!

Why does Hillary choose to lean on her husband's name as her campaign is gaining steam? We know Bill Clinton was one of the best in his speech craft and his way of connecting to people.

But Bill has the legacy of being only the second US president in history to be impeached (not threatened with impeachment, but truly impeached) And his impeachment was not for some horrific treasonous act, but for perjury! He lied about his extra-marital affair with that....that.....blue dress wearing dark haired girl!!! (Yes, I know her name!) (If that had been my husband, he would have been out on his ear and I would have gone on with life)

The New York Times has an article about Hillary campaigning in New Hampshire, and all the while mentioning Bill here and there. Does Hillary think Democratic voters will not love her without the fragrance of Bill on her? I think she is strong enough to stand on her own, and so do many others!

Choosing to "Billify" her campaign only confirms my belief that she married him merely to catapult her into political prominence. The Bill perfume she wears may stain what should be a successful campaign for the presidential nomination.