Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee’s camp says that U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) has two different messages on social issues, one for Blue states, another for red states. That is true, but not for the reason Huckabee says. It is because he and Cruz look at abortion and “gay marriage” from two different points of view. The Cruz position is the same as Ron Paul’s was in 2012. It is essentially libertarian. The reason Cruz can appear to be on both sides is because he can tailor his message to the audience. He can tell blue states audiences that they can keep their liberal laws, and red states that they can keep their conservative ones. He is not flip-flopping. He is being consistent, as Shane Vander Hart has shown

The “state’s rights position” is totally unworkable on marriage, for previous laws have always required that states accept every other state’s standards.  The Cruz position is actually a step backwards for the pro-life movement, as well. Morally, abortion is a national sin.  Cruz can say he has done all he can to stop abortion. But Ron Paul’s pro-abortion supporters knew that his position would not stop abortions at all. He could brag all he wanted about proposing laws that would outlaw abortion nationally, but he knew they would never see the light of day,

Huckabee should hammer this home during the remainder of the presidential primary season. 2015 is the time to make this clear, not 2016.  Cruz position is pro-choice,  Huckabee is the pro-life alternative.

(Disclaimer: Governor Huckabee wrote the Foreword for my book, With Christ in the Voting Booth. I will likely support him again this time around)

Editor’s note: I offer a rebuttal to David’s remarks about Cruz’s pro-life record.

Subscribe For Latest Updates

Sign up to receive stimulating conservative Christian commentary in your inbox.

Invalid email address
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
  1. I understand why you disagree with his position on marriage even though I’d submit we are so far down the rabbit trail that it may be the only workable solution at this point. Here is one primary difference between Cruz and Ron Paul that you failed to mention (hmm… wonder why?) Cruz knows that federal courts need to be addressed. Frankly, right now I would be happy with a federalist solution rather than federal courts dictating what the definition of marriage is.

    Secondly, you slandered Cruz on his pro-life record. He has a 100% rating from the National Right to Life Committee, and he has signed the personhood pledge. He has never been adverse to pro-life legislation at the national level.

    As far as your disclaimer is concerened weren’t you part of Huckabee’s grassroots team? Are you saying there is really a chance you won’t caucus for him?

  2. Shane, this post is pure propaganda, and is a stain on this web site for good reporting. It should not earn or warrant inclusion. I’m fine for people to argue for or against candidates, but to be allowed to say such things (as you yourself indicate in your reply) is reprehensible. The post should be removed, not just replied to. All posts from such people should be reviewed before being allowed to go public, if you want to retain any level of legitimacy on your site.

  3. One difference between the abortion and marriage issue is that the abortion issue turns on a fact: are unborn babies humans/persons? Courts are supposed to turn to finders of facts to resolve fact questions. Roe said it is obvious that if in fact unborn babies are humans/persons, abortion can’t remain legal, much less constitutionally protected. I can’t think of a similar fact issue underlying the marriage issue. Courts have so far side stepped this reality, and prolifers have not pressed them to acknowledge it, imagining the evidence is not yet complete. But nothing less than national establishment of this fact at least in the hearts of Christians is likely to outlaw abortion, and once that is done, it is inconceivable that any abortion could remain legal.

    As for the marriage issue, the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution certainly makes it awkward for states to have different definitions of marriage, but it is not impossible. Cruz wants states to oppose gay marriage, but that doesn’t mean he opposes fighting it in Congress. I have not heard such a claim. It should be fought at every level. If authorities will not fight it, anyone left standing must fight it. If no “lesser magistrate” will stand, then anyone still Christian must shine his prophetic Light outside his comfortable churchy bushel.

    I filed an anti-abortion final brief whose deadline (not by my planning) was Christmas Eve. I argued that all four court-recognized categories of finders of facts have unanimously found that all unborn babies are humans/persons from fertilization: juries, expert witnesses, state legislatures, and Congress. I don’t understand why prolifers think more must be established before we can get prolifers and legislatures behind court challenges capable of forcing courts to address these facts. My brief is at http://www.Saltshaker.US/SLIC/HolmanFinal.pdf.

    I don’t think Huckabee is any stronger on the life issue than Cruz. I think either one would succeed in healing our land, though they would proceed from slightly different directions. I would love to see someone with Cruz’ SCOTUS experience in the White House. However, I will tell you a different reason I support Huckabee over the other candidates: Huckabee is the the only one who sidesteps the E-Verify question. The rest are determined that we should have it. It is hard to imagine greater danger to America than from abortion and sodomy, or from 8 years of Obama, but had Republicans been in charge we would have E-verify by now. It doesn’t even reduce undocumented immigration, but it costs many citizens their jobs and drives jobs overseas. It fulfills many of the elements of the Revelation 13-14 description of the Mark of the Beast. If taking the Mark sends you to Hell, can it be judgment-proof to vote to fast-track 90% of it? It would destroy freedom as we know it.

  4. Please don’t apologize for this editorial, Shane. You simply told the truth, and Cruz supporters don’t want to hear the truth. They want their cake (a candidate saying he supports the sanctity of marriage) and they want to eat it too (have big donors who are against the sanctity of marriage).

    1. Julie, I didn’t write this editorial, David Shedlock did, and I would not have written a rebuttal had I felt he wasn’t mischaracterizing Cruz’s position on abortion. Re. marriage, I already wrote an article about that, and I’d say most Cruz supporters are cognizant about where he stands on the issue. This is a difference of opinion on strategy and at what level of government this fight belongs.

  5. In August of 2015 Mike Huckabee said he would use the Department of Justice under the 5th and 14th Amendments to criminally prosecute Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers. He believes that there is compelling scientific and DNA evidence that the child in the womb is already a human being and that abortion violates the rights of the unborn child as a human being.

    In August of 2015 Ted Cruz said that he supported a personhood amendment to the Constitution. He also supported defunding of Planned Parenthood, but didn’t talk about criminal prosecution.

    In my opinion, and perhaps not yours, these were two very different approaches, and views, to the issue of abortion. Huck sees it through the lens of morality that the baby in the womb is a human being, created by God and deserving of life. Cruz sees it through the lens of the law that requires legislation in order to resolve the issue.

    So, the question is, if the Constitutional Amendment failed, would Cruz be OK with abortions under Roe vs. Wade?

  6. Huckabee, Huckabee, Huckabee…. I think Huckabee’s Pac ads in Iowa coinciding with Rubio’s tell me a lot about Huckabee. Me thinks Huckabee wants to get his posh job back at Fox and has been told by Rubio supporting Fox News that he needs to go after Cruz. Fox News makes it a point to gloss over Cruz. They will talk about the #9 candidate before Cruz. Just watch the Five.

    Obviously, they are vying for the same votes. However, I think there comes a point to know when to fold. The fact that Huckabee isn’t, tells me he lacks some judgment qualities. He’s willing to spend people’s money-of course, he hasn’t raised much, in an effort he knows he can’t win. The fact that he has supported establishment Republicans in races over true conservatives, tells me even more. I think that he is actually hurting himself in the long run with his base. Go after Trump… Go after Hillary… Go after a moderate… But Cruz-the fighter of the Constitution… Not wise.

    1. one more thing… Huckabee has no path for the nomination, neither does Santorum. They have no money. And we all know, you have to have money. So, it begs the question, why are they still in the race? To sell more books, to promote themselves or to promote their values? If it’s to showcase their values, great. But if someone comes along that has raised the money and is pretty much promoting the same values-just may not quote your speech verbatim, maybe you should drop out and support them. But with Huckabee-he probably will endorse the establishment pick in order to get his job back on Fox. We shall see. Cruz 2016

Comments are closed.

You May Also Like

A Quick Evaluation of Donald Trump’s Victory Speech

Kevin Subra: Donald Trump has won. Only time will reveal if America has won. It is my Christian duty to honor and respect him.

Taylor Announces Pro-Life Endorsement and “Defend Life” Policy Agenda

Pro-life attorney Martin Cannon: ” I urge pro-life voters in Iowa’s Fourth District to support Jeremy Taylor for Congress.”

Maggie Hassan Won’t Call Hillary Clinton Honest or Trustworthy

Governor Maggie Hassan (D-NH) who is running for U.S. Senate refused to dodged answering three times whether Hillary Clinton was honest or trustworthy.