Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Huckabee Has Crossed the Delaware!

The significance of George Washington crossing the Delaware was more than just that it resulted in a single victory at Trenton. It was a major turning point in the American Revolution.

During the year prior to December of 1776, Washington's army had suffered a number of losses at the hands of against the British and their Hessian mercenaries. Though they believed fiercely in the cause of American Liberty, they simply didn't have the resources to make significant headway against the crown. To quote the website of the Washington Crossing Historic Park; "Enlistments were down, desertion was high, and monies from Congress were unavailable."

Seeing a chance for victory on that Christmas night of 1776, Washington and his men marched on (many of them with rag-wrapped feet) across the frozen ground and into the boats. Battling the elements, the enemy troops, and their own instinct for survival , Washington and those American Patriots won the battle at Trenton.

Their victory was a signal to those who previously hesitated to join in what they feared was a hopeless fight; that Liberty was in sight and this was a war that could be won! As a result, the ranks of Washington's army swelled. And though there was still a long hard road ahead, they fought on to win Freedom for the American colonies, and to forge this great nation of ours.

So how does this relate to Mike Huckabee?
Until recently, many failed to see Huckabee as a "top tier" candidate for the Republican presidential nomination. For the major media outlets, it seemed fiscal conservatism, the war with Islamic Fascists, and possibly protecting our borders were the only issues deemed relevant. In those areas, there appears to be little difference among the top fund-raisers, or any of the candidates for that matter excepting one who should really be running as a Libertarian.

It seemed as if fund-raising itself was the primary issue with which the media was really concerned. When they spoke of Mike Huckabee at all, many conceded that he was an excellent speaker and acknowledged his well rounded conservative credentials, but insisted he really couldn't win; frankly for no other reason than because (in their eyes at least) he hadn't been winning. Still Huckabee pressed on, bit by bit gaining supporters in mind if not in wallet.

Then came Christmas! Not that it came by any means as a gift, wrapped up in a bow. Rather, like the circumstances presented Washington and his men on that Christmas night of determination, there came a window of opportunity for Mike Huckabee to show his mettle.
  • In Late September, Dr. James Dobson revealed that some politically active evangelicals were prepared to mount a third-party effort, if Republicans nominated a social liberal. This started gaining attention in early-mid October. Huckabee's response was to stand for both social conservatism and unity. While he did suggest that those with such concerns should more actively back his nomination; he said would not seek nor accept a third party invitation, regardless of the Republican outcome. While not directly affecting the Huckabee campaign, this seems to have significantly increased media attention given to the Oct 19-21 Values Voter Summit.
  • October 18: Respected Kansas Senator Sam Brownback ended his presidential bid, citing lack of support. One reason Huckabee was seen as the likely beneficiary of this decision: Of the three consistent social conservatives, the Iowa straw poll results showed Brownback behind Huckabee and ahead of Duncan Hunter.
  • October 2o: Results of the Values Voters Straw Poll (held online in conjunction with the FRC Action's 2nd Annual Washington Breifing) showed Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney nearly tied, but far ahead of the rest of the pack. Romney finished first at 27.62% to Huckabee's 27.10% second, with NYC golden child Rudy Giuliani finishing eighth at 1.85% among these representative of the voting block credited as the deciding factor in keeping the White House Republican in 2004.
  • Mike Huckabee's stellar speech at the Values Voter Summit results in a stunning victory in the on-site polling. Huckabee received 51.26% to Romney's 10.40% second place among those who were actually there to hear the candidates speak. His speech covered not only the expected Values Voter issues of Sanctity of Life, Sanctity of Marriage, and Freedom of Religious Speech. It also covered defeating Islamofacism, fiscal discipline, national sovereignty (including border security), energy independence, and a host of other issues of interest to conservatives. YouTube videos of part1, part2, and part3 (along with various smaller segments from the speech), show thousands of hits each; indicating that the impact of this speech continues to make itself felt among an increasing audience.
  • Huckabee had another impressive showing at the Republican debate on FoxNews, Oct 21; where after talking with his focus group, Frank Lutz said “Mike Huckabee had a very good night at this debate - even without a lot of time to talk”. Huckabee also finished second in a FoxNews text-poll following the debate. Though unscientific, the poll results still indicated a significant increase regarding interest in Huckabee.
  • Glenn Beck, in his self-described process of "looking for somebody I can vote for", had an hour-long interview with Mike Huckabee, the same weekend.
Beginning about the same time, a number of articles took note of the rising interest in the possibility of a Huckabee nomination; some specifically noting the Values Voters poll results and debate performance.

One of the best published examples of what seems to now be happening comes from the October 25th endorsement of Mike Huckabee from the evangelical outpost, by Joe Carter (with Matthew Anderson and Justin Taylor):

"For several months we have admired the scrappy campaign of Gov. Huckabee but believed it would be a wasted effort to support him with our time, energy, and finances. We bought into the notion that he could never get the GOP nomination since conservative voters would not support him. And the reason we were told conservative voters would never support him is because he could not get the nomination. To quote John Piper (from a different context), 'It’s like the army being defeated because there aren’t enough troops, and the troops won’t sign up because the army’s being defeated.' We can no longer sit idly by and allow the campaign of a worthy candidate and an honorable man to flounder for lack of support. ... Our army may go down in defeat, but it won't be because we refused to enlist in this worthy cause."

There is much more to that endorsement, and I highly recommend it.

Since Oct-25, Mike Huckabee has been rated in double digits in the Rasmussen Daily Presidential Tracking Poll, and has spent 4 of those 6 days ahead of Mitt Romney. His schedule for the next week looks like a who's-who of TV/Cable News, including (in chronological order) "Good Morning America", "Situation Room" with Wolf Blitzer, Neil Cavuto, Bill O'Reilly (who apparently promised Dick Morris a steak dinner if Huckabee ever broke 10% in the polls), "Hannity and Colmes", Charlie Rose, and others.

To cap it all off; Cash (the lack of which past commentators have gleefully bemoaned) seems to finally be rolling into the Huckabee campaign coffers. The increase in people saying "I Like Mike" with their wallets has accelerated too such a degree since mid-October; that Huckabee's online fundraising is poised* to end October having garnered more contributions during that one month than in all of Q3!

Getting over a Million Dollars in one month still won't give Mike the biggest bank in the race. But with the results he's been getting from his previously small budget campaign; this is sure to be giving people in the other campaigns on both sides some sleepless nights.

Mike Huckabee is by no means a sure thing. There are other candidates that some (including social liberals, open borders globalists, and the peace at any cost crowd) might find more attractive. My advise is to support the candidate who both proclaims and has a history of fighting for the values in which you believe. If that candidate is Mike Huckabee, you can no longer use the excuse that "he can't win"; because without question - Mike Huckabee has crossed the Delaware!

*[Update: as of Wednesday morning, Oct 31; "is poised to" can be changed to "will". Not only has this been done in one month, but the vast majority has been raised within the last week of the month!]

Friday, October 26, 2007

Rush Credits Huckabee with Best debate statement on Hillary

First, I want to make sure I'm quoting Rush Limbaugh correctly; unlike the Bizarro-World mis-quotes that resulted in the infamous "Harry Reid smear letter." I invite readers to check my accuracy at this link ("Rush Recaps the GOP Debate" or for Rush 24/7 members, this link)

In discussing the the GOP debate shown Oct-21 on the Fox News channel, Rush was involved in enlightening his audience about how the various candidates handled the Hillary question. As part of that, he played audio of Mike Huckabee's view on a possible Hillary Presidency:

Huckabee: "There's nothing funny about Hillary Clinton being president. Let me tell you why. If she's president, taxes go up, health care becomes the domain of the government, spending goes out of control; our military loses its morale, and I'm not sure we'll have the courage and the will and the resolve to fight the greatest threat this country's ever faced in Islamofascism. We've got an enemy that wants to kill every last one of us. We cannot be soft. We must be strong. We'll sign crazy bills like the Law of the Sea Treaty and give away our sovereignty, and that's why with all the fun we're going to have talking about it, there's nothing funny about Hillary being president."

Rush then interjected how, at an event in Philadelphia the previous Thurday, he paused in a "riff on Hillary Clinton and the Democrats" to query the audience about frustration over wanting to hear such statements from Republican presidential candidates; and how that resulted in a standing ovation. He then continued with;
"Well, now all of a sudden, we're starting to get from these candidates the kind of statements that reflect the views of people who are going to vote for them, one of them who wins the nomination. You know, rather than the policy wonk stuff. This was the best one of the night last night..."

As far as I know, Rush Limbaugh has not declared support for a particular candidate. However, it speaks very well of Huckabee to see that "the Doctor of Democracy", at least in this instance, likes Mike!


Thursday, October 25, 2007

Ben Stein Striking Again!

Ben Stein has a new movie scheduled for release in February 2008. The title; "Expelled:No Intelligence Allowed!"
What is to be the subject of this cinematic outlet for his at least semi-towering intellect and wry wit? To quote part of the OVERVIEW page from www.expelledthemovie.com:

Ben realizes that he has been “Expelled,” and that educators and scientists are being ridiculed, denied tenure and even fired – for the “crime” of merely believing that there might be evidence of “design” in nature, and that perhaps life is not just the result of accidental, random chance.

To which Ben Says: "Enough!" And then gets busy. NOBODY messes with Ben.



Just think; An exposition of the fact that there really is growing scientific evidence against neo-Darwinism in a forum where it's likely to get some exposure to the general public. It will probably shock many to learn that scientific discoveries contradicting the theory of universal random evolution are seemingly rare not because few exist, but because they are being suppressed. It might even clear some of the secular-naturalism-induced mental cobwebs designed to keep us from realizing the outright absurdity of the idea that all life came from (to paraphrase Stein) "mud struck by lightning."

I can't wait!

Monday, October 22, 2007

Huckabee gets over twice the votes of next nearest Republican in FoxNews poll

In a FoxNews text-message poll following the Florida Republican debate Sunday night; Mike Huckabee was far and away the winner, at more than double the votes of the next-nearest Republican, Rudy Giuliani!
    OK, by some technicality; Ron Paul, an obvious Libertarian, has been able to group himself with Republicans. Standing on a platform built more of splinters from, rather than planks shared by the Republican party, he managed to get even more votes than Mike Huckabee. But to echo an observation that Huckabee himself has made more than once; It's not surprising considering that Paul gets all the Libertarian votes and then the Republican vote is split among the actual Republicans. I'm sure numbers would be just as strangely skewed, if there were one Democrat in the Republican debates, or one Libertarian or Republican in the Democrat debates. In any of these cases, votes are included that should simply be part of a different equation. At least in 1988, Ron Paul was honest enough to run as the Libertarian candidate for President. If he would only show the same degree of honesty today, we wouldn't have this ridiculous statistical confusion.

In any case, Mike Huckabee got about 27% of the votes, with 11% going to Rudy Giuliani. Looking at those results; I don't see how anyone could still hold that Giuliani is the pre-annointed Republican candidate, much less continue to deny that Mike Huckabee is a (if not the) "top-tier" candidate. That includes those in the liberal media who would like to see a Rudy vs Hillary election, basically rigged to have a social liberal on both sides.

Sunday, October 21, 2007

Harry Potter author joins the Raising Citizens for Sodom movement

JK Rowling has now joined the ranks of those who want to destroy the moral fiber of our youth. She revealed this on Friday, Oct 19 when she declared she had long ago decided to make Dumbledore, Harry's primary mentor in her popular "Harry Potter" fantasy novels, a homosexual.

The Harry Potter series has already been under fire by some, such as Georgia mom Laura Mallory, for promoting a fascination with magic, witchcraft and possibly opening the door to indoctrination in pagan religions such as wicca. At least in that regard, parents sensitive to the issue can easily see that magic is a primary theme of those books. They can then make their own informed decision about whether such is benign or poses a significant spiritual threat to their children.

Rowling's admitted long-term plan for homosexuality in such a central character is a now-obvious stealth move to indoctrinate children to her view on the acceptability of homosexual practices. She does this by way of making the character in question one to be admired, long before revelation of the abominable practice. Can there be any doubt that she uses this stealth approach because she expected it would have resulted in many parent choosing not to purchase Harry Potter books, had her whole agenda been apparent from the beginning. In fact, she seems to have even hidden this from her publisher, a representative of which was quoted in USA Today as saying "That's the first time she's brought that up."

This type of betrayal of the innocence of childhood is a reprehensible attack on the family and on morality in general. This is the type of thing that paves the road to Sodom and Gomorrah for our children. I would include in this group not only things such as "Will and Grace", and "Queer Eye...", but also "Girls gone wild", preoccupation with the misbehaving "it girl" of the moment, and the way of life promoted by the MTV crowd in general. All those have grave implications for our society and all represent behaviors that we should teach our children to avoid. Homosexuality is not the only brick in that road, but public acceptance of homosexual practices as part of the mainstream is an obvious sign-post that we are, as a society, walking the road to Sodom and Gomorrah.

Friday, October 12, 2007

Inconvenient Timing for Al Gore

Perhaps someone should have told the Nobel comittee that a lawsuit filed in Britain, by a truck driver concerned over the political indoctrination of school children, has recently resulted in a decision by the High Court against "An inconvenient Truth" (Al Gore's "Man Made Global-Warming" propaganda film). Had they known (and are we sure they didn't), would it have made any difference in their decision to award Gore the Nobel Peace Prize? This is especially relevant, since the prize was awarded to Gore and his co-recipient for "efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change."

The ruling of the High Court cites nine of Gore's supposed truths as such egregious "inaccuracies", that they must be "specifically drawn to the attention of school children" in Britain, before being shown the film. Otherwise, educators showing it "may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination." (The list originally included eleven entries, but was later condensed.)

My personal favorite, among the revealed inaccuracies is:
I find it doubly ironic that the truck driver who brought the suit, Stewart Dimmock, is a member of "The New Party". I found that fact, along with the actual quotes of "inaccuracies" from the ruling, in following my original source for this story to "The New Party" website. This UK group describes itself in it's "manifesto" as "a party of economic liberalism, political reform and internationalism." Doesn't this sound like the kind of group that would welcome Al Gore? Apparently even they were not willing to sit still through such intellectual dishonesty and/or bad science; much less give Gore an award for it.

Of course, it may be easier for the British to understand the misleading nature of Gore's film, since they have had easier access to the BBC's "The Great Global Warming Swindle", which thoroughly refutes many of the points on which the "Man Made Global-Warming" house-of-cards is built. For some reason, the type of visual media outlets in the USA which show similar programming, have (at least to my knowledge) declined to add this to balance the seemingly never-ending stream of MMGW alarmism they run between the latest nature-based reality TV freak-show of the week and those of the UFO Secrets/Bermuda Triangle/Bigfoot variety.

To me it seems that the acclaim Al Gore has received over "An Inconvenient Truth", from Hollywood to Stockholm, is clearly another case of Just Crazy Politics!

Thursday, October 11, 2007

Huckabee accused of believing in God

In Rush Limbaugh's list of "Undeniable Truths of Life", #23 is this; "Evolution cannot explain Creation."
On June, 5 at the New Hampshire Republican debate, Mike Huckabee made his position on this Truth very clear, although I'm sure the source of his convictions on the matter came from a source infinitely greater than Limbaugh's list.
Even though an event four months past seems old news to some, it seems to me to have been made more timely by the following.
  1. A recent announcement from Dr James Dobson (of Focus on the Family fame) that if the Republicans nominate a pro-abortion candidate, such as Rudy Guiliani, religious groups with whom he works may call for a third party run in opposition.
  2. A more recent statement from Mike Huckabee to the effect that those who share his pro-life and pro-family position should concentrate on supporting a candidate, in the primary, who has worked for those goals; rather than focusing efforts against a candidate who hasn't. Huckabee also indicated he had absolutely no interest in a third party candidacy.
  3. Anecdotally, the excitement that continues to be generated in conservative Christians when shown the "Huckabee on Evolution..." video , versus their lack of excitement on hearing of Dr Dobson's announcement or subsequent interviews.
Getting back to the original issue:
The moderators in the aforementioned debate asked Huckabee whether he believed in Creation as described in the Bible, and after he answered the question affirmatively, firmly and brilliantly, they focused the question even more narrowly in an attempt to embarrass him. In both answers, the former Governor of Arkansas showed that he understood the real point of the questions. As part of Mike Huckabee's answer to the initial question, he said "the basic question...asked...whether there is a God or not." Yes! Shockingly, though not surprisingly, they were trying to make fun of him for believing in God, and to disqualify him as a Presidential candidate on that basis. (video)

The Secular Humanist media simply wanted to trap an eloquent, strong, conservative candidate into a short sound bite confirming belief in a literal six-day divine creation. They wanted it for presentation to an audience largely educated in public schools. Schools that teach the "molecules to man" version of evolution with religions zeal, and that to deny random chance as the source of all things is intellectual heresy!

The "dirty little secret" of Darwinism is that, while modern science finds many examples tending to confirm the evolutionary nature of variation within existing species; a growing mountain of scientific discovery points to the absolute impossibility of random universal evolution as an explanation of the "Origin of Species" no matter how many millions or billions of years one assumes.

I would say the debate moderators were, by proxy, making fun of anyone who believes that this wonderfully complex universe, including our world and ourselves is the result of Divine Design rather than a random accident with no plan and no purpose. I applaud Mike Huckabee for seeing through their intended deception and getting to the heart of the matter. Again to quote Mike Huckabee; "To me it's pretty simple. A person either believes that God created this process, or believes that it was an accident, and that it just happened all on its own."

If you are new to the fact of true scientific challenges to the theory of random universal evolution, as presented via Darwinism; I suggest the following as just a few good points of introduction to this vast and growing body of scientific knowledge.
  • "Icons of Evolution" - by Jonathan Wells: Dr of Molecular and Cell Biology
  • "Darwin's Black Box" - by Michael Behe: Professor of Biochemistry
  • "The Case for a Creator" - by Lee Strobel: Author, Journalist, well-known former-Atheist
  • Northwest Creation Network - creation science mega-site (It includes some great free video downloads and presentations via their menus. click [Education], [Free Downloads], [Videos])

What percentage of More-or-Less Income Tax is None?

The Rudy Guiliani 2008 Presidential campaign recently announced they are launching a new radio ad in Iowa. In it, Mayor Guiliani makes a comparison between himself and Democrats respecting taxes. He contends that; "they’ll raise taxes even more then they promised"; while declaring; "I want to give the people back more of their own money, because I know that’s going to create more jobs for us." Even with my apprentice level view of economics, two things are clear to me about this statement.
1) I know you can't give something back until you first take it.
2) The Tax that is the greatest hindrance to creating non-government Jobs is the Income Tax.

Therefore, either Mayor Guiliani is saying he wants lower income taxes; or he wants to create more government jobs, like most Democrats and the big-government segment of the Republican party. Since he is trying to contrast himself with Democrats, I can only assume he's talking about lowering income taxes; either through lowering rates or increasing deductions. Again, parsing his language of "give the people back more", seems to infer the likelihood of lower via deductions/rebates.

On one hand, I have to ask how much more and how much less? On the other hand, I have to ask; if you know income taxes suppress job growth and productivity, why have an income tax at all? Have you never heard the old saw, "if you tax it, you'll get less of it"? I'm not saying lowering income taxes are a bad idea. It's just not the best idea, given the possibility of replacing it with "The Fair Tax."

I can't describe the entire concept of the FairTax here, but the most concise description is an extended quote from the FairTax.org about page.
"The FairTax Act (HR 25, S 1025) is nonpartisan legislation. It abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax administered primarily by existing state sales tax authorities."
FairTax.org also has a page presenting video of presidential candidate Mike Huckabee talking about the FairTax to "Americans for Prosperity."

One of the things that qualifies the "FairTax" as "fair", is that it does away with the leverage the income tax gives the Federal Government to control our personal priorities. That may be the biggest reason there don't seem to be many political power-players among the numerous elected officials on both sides of the aisle that support the FairTax.

A second "fair" quality of the FairTax is that no-one would pay any tax on basic subsistence spending, while everyone would pay the same rate for spending beyond that. The Mike Huckabee for President campaign has posted another really great video that covers this topic on YouTube, under the title "FairTax impact on Families."

According FairTax.com (as of Oct-2007), the Presidential candidates who would sign the FairTax into law (if passed) are; Mike Huckabee, Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, John McCain, Ron Paul, John Cox, and Mike Gravel. They also present an "Americans For Fair Taxation Scorecard", of Sponsors, Co-Sponsors, and Supporters of the FairTax in the US House and Senate.

In reading the FairTax book, by Boortz and Linder, I was enlightened as to the impact of the income tax system on driving American Jobs offshore, and hurting American productivity overall. So when it comes to a discussion of whether I want to vote for someone whose tax policies will hurt American Jobs and Productivity more or less; you can call me Crazy, but I'll choose none!

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

What are Crazy Politics?

"Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is a good description of insanity."
I've seen variations on this statement attributed to various sources over the years; so I'm not really sure of it's originator. Nevertheless, it seems to make sense.

"We need a change"; is a recurring theme in politics. Unfortunately, what is usually being called for is just a change of faces. When the faces change, but the standards and practices stay the same, we don't really see an improvement in the results. I believe that far too much of the time, we've had politicians standing for parties rather than principles. Furthermore, standing doesn't just involve talking points, it means consistently working for those principles.

Now most of my beliefs and goals fall within the range of what is normally called "conservative". As a result, I have most often found myself supporting Republican candidates. It was surprise to me when the Republicans lost the House and Senate in 2006, only to the degree that I was in denial. I had to admit that those Republicans we Conservatives and "Values Voters" had gone to the polls for in 2004, didn't act very conservative or work for moral values.

The days of pointing across the aisle and saying "look how liberal/immoral the Democrats are", and expecting Conservatives (especially conservative Christians) to tow the Republican line are over. We may not cross the aisle and sit with Democrats who do fit that description; but neither will we remain seated with Republicans who are just as liberal/immoral. Perhaps they will understand that a failure to take action for conservative and moral causes is just as damaging as actively working for liberal/immoral causes by understanding that giving Conservative Christians no reason to come to the polls will cause Republican losses just as quickly as if we came to the polls to vote for Democrats.

Case in point, Rudy Giuliani. I've heard it generally maintained that Mayor Giuliani is strongly conservative on defense, law, and fiscal issues; but a discussion of his positions and behavior regarding social and moral issues results in either a wink and a side-step or outright laughter. The best defense offered for the former New York City Mayor seems to lie in statements in the vein of; "He can beat Hillary"; or "Would you rather hand the White House back to the Clintons?"

A look at the positions and record of Hillary Clinton would definitely keep me from voting for her, but will not get me to vote for someone who has a far-too-similar record on the sanctity of both marriage and life itself; just to keep her out of office. I'm sure the pro-abortion, pro-immorality media knows this, when they hold up Rudy, and other pseudo-conservatives as the Republican front-runners; in between the stories on people like Rosie O'Donnell, Paris Hilton, and Lindsey Lohan; and the DNC knows it too.

If someone like former Senator Zell Miller were running for president, he is one Democrat for whom I'd vote in a heartbeat; when faced with Rudy, Romney, or McCain (still learning about Thompson) on the Republican ticket. Although Senator Miller's record is too liberal for my tastes in many areas, most of these are a matter of choice. On matters based in moral conviction, such as the sanctity of life and marriage, Senator Miller was a breath of fresh air in a party generally more concerned about the life of a tax increase than the life of an unborn child or the life of a holy union between one man and one woman.

Starting with a base of Moral and Conservative principles, (rather than prior media recognition and campaigning to the "middle" on issues) the Republican primary race would be much different. It wouldn't exactly turn on it's head, but would more likely have it's "middle" at the top, with the "top" in the middle. (I use "middle" and "top" here in reference to polling results, not issue positions) We would then be talking about Huckabee, Hunter, and Brownback at the top of the ticket, and discussing whether Romney, Thompson or one of the others might make an acceptable choice for VP.

If the GOP insists on following the same old path of prior name recognition and personal destruction, rather than principled action; then they are crazy if they think they will get a different result than they did in 2006.

The irony is that Mike Huckabee seems to be filtering toward the "top tier" despite the apparent determination of big Republican contributors and much of the media to ignore him. While he's not exactly "hard right" on all the issues, he is consistently conservative; and unquestionably firm on the moral issues. Add to that the fact the Huckabee is the husband of one wife and blameless reputation (did you get that?), and is not at all sanctimonious, but rather connects with voters in an obviously sincere and down-to-earth way; and you have the "worst nightmare" for certain candidates on both sides of the aisle.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying Mike Huckabee is the only valid choice. I am saying that conservatives and Republicans should take a look at the model that both he and his campaign provide if they don't want to be guilty of following the same losing strategy over and over again and expecting different results. In short; practicing Just Crazy Politics!