Just Crazy Politics!

My Local TEA Party!

2009-04-08T14:08:00.006-04:00

There is a TEA Party in the works for the Congressional district in which I live. That is the 13th Congressional District of Georgia; which seat is currently held by Representative David Scott.

This is one of those April 15th T.E.A. (Taxed Enough Already) Parties, and is planned to take place in the vicinity of Scott's Congressional office. I think it would be phenomenal if we had a T.E.A. party near the office of every single congressman who (like Scott) voted for these recent big spending bills, and the outrageously huge budget.

Here is the link to this event on FaceBook: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/event.php?eid=94837491118
---Here is the event description for those who don't want to go to FaceBook---

Date:
Wednesday, April 15, 2009

Time:
3:30pm - 6:30pm

Location:
In the general vicinity of Representative David Scott's Congressional office, near City Hall

Street:
173 North Main Street

City/Town:
Jonesboro, GA

One of the numerous TEA Party Day rallies scheduled for April 15th, in protest of the current Tax and Spend philosophy in action in Washington. Representative David Scott is among those who continually vote for huge government spending, which inevitably leads to increased taxation.

This is a TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party rally and not intended to specifically be an anti-David Scott rally; But the rally area includes the area in front of his office to send the message to Scott and all our Representatives that we will remember their Tax and Spend voting in the 2010 elections.

Show up to peacefully demonstrate along Main Street in Jonesboro; including the area in front of Scott's congressional office. FairTax promoters also welcomed and encouraged. Suggest finding parking nearby, rather than in the lot of Scott's office.

Bring signs with clear and concise messages against big-government spending etc, to display at the rally. Also feel free to bring a politely worded letter of concern to David Scott's Congressional office, if you will arrive before 5PM. All signs and messages should be polite, even if firm. Please no profanity of any kind!

-----
I think the whole concept of this type of T.E.A. Party is a great one. Rather than dumping Tea overboard, or committing some equivalent act of modern vandalism, we peacefully but unequivocally server notice to our "non-representing representatives" that we will VOTE them "overboard", if they don't' quickly change their ways!

Let's all show up at our local TEA Parties to support spending restraint, limited taxation, and maybe even get a plug in for the FairTax while we are at it!

The TEA Party Movement

2009-04-03T14:56:00.006-04:00

Or should I say "T.E.A. Party"?
Various incarnations of reviving the "Boston Tea Party" are in the air. Fortunately none of the current versions include plans for recreating the type of vandalism involved in the original.

There are two general types of these movements, at least of which I am aware. One is the T.E.A. (Taxed Enough Already) theme, such as is being encouraged by former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich at: http://www.teapartyday.com/

Another form of Tea Party is that suggested by the gentleman who appears in several "YouTube" videos in the persona of Thomas Paine, writer of "Common Sense". Although his video originally suggested putting tea bags into envelopes and sending them to elected officials, his suggestion was later revised to suggest sending only the tag from the tea bags in the envelopes. This was apparently due to failure to deliver the envelopes to Senators and Representatives on the excuse that some might have substituted some controlled substance for the original contents of the tea bags. This revised suggestion is included in his interview on the Glenn Beck program, after Bech showed parts of his original video. This can be seen on YouTube as: Glenn Beck Interviews 21st Century Thomas Paine

The original "Boston Tea Party" in 1773 included boarding ships and dumping Tea into Boston harbor. This was not just an objection to taxes per-se, but rather a reaction to an attempt by the British crown to usurp authority over the American Colonists in a manner to which the Colonists had not consented and in which decision the Colonists were not represented.

Today in the United States of America, these "Tea Parties" come as a result of not just additional taxes and the expectation of additional taxes; but that our elected representatives, in both houses of Congress, are passing legislation that shows they have much more interest in usurping control over American individuals and businesses alike than in actually representing the people who elected them. The Colonists in Boston were basically rebelling over taxation without representation. Although we have those elected as "representatives" and "senators"; it is becoming increasingly clear that we, the taxed, have little if any real representation. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that a new wave of "Tea Parties" are on the rise.

Our elected officials should get down on their collective knees and thank the "Creator" (referred to in our Declaration of Independence) , as I do, that this time the Tea Parties are peaceful. Then they should rise and get to the work for which they were actually elected. They need to start representing us in the manner intended by the Constitution, instead of spending the fruit of the labors of generations as yet unborn with carrying out the wishes of those who have sought to tear down our Constitutional Republic and remake it in the image of a Socialist state over the last several decades.

Helping Obama be Successful

2009-01-23T14:27:00.004-05:00

OK, so the two big questions here are these:
How does one measures success?
Do we want success?

There has been much discussion over whether those who oppose out new President's collectivist ideology should wish him success. I strongly oppose the collectivist and immoral ideologies to which Barack Obama has attached himself, from his pro-abortion stance to the radical agenda of forcing mainstream acceptance of homosexual practices to his obvious socialist collectivist agenda.

However, I want to see him be extremely successful. But instead of success at achieving his personal agenda, I want him to be successful in fulfilling his oath of office.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. - United States Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 8

Basically, by taking this oath of office, President Barack Obama has formally stated that, for the next four years, his success will be measured by how well he faithfully executes the Office of President of the United States, including being absolutely committed to the preservation, protection and defence of the Constitution of the United States. Those well versed in the Constitution should immediately realize this Oath puts Obama (the President) very much at odds with Obama the collectivist and promoter of a practice that takes from unborn children the very life that the Declaration of Independence says is an inalienable right given by the Creator.

According to the Oath President Obama took to assume his office; to be successful, he must act in accordance with the Constitution and against the goals of nearly every one of his supporters who helped him get elected. I wish him much success in that endeavor, and first of all success in realizing what being "successful" now requires of him.

I call on all Americans to help our President succeed, through respectfully encouraging him to follow the Constitution, through politely offering suggestion to him and to all our elected officials, and by offering Prayer to Almighty God that he and all of our leaders be granted the wisdom to see how they truly should lead this "One Nation Under God", and the courage to do so; that our nation not perish, as nations are prone to do when they decide to turn their backs on their duty and push aside the hand of Divine Providence.

I personally have three main areas in which I would like to see our new President be successful:

To realize that the unborn are human beings, whose life is a gift of God that no-one can justly rip away as a matter of convenience; and on that basis to end the nightmare of abortion-on-demand that has so savaged and degraded our Nation.
To realize that homosexual practices are a stain on our culture and that they should be discouraged, rather than forcing acceptance. I would also suggest we need to not stop there in seeking to rebuild strong families, but to reverse our casual attitudes about sex and marriage in general.
From an economic standpoint, I believe the best thing we could do right now is enact the FairTax. I also believe President Obama is in a unique position to convince both those Americans previously uninformed about this marvelous plan to unfetter economic productivity, and to convince those in Congress (some of whom will have to be dragged kicking and screaming into adopting this plan that would eliminate the vast majority of the symbiotic relationships between paid lobbyists and lawmakers) that they had better get to some real change and get rid of the IRS!

On Dangerous Ground

2008-11-05T08:30:00.009-05:00

After the tragedy that Americans chose yesterday, I had to search for direction from the source of all direction. My Bible first fell open to the first chapter of Hosea (and yes without looking for it) which pretty much answered the "why". Thereafter I did look up another verse from the New Testament, just to make sure what passage it was. Luke 20:25.

Luk 20:25 And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's.

Exactly why it's such a tragedy, I think many of those who chose it would either not believe it or not understand it if I did explain my reasoning to them; while the rest would think wonderful some of the very things which are most tragic.

Therefore the only explanation I'll give for now is so that it won't be assumed I'm saying the one thing of which I'll probably be most accused. If the choice had been for someone who is as suited to the Presidency as Clarence Thomas is to the Supreme Court, it would be a wonderful day for rejoicing. Also that the tragedy is not just the "anointing" of Barack Obama, but of increasing the numbers of those who share his ideology in the House and Senate as well.

The most appropriate thing I can think of to share from a secular source are the lyrics of the song "Silent Running (on Dangerous Ground)" by Mike and the Mechanics. For those of you who may not remember it, there is a link to the YouTube video after the lyrics.

Silent Running
Can you hear me, can you hear me running?
Can you hear me running, can you hear me calling you?
Take the children and yourself
And hide out in the cellar
By now the fighting will be close at hand
Don't believe the church of state
And everything they tell you
Believe in me, I'm with the high command

Can you hear me, can you hear me running?
Can you hear me running, can you hear me calling you?
There's a gun and ammunition
Just inside the doorway
Use it only in emergency
Better you should pray to God
The Father and the Spirit
Will guide you and protect from up here

Can you hear me, can you hear me running?
Can you hear me running, can you hear me calling you?
Swear allegiance to the flag
Whatever flag they offer
Never hint at what you really feel
Teach the children quietly
For some day sons and daughters
Will rise up and fight while we stood still

Can you hear me, can you hear me running?
Can you hear me running, can you hear me calling you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KL_fgWgK40

I have changed one word in copying the lyrics here; turning the phrase "Don't believe the church and state" into "Don't believe the church of state", to reflect my belief that the Biblical principles which were so important to America's founders are being replaced with a completely different set of principles which are taught religiously through the "temples" of the public schools and a perverse entertainment media.

While many of us are praying "God Bless America"; I fear that instead "Reverend" Wright has gotten his wish.

But since the Apostles' inspired writings promoted general obedience to government (except in those things where it would be a direct violation to God's word) and since some of those epistles were even written during the reign of Nero, I don't see how practicing Christians today could think God expects less of us.

Sheriff Robin Hood?

2008-10-01T13:49:00.002-04:00

The 700 Billion Dollar "Bail-out" bill under discussion, if nothing else, puts the lie to the liberal Democrat position that their Socialist agenda helps "the poor".

Democrats pretend that they just want to be like the fictional character Robin Hood, and take from "the Rich" and give to "the Poor". The first thing they ignore is that when Robin Hood stole from the rich, he was actually taking money back from the government, who had oppressively taxed them to begin with. "The Rich" was generally the Sheriff of Nottingham and his cronies.

Now we are in an apparent financial crisis caused by Democrats who pushed for giving mortgages to people who really couldn't afford them, and their cronies who ran Fannie May and Freddie Mac. And now that it's blown up in their faces, they fall back on their old play-book of demonizing "corporate greed" and "lack of regulation" when greed for socialist political power and too much BAD regulation is the real root cause.

But the most obvious revelation that those who worship at the Socialist alter should finally see is this. Socialism not only allows the government to take from the rich and give to the poor. in an ironic twist that would have the Sheriff of Nottingham laughing with power-mad glee; when it suits the government, socialism just as easily allows them to take from the poor and give to the rich!

Therefore, we absolutely must make sure anything done to recover from our current economic circumstances is based NOT in expansion of Socialist policies, but a removal of Socialism and a return to American Capitalism that WORKS!

Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less!!!

2008-06-19T12:40:00.003-04:00

Everyone I talk to seems to have a better understanding of the principle of "supply and demand". The only people who don't seem to are the politicians in the US House and Senate, especially on the left side of the aisle.

As urged by the petition on AmericanSolutions.com, which has over 1 million online signatures, we should DRILL HERE, and DRILL NOW, so we can PAY LESS for gasoline and other petroleum products.

The solution of Democrats in Congress? DRILL LESS, TAX MORE, and blame the oil companies for having to PAY MORE; even though tax on a gallon of gas is over twice as much as the oil company profits on that same gallon of gas!

In some cases taxes are three times as much as oil company profits. Since part of that tax goes to pay those same politicians, perhaps we should take from their salaries a "windfall tax rebate" until they see the light and start letting American companies DRILL HERE, DRILL NOW, so we can PAY LESS.

While Hope Still Lives

2008-02-29T10:26:00.003-05:00

Although it seems a foregone conclusion that John "Z-Visa" McCain will get the Republican nomination for President; Mike Huckabee still battles on. I had thoughts as to why that is, but had the reality of it crystallized when I was privileged to be on a blogger conference call with Governor Huckabee yesterday.

I had already formulated two reasons I thought it made sense for Mike to stay in the race. First, simply to keep his conservative concerns in front of the American people. From the right-to-life to energy independence to "The FairTax" to American sovereignty; no-one is a better advocate for re-energizing the conservative movement than Mike Huckabee.

The second reason I thought of was more pragmatic. As long as Mike stays in the race, he can still receive campaign contributions. If the current conventional wisdom that McCain has the 2008 nomination in the bag proves to be true, I expect Mike Huckabee to run again in 2012 to replace whichever of the Democrats is in the White house after beating McCain. (Although either Hillary the megalomaniac or Obama the even-more-ultra-liberal both scare the breath out of me; McCain is so uninspiring, I don't give him a chance against either of them) Mike can keep the funds he collects in this race as a head-start on the next, and I would expect him to.

Now, I think the two reasons I previously thought of are both good credible reasons; but listening to Mike Huckabee on the call yesterday, the real reason he's staying in the race struck me. He still has a chance to win the nomination. It may be, at this point, the slimmest of possibilities, but there is still a chance.

Mike simply believes so strongly in the principles on which he is running and is so dedicated to those principles that he is determined to fight while any hope of success remains, no matter how small. That's just one more example of what makes Mike Huckabee such a perfect model of doing the right thing because it's the right thing, and political expediency be hanged.

Mike's attitude about his campaign principles reminds me of Ronald Reagan's attitude about defeating the Soviet Union. Reagan was convinced the concept of Liberty endowed by our Creator would win over an inherently atheistic system of oppression, simply because it was right. It was only a question of when.

I believe in Mike Huckabee because I believe in both the principles he stands for and his commitment to them. I believe Mike Huckabee will be running for President in 2012, because he's exactly the kind of dedicated and inspiring man that we need running our country. So inspiring in fact, that I'm still holding onto the hope that in 2012 Mike Huckabee just may be running for re-election!

Huckabee is "Topps"

2008-02-20T16:12:00.005-05:00

I found this at "The Smoking Gun" under the title "Three Huckabees for an Obama?" and thought it was amusing.

I also find it interesting that the Topps baseball card company can get the record right on Mike Huckabee; while people like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and Laura Ingraham don't seem to be able to do so.

Maybe if we could just send copies of this card to conservative voters in states which haven't yet had their primaries, Mike Huckabee could get the Republican nomination.

Yes, they also show other candidates, both democrat and republican. Unfortunately, Duncan Hunter (who I'd like to see as Huckabee's running mate) is not included.

An Officer and a Gentleman

2008-02-19T23:01:00.005-05:00

Mike Huckabee has been attacked and belittled by beltway and wall-street pundits, almost since he began his "main-street" run for the office of President. Still Huckabee persists in staying in the race until one candidate actually has a majority of the delegates.

Something about Mike's persistence reminded me of a scene from "An Officer and a Gentleman" but with a twist.

In the movie, Richard Gere's character is trying to become an officer and Luis Gossett Jr's is trying to run him out of the military. Gossett finally asks Gere something on the order of "why don't you just quit?" To this, Gere responds along the lines of; "I've got no place else to go".

In the case of Mike Huckabee, I picture McCain and the pundits hammering him and asking him why he doesn't quit. In response, Mike Huckabee, battered and worn looks over at those of us who are die-hard conservatives and says; "If I quit, they've got nowhere else to go."

Now Mike Huckabee may never been an officer in the armed forces, but he is unquestionably a gentleman. Added to his obvious moral fiber, his perseverance and dedication to what he sees as his duty should be more than enough evidence to prove that given the chance to become commander in chief of the military forces of the United States of America; he would do his utmost to defend American and would never blink in the face of the enemy.

In short, Mike Huckabee has proved himself to be a Five-Star General in the conservative movement; and even should we lose the battle for the White House, "Huck's Army" will be glad to follow him long after this battle is over.

Read My Lips; "New World Order"

2008-02-14T23:12:00.001-05:00

Many contend it was "Read my lips; no new taxes" that cost George HW Bush critical support and handed the Oval Office over to Bill Clinton, the second president in American history to be impeached. I think it had as much, and possibly more, to do with his use of the phrase; "new world order".

Whatever was right with George Herbert Walker Bush, his fatal flaw of being a globalist became more apparent with time. Whatever was wrong with Ross Perot (and there was plenty), he seemed to be the lone voice of those who still believed in the sovereignty of the United States of America.

I believe it was the uneasy feeling of recognizing Bush 41 as a globalist that sent enough otherwise republican voters to Perot, and resulted in the election of Bill "Slick Willy" Clinton; unfortunately another globalist.

If we had any doubts about where George W Bush stands regarding American sovereignty, his support for open borders and supposed "free trade" agreements that give away the farm to other countries (rather than being fair for both sides) make it plain that Bush 43, like Clinton before him and Bush 41 before him, is a globalist.

Now we're told that the next president will be either Hilary Rodham Clinton (a globalist), Barack Hussein Obama (another globalist), or John "Z-visa" McCain (again a raging unquestionable globalist). What's amazing about McCain is that he seems to want a well-equipped military that smiles and waves as it watches our country both invaded and given away, as long as the people taking over our country aren't carrying guns. And what else is the agenda behind the Man-Made Global Warming movement that McCain supports but globalism? (that and another excuse for higher taxes)

I'm not saying we need a protectionist like Ross Perot, or an isolationist like Ron Paul; but I think at least part of what makes Ron Paul supporters so passionate is that they see the erosion of our national sovereignty that has resulted from the globalism under our last three presidents.

I am saying we need a strong defender of our national sovereignty, like Mike Huckabee. He understands the line between sovereignty and protectionism, and between free trade and globalism. He is clear about the difference between co-operating with other countries for security and the "internationalism" of turning over our security to the approval of foreign nations.

We keep hearing that "change" is the theme of this presidential election cycle. The Democrat message seems to be that "change" primarily means changing parties. I say that in one of the most important issues for our country, we've had the same old thing ever since Bush 41 replaced Ronald Reagan. From Bush 41, through Bill Clinton, to Bush 43, we've had a globalist in the White House. In that, yes we desperately need a change.

We stand at the proverbial crossroads and we have a clear choice. Will we rediscover the path of American Sovereignty to exceptional greatness? Or will we continue down the path toward globalism and repeat the "national malaise" of the Carter years?

The President of the United States should be more than someone who wants to keep us physically safe, or who puts a priority on what other countries think of us. Whether or not our next president is Mike Huckabee, we absolutely must make sure it is someone committed to the United States as a free and independent sovereign nation. To do otherwise would put our security and our freedoms at the whim of "the Global community" and make a mockery of our Constitution. Isn't protecting our nation from all threats both foreign and domestic, and upholding the Constitution of the United States what being President is really all about?

One final note: Going along with the Global-Warming crowd really is a huge threat to our sovereignty. One of the "dirty little secrets" behind the issue of securing our borders (both south and north) is the large percentage of oil we get from Mexico and Canada. If we are ever to really reclaim our national sovereignty, we absolutely must become energy independent and as quickly as possible. That means not only "alternative energy" in the future, but an immediate increase in domestic oil production, and I mean now! Readers probably won't have to think very hard to figure out which of the Presidential candidate is pushing a comprehensive plan for energy independence, rather than a "comprehensive immigration reform" Z-visa amnesty. Right again... Mike Huckabee!

The Gingrich Option

2008-02-14T13:56:00.000-05:00

Speaking realistically rather than statistically, John McCain has much less a chance of being elected President than does Mike Huckabee.

If McCain does secure the nomination, almost all those liberals and moderates whose votes got him the delegate count will vote Democrat in the general election. (If you don't think it's liberals boosting McCain, just ask Cynthia McKinney how we conservatives finally got rid of her by voting in the Democrat congressional primary in Georgia)

I don’t think committed conservatives intentionally not voting will be the factor in losing to the Democrats. But it’s the lack of inspiring voters who are conservative but not always politically engaged. Huckabee, as “the great motivator” that he is, or ~~Mitt Romney~~* or even Fred Thompson (if we could keep him warmed up) would stand a MUCH better chance of motivating the Republican base to get out and vote.

The Democrat base will be revved up no matter what this time, because of the identity politics of “minority” status with both their candidates. Please don't misunderstand and think Republicans would be against Hillary and Obama because of a "minority identity". I don't think it's an issue either way for most Republicans; but "minority status" is an even stronger motivator for liberals than the "it's his turn" effect among beltway Republicans is having for McCain.

The ticket I see as the best chance to really rev up Republican voters is Mike Huckabee and Newt Gingrich, in any order. Both are very powerful speakers, are very likable (except to committed liberals who will always vote left anyway), and both are issue driven visionaries.

My choice is, of course, a Huckabee/Gingrich ticket. (OK, I'd really like to see Huckabee/Hunter, but I think Huckabee/Gingrich would have a better chance at victory) On the other hand, I don't see the harm in supposing in could be the other way around when we're publicly promoting the idea of getting behind Mike Huckabee as a way to keep conservatism in the forefront; to people who are not primarily Huckabee supporters.

I also think mentioning "the Gingrich option" is a way to help diffuse the tension of The Conservative I originally supported VS The Conservative You originally supported. At this point, I think we need to focus on inviting others to rally behind the conservative banner. We need to focus on ideas and principles, not personalities as is so common among liberals.

Huckabee supporters can be glad Mike is the one still carrying the conservative banner. But as we "rally the troops" among the ranks of other conservatives; we may need to focus on the fact that the banner is still flying more than drawing attention to the fact that "their candidate" is not the one currently carrying it.

*[I heard about Romney endorsing McCain hours after writing this. Let's hope Mitt's delegates are still more concerned with conservatism than he apparently is.]

Water Under the Bridge

2008-02-08T02:12:00.000-05:00

I suspect I'm not the only one who was furious about Mitt Romney's attack adds. I think his attacks against Huckabee were, if not for the most part fraudulent, at least extreme spin.

But at this point, considering Romney has suspended his campaign, I think it best that we consider his previous attacks "water under the bridge." Let's give Romney the benefit of the doubt, and assume that he made those attacks because he sincerely thought he was the best person to serve as president; Just as Mike Huckabee sincerely believes he is the best person to serve. Let's choose to believe Mitt was just fighting for that chance to serve the best way he knew, rather than out of any animus for Mike Huckabee.

Looking at the declared platforms of Romney and Huckabee, they have a lot in common. Solid national security (including border security), lower taxes, smaller government, energy independence for America, preserving family values, etc. That's why I would have much rather seen the final race come down to Romney vs Huckabee, rather than either against McCain; but that too is water under the bridge.

With all the similarity, and the fact that Romney's campaign and pundits were speculating that Romney and Huckabee were "splitting the conservative vote", it seems clear what Romney's likely tactic was. Try to convince voters Huckabee was a "tax and spend liberal", and thus siphon off conservatives to himself; while splitting some liberals/"moderates" from McCain to Huckabee.

Again, although I can't say I approve of such methods, I'm trying to give Romney the benefit of the doubt on the matter of his motives. If his motives had been of a hostile nature, he'd probably still be in the race.

I think one of the things that motivated him to withdraw, was reading the results of many exit polls. These polls indicated two extremely relevant points. First, that although McCain's support came more from liberals/moderates and Romney's and from conservatives; Huckabee's support came not from moderates to any noticeable degree, but from conservatives; and that those identifying themselves as extremely conservative mainly supported Mike Huckabee.

The second relevant point from the exit polls was that Huckabee voters were likely to have McCain as second choice (rather than Romney) and vice versa. Since the base support of McCain and Huckabee were at opposite ends of the spectrum; it should be obvious that it was not similarity of positions that made the second choice, but a dislike for the Romney attacks. Again, now water under the bridge.

I even suspect there were some conservatives who voted for McCain, but really liked Huckabee; and did so because, as an unintended result of the interaction of multiple instances of pundit spin, they had been convinced that "a vote for Huckabee a vote for [Romney]".

That brings us now to a point where we have a race between a barely Republican front runner John McCain and tenacious underdog Mike Huckabee as the defender of a platform mostly shared by everyone from Mitt Romney to Fred Thompson to Duncan Hunter and others with at least a serious claim to conservatism.

Now pundits say a McCain nomination is inevitable. I want to know; is this is more or less inevitable than the Hillary Clinton nomination was before Obama started getting all those delegates?

Yes, I saw Karl Rove lay it out mathematically on the FoxNews channel. He said Huckabee would need about 83% of the remaining delegates in play, to win a majority before the convention. It does seem that would take a major miracle. But Mike Huckabee has been counted out so many times and been the brunt of so many attacks from pundits supporting other candidates that the fact he's still standing is in itself a miracle.

Rove then pointed out that McCain only needed 40% of the remaining delegates for majority. But the obvious converse of that is that Huckabee (with a small % assist from enthusiastic gadfly Ron Paul) only needs 60% to stop McCain from getting a majority and force a "brokered convention." Considering which states are left in the rest of the primary season, if conservative would simply be willing to consider past campaigning "water under the bridge" and honestly examine Huckabee's real achievements and positions unfiltered by past preferences; then achieving that 60% chance of stopping McCain's liberal express becomes a fairly minor miracle after all.

Now while I really want to see Huckabee get that 83% and be the presidential nominee; and while I'm positive Mike is fighting for that nomination rather than VP; I'd settle for getting to a brokered convention where Huckabee could end up in either the top or second slot, but where we could get both filled by at least a 90% conservative. When it comes to the highest office in the land, I'm sorry Senator McCain, but a supposed 83% rating from one group just isn't enough.

To sum up a probably much too long article: There may have been a lot of water under the bridge; but I'm convinced there's still enough water upstream to sail a conservative ship of state; especially if we have a skipper like Mike Huckabee, and potential shipmates like Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, Duncan Hunter, and their compatriots and supporters.

Related Posts:
"Duncan Hunter Endorses Mike Huckabee" - 2008.01.23
"Limbaugh's Logic Proves Huckabee Lowered Tax Rates" - 2008.01.15
"Will McCain-Feingold be the Elephant in the GOP Room?" - 2008.01.04
"Huckabee Shows Fiscal Conservatism" - 2007.12.14
"Kudos to Romney on Faith Speech!" - 2007.12.07
"A Candidate with Moral Clarity" - 2007.11.20
"No Law Respecting an Establishment of Religion" - 2007.11.17
"Where Mike Huckabee is Wrong... (but it's 'alright') " - 2007.11.05

Mitt Romney vs Sun Tzu

2008-02-05T23:49:00.000-05:00

Some in the Romney camp seem to be crying either "foul" or "see, I told you so"; after McCain supporters in West Virginia switched their support to Mike Huckabee. What they should be doing is going back to re-read "The Art of War", by Sun Tzu ;probably the greatest military and political tactician of ancient China.

Apparently, the first vote tally in the Feb 5 WV Republican convention showed Romney was ahead, but the final tally showed Huckabee 52%, Romney 47% and McCain nowhere to be found. A number of pundits have also questioned why Huckabee often has stinging words for Romney; but remains civil, and simply points out his own superior experience and positions, when asked about McCain.

While those pundits and Romneyites may think both these indicate some sort of "back-room deal", what they need to remember is the full principle of alliances recorded by Sun Tzu in 6th century China.

"The enemy of my friend is my enemy. The enemy of my enemy is my friend" - Sun Tzu

This of course begs the question of which part of this principle is more likely to apply in this situation.

I think it obvious that the nature of the political contest rules out the first part. The struggle for nomination makes all those involved in the race opposing combatants. While this doesn't of necessity indicate personal hostility between candidates; for the purpose of applying the principles found in "The Art of War", they are all "enemies."

I think it's clear that by Romney's early use of attack ads, against both John McCain and Mike Huckabee, he made himself more of an enemy to both than either was to each other. Thus the relevant principle becomes; "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Now that doesn't by any means indicate that Huckabee or McCain have veered from their individual goals of becoming President themselves. It's ridiculous to suppose that Mike Huckabee is putting all this effort into becoming the VP on a McCain ticket.

It's doubly foolish when one realizes (as nearly all real conservatives do) that a McCain nomination would be doomed in the general election; where McCain's "independents" and "moderates" would mostly desert the mostly liberal McCain for the always liberal Clinton or Obama. Why would Huckabee conspire to be at the bottom of a doomed ticket? Clearly he wouldn't.

Romney supporters and pundits alike simply need to realize that Huckabee and McCain are simply holding some of their fire for now, though you can be sure they have ammunition stored against each other for the final contest. They should also not fool themselves into thinking Romney's higher "enemy" status is a result of being a better candidate. Rather the venomous snake at one's ankle is a greater enemy than the archer across the field. Hopefully when Huckabee and McCain do train their volley more directly at each other, they will be more civil and less venomous than Romney's attacks.

I also have to wonder whether Romney understands that the deceitfulness of his attacks against Huckabee have undermined even his truthful accusations against John McCain. You can be sure that when McCain decides to start actively attacking Huckabee, we will also remember the Arizona Senator's lack of integrity concerning a Romney "time-table" for pulling out of Iraq.

I tend to think Huckabee has studied Sun Tzu, although I also think venomous personal attacks are simply not his way. It's gratifying to see that although Huckabee will readily point out position differences between himself and other candidates, he hasn't sunk to the level of personal attacks and deception. His steadfast honesty and integrity should help to at least somewhat shield him against the deceitful attacks of others.

Perhaps Mitt Romney could have at least listened to the advise of W.C. Fields, before he became the source of so many untruth's about Mike Huckabee. To quote Fields from the 1939 movie where one of his most famous quotes was also the film's title; "You can't cheat an honest man."

A Liberal, a Liar, or a Leader?

2008-02-01T10:16:00.000-05:00

I've heard a number of media pundits suggest the Mike Huckabee is just splitting the Conservative vote, and should get out of the race so Mitt Romney has a better chance of beating John McCain. Nothing could be further from the truth, except perhaps Romney himself.

Mitt Romney and his campaign, are of course responsible for a massive onslaught of attack adds against Mike Huckabee that were a chain of misrepresentations and outright lies about Huckabee's record and positions. What rational person would move from the camp of an honest and courageous leader like Mike Huckabee to the camp of a liar and flip-flopper like Mitt Romney?

Yes, anyone paying attention knowns John McCain is at least to the left of Joe Lieberman, and has sometimes been to the left of (or at least in line with) Hillary Clinton. His Campaign Finance reform law (that is a violation of the First Amendment), his McCain-Kennedy Amnesty bill, and his new McCain-Lieberman "cap and trade" economic suppression bills are all unforgivable legislative sins. But no matter how liberal (and at least recently dishonest) John McCain is, that doesn't negate Mitt Romney's dishonesty or change Romney's (at least partially) liberal history on social issues.

If anything, Mitt Romney should drop out of the race in favor of the more conservative Mike Huckabee; but of course that's not going to happen. So why do these taking heads think Huckabee should, or would, for a moment entertain the idea that he should (or could) deliver voters up to a liar like Mitt Romney. Surely they know Romney's attacks on Huckabee's record are lies, because the majority of them are finally recognizing Huckabee as a real conservative.

Am I really suggesting that Romney should bow out? No, though I actually think McCain should, as should Ron Paul. Neither of them is by any means a reasonable representation of the core of the Republican party.

So what we're currently faced with is a choice between a liberal, a liar and a leader (and if you include Ron Paul, a near lunatic). Maybe the self-serving Fi-Cons (Fiscal-only Conservatives) would like our choices reduced to the lesser of two great evils. But how does one decide whether a liberal (who now lies) or a liar (who is somewhat liberal) is the lesser evil?

Fortunately, Mike Huckabee too much of an honest conservative leader to leave us to such a fate. As Governor of Arkansas for over 10 years, Huckabee has the most government leadership experience of any candidate; and he continues to lead by his continued principled positions, his powerful motivating oration, and his refusal to cave-in or "fight in the gutter" in this campaign.

So being a Georgia voter; on February 5th, I'll by-pass the liberal and the liar. I'm choosing the leader; Mike Huckabee!

Related Posts:
"Why Rush is Responsible for the McCain Surge" - 2008.01.30
"Duncan Hunter Endorses Mike Huckabee" - 2008.01.23

Why Rush is Responsible for the McCain Surge

2008-01-30T11:35:00.000-05:00

Truth be told, I'm getting a little tired of mentioning Rush Limbaugh; but I think he's had a bigger impact on the Republican campaign than some of the Presidential candidates.

Rush has been discussing commentary to the effect that McCain "beat Limbaugh" in South Carolina, and supposes that a McCain win in Florida would result in more pundits claiming McCain "beat" him there. I think rather it is a result of Rush "beating-up on" Mike Huckabee.

Rush is framing these discussions of his influence in the race in the context of other pundits acting as if Rush himself is a candidate. Rush reminds people that he is "not on the ballot", but I (like some actually well known journalists and pundits) contend that he definitely is in the campaign. Rush has been acting as surrogate for Fiscal-First Conservatives Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson. (Let's try shortening that to Fi-Cons)

It may be debatable whether Rush has been promoting a single individual. I think an overall analysis of his commentary quite clearly shows his preferences were:

Fred Thompson
Mitt Romney
Rudy Giuliani

Whether or not he can be seen to have promoted a single individual among them; it's undeniable that Limbaugh has been actively practicing negative-campaigning against candidates threatening to unseat his favorite(s). His primary target, at least prior to the outcome of the South Carolina primary, was Mike Huckabee.

Rush Limbaugh's primary method of attacking Huckabee has been to repeat spin, misdirection and outright lies that originated mainly from the Mitt Romney campaign and the open-borders, anti US-sovereignty group "Club for Growth." I contend that Rush's all-out assault on Huckabee caused legions of less than committed likely Huckabee voters to look for another candidate. These southern, mostly middle-class, voters were not about to get on board with obvious "blue-blood country club republican" Mitt Romney or Mr New York,Rudy Giuliani.

Rush's barbs (along with the fact that Fred finally "woke up" in the SC debate) did move some to Fred Thompson, which primarily helped McCain only by hurting Huckabee. Analysis of the "conservative" vote in SC showed Huckabee got much more of it than McCain, and adding any significant part of Thompson's vote to Huckabee would have put him in first place. But having a conservative focused on social and moral issues is the last thing Rush wanted. His statement's on possibly sitting out the election if a candidate not to his liking is nominated shows his dedication to the Fi-Con agenda.

Although Rush did spend some time pointing out McCain's lack of conservatism, he spent much less time hitting McCain than bashing Huckabee. he may have thought it so obvious that McCain was out in left-field that he didn't waste the time on him that he did repeating the anti-Huckabee Romney-isms. So along with legions of "independents"(too impatient to wait for the Democrat primary the following week), Rush had provided the final part of the perfect storm for a McCain surge.

While Limbaugh has usually been "friendly" to causes important to social/moral conservatives, it's become clear in recent months that Rush doesn't really see Reagan Conservatism as a "three-legged stool". He seems to treat the triumvirate of conservative causes more like a motorcycle with a side-car. Using that analogy, "Fiscal" and "Defense" would be the wheels of the motorcycle, while "Social" would be the wheel of the side-car; useful in providing balance and additional carrying capacity, but never seen as providing either driving force or guidance.

While I completely understand and agree with Rush's stated reasons for not wanting a McCain presidency, I question not only his conclusions but his motive when it comes to Mike Huckabee. If Rush were to spend any serious amount of time researching Huckabee's positions and history, he would quickly find the Romney/Club for Growth spin to be the pack of lies that they are.

I just don't think Rush can conceive of the possibility that one who believes Social/Moral Conservatism is more than the wheel of a side-car as a serious contender. He apparently believes that, beneath it all, the "blue blood country club" republicans are either still really in control of the Republican party, or they should be.

Now that Rudy Giuliani has apparently decided to drop out, a number of pundits are saying the Republican nomination is down to a two-man race. I suspect that, on the whole, they are following Rush's lead in now discounting Huckabee.

Unlike Rush, some of them have at least begun to recognize Mike Huckabee as a real conservative, supposing that Huckabee staying in the race is good for McCain. Their rationale is that McCain will have the "moderate" (meaning liberal) vote, while Romney and Huckabee will split the conservative vote.

Some are even making veiled suggestions that Huckabee should drop out to level the playing field and help prevent a RINO (Republican In Name Only, i.e. McCain) from getting the nomination. If anyone should think about heeding the suggestion to drop-out to help beat McCain it's Romney; who if truth be told doesn't have nearly as consistently conservative a record as does Mike Huckabee.

Rush, and many of the other pundits, keep expressing fears that Mike Huckabee would make too easy a target for the liberals as the "Christian" candidate; supposing wackos on the far-left could raise fears among Americans in general that Huckabee would bring some type of theocratic rule. Anyone listening to Huckabee can clearly tell this is nonsense. He upholds the true position of Christianity in this area, which is precisely how America's Founding Fathers saw it. He will neither back down from his Faith, nor impose it on anyone else by means of force in any form or fashion. And i have more faith in American voters than to think they would fall for this kind of humanistic fear-mongering.

What Rush and his ilk fail to understand is that we are more in danger of falling prey to the class-warfare of the left. Romney would be much easier prey for liberals, as an obvious target of their hatred for the multi-millionaire elite, than Huckabee could ever be painted as some sort of religious fanatic. Not only that, but Romney has a vast array of problems with the rank-and-file among Republican voters.

To the elderly, when Romney bangs the drum on "ending entitlements" (without providing specifics), they wonder whether he means to cut off or cut-back the social security which they have been promised, and into which they paid all their working lives.
To Social Conservatives, Romney has paper-thin credentials on the issues of Abortion and Government sanctions of homosexual practices. (not to mention gun-control etc) Is it possible to be on three sides of an issue?
To Middle-Income voters, Romney simply (to paraphrase Mike Huckabee) reminds them more of the guy who laid them off than the guy they work with.

Generally speaking Romney strikes many (and not unjustifiably) as being concerned only about "big business" and not much else. They simply will not support a "blue blood country club" candidate. They don't want "big business" to have such power that they are at it's whim, neither do they want "big government" to control their lives and tax them out of any hope of prosperity.

So when Rush and his legions continually pound voters with the twin lies of "Huckabee is a tax and spend liberal" and "Huckabee doesn't have a chance" in hopes that they head for Romney; voters (who fall for their spin) instead go past the obvious "country-clubber" Romney, for McCain. What too many voters don't seem to realize is that McCain, though not as obviously as Romney, is also a part of the "blue blood country club elite". Not to mention that he seems to have never met a tax cut he actually liked; at least when time to vote for it.

Hopefully voters will be able to see past the Rush/Romney spin, and through the McCain obfuscation to the real history of Mike Huckabee, and the experience and hope his candidacy brings. The real truth about Huckabee is that both his history and his current positions show a man who stands for:

Pro-Life advocacy and real progress for recognizing the sanctity of every life as demonstrated by real reform in Arkansas
Pro-Family Values and real progress demonstrated by Marriage amendments in Arkansas
Tax restraint and economic growth, as demonstrated by lowering overall tax-rates in Arkansas; to the extent that the per-capita income in that state rose so much that it resulted in an increase in revenues, allowing further tax cuts at the end of Huckabee's final term as Governor
Smaller Government, as demonstrated by the Arkansas budget having been cut by 11% under Huckabee
Enforcing Border Security and a real No-Amnesty policy, as seen in Huckabee's "Secure America Plan" a 9-point plan for immigration enforcement and Border Security.
Rational Health-care, controlled by the consumer through common sense and market forces (Huckabee proposed); rather than rationed health-care, controlled by either the government (Democrat proposed) or an employer-mandated insurance company (the common current system).
Energy Independence, beginning with more domestic drilling/refining, and then providing incentives for developing new energy sources. Huckabee proposes we can reach this goal of energy independence within ten years.

For more details, go to www.mikehuckabee.com; and then search for yourselves for background on these issues. Don't rely just on the opinions of Rush Limbaugh and other big voices; or on the opinions of small voices like mine. Find out for yourself, but make sure of the source.

As for Rush and his legions, they may not realize it; but I still contend that by dishonestly attacking Mike Huckabee, it is they who are responsible for the rising popularity of John "the RINO" McCain.

Duncan Hunter Endorses Mike Huckabee

2008-01-23T16:45:00.000-05:00

...What will Ann Coulter say now?

Those who have really done their homework know that Duncan Hunter was probably the most conservative candidate in the 2008 Presidential race. So conservative that even the Siren of the farthest right, Ann Coulter, made no secret of her support for Hunter or of her relative disdain for all the other candidates.

In the case of Mike Huckabee, I'm not sure if Coulter's venom against the former Arkansas Governor was mainly just for not being named "Duncan Hunter" or for promoting 98.5% of the same things as her candidate while approximately nine-hundred eighty-five percent more effectively. [OK, I'm finished with my weak impersonation of Ann Coulter's caustic writing style. No disrespect actually intended to Duncan Hunter]

Even I, a steadfast Huckabee supporter, will admit that Hunter rates a few percentage points higher than Huckabee on the conservative scale (though only a few). Even so, Huckabee is much more conservative than his less conservative opponents (that's everyone else still in the race) would have you believe.

Quite plainly, I initially chose Huckabee over Hunter mainly because a President needs to not only have the right positions, but the ability to motivate people and get the job done. As much as I respect Duncan Hunter, I just don't see him as having nearly the ability to turn things around that Huckabee does. Add to that the facts that Huckabee has years of executive experience as a governor, and that the positions of the two men were nearly identical... my choice was clear.

Now that Duncan Hunter has endorsed Mike Huckabee, I hope Coulter and others like her will take a more in-depth look at Huckabee, and see what her favorite former candidate sees in the new man from Hope. As part of Hunter's statement endorsing Huckabee, he said:

"Of the remaining candidates I feel that he is strongly committed to strengthening national defense, constructing the border fence and meeting the challenge of China's emergence as a military superpower that is taking large portions of America‚s industrial base."

Hunter went on to say:

"Along with these issues of national security, border enforcement and protecting the U.S. industrial base, I see another quality of Mike Huckabee's candidacy that compels my endorsement. Mike Huckabee is a man of outstanding character and integrity."

Yes, most of us would like to have another Ronald Reagan. But one of the key things I think was so important about Reagan, was not just that he himself was conservative; but that he was able to convince the country as a whole to move in a more conservative direction.

Some of us "right-wing extremists" have seen a couple of (relatively minor) things from Huckabee's past as compromising a bit too much with the Arkansas Democrat legislature. But it seems plain that he has the best chance of actually moving America back to the right.

With Duncan Hunter now endorsing Mike Huckabee, I think it's clear that he also believes Huckabee has the best chance of moving America back to the right. I for one, trust Hunter much more than Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh or some of the other "right-wing" media personalities when it comes to evaluating just who is and who isn't a "real conservative", and the best man to be President of the United States.

Rush Limbaugh Eerily Silent About Roe v Wade

2008-01-22T19:09:00.000-05:00

Rush Limbaugh has historically been pretty good about pointing out the degree to which abortion is a fundamental pillar of liberalism. But today, on the 35th anniversary of the Roe v Wade Supreme Court decision, he seemed to be eerily silent on the subject.

Is it possible that I just missed it? Please tell me Rush couldn't possibly have spent his entire show talking about Fiscal issues and political gamesmanship, on the 35th anniversary of a decision condoning the killing of thousands of babies every year.

Is it possible that Rush has intentionally avoided the issue, because he knows the only candidate in the presidential race who has been a steadfast champion for the unborn his whole career is one Rush has been doing his absolute best to work against? Despite the rhetoric of some of the other campaigns, one can't honestly deny that Mike Huckabee is the only candidate left standing who can lay claim to that title.

The only other reason I can see for Rush ignoring this date is that he really doesn't care about the abortion issue, and he only sees it as relevant when using it as a tool to attack liberals. Even from that perspective, it helps explain his vehement (and frequently false) attacks on Mike Huckabee. After all, Huckabee has the audacity to put issues like the Right-to-Life and the sanctity of marriage out in front, instead of giving them lip-service, like many Republican politicians.

On this 35th anniversary of one of the darkest days of American history, Mike Huckabee makes a statement that includes:

"Today is the 35th anniversary of a great American tragedy, the Roe vs. Wade court decision that has led to the loss of millions of innocent lives. These children were denied the right to life our Constitution grants to everyone in America, only because they had yet to emerge from their mother’s womb. As President Bush noted today, America is better than this.
I support and have always supported passage of a constitutional amendment to protect the right to life. As president, I will fight for passage of this amendment."

Protection of the unborn and efforts such as passage of a right-to-life amendment to the Constitution have, of course, been recognized as part of conservatism and of the Republican platform since the days of Ronald Reagan.

Meanwhile, Rush Limbaugh; supposed bulwark of conservatism and "Doctor of Democracy" says:

...nothing...

If Limbaugh did specifically mention "Roe v Wade" even in passing, then I apologize for mis-characterizing his woeful lack of emphasis on the subject, as completely ignoring it.

The only thing I heard, that even qualifies as a near-reference, was when he listed "abortion" as one of the debate topics typically brought up to Republicans, but which are not asked of Democrats. I don't even consider that a discussion of the issue of abortion, but rather of political gamesmanship.

Although Rush typically has a daily audience of millions, I sincerely hope that today, people will listen instead to Mike Huckabee; and stop the slaughter of the innocents.

Here's a link to a really good Pro-Life article called "We Won't Go Away."

A Loan Against a Tax Increase is NO Stimulus!

2008-01-18T08:19:00.000-05:00

Yes, I've heard the news of a proposed "economic stimulus" package, that is supposed to include a $800 - $1600 check from the government. But whenever there is a check "from the government", we have to realize we tax-payers are just writing a check to ourselves, and having to pay for accountants in the process.

Keep in mind that the "Bush tax cuts" are set to expire in 2010, and since congress has refused to make the Bush tax cuts permanent; that means we have a scheduled tax increase coming in two years. What it comes down to is congress is willing to send us a check now, only to take it back with interest when our taxes go up in two years!

Expectation of higher taxes is one of the key components that is likely suppressing hiring. If we want a real functional "stimulus" it should begin with making the 2001 tax cuts permanent. I don't care if they are generally referred to as "the Bush tax cuts", and I don't care if the Democrats want to use taking credit for making them permanent as a political tool. It needs to happen, and it needs to happen now!

Another key component of our current economic slow-down is higher fuel prices. (No it's not a recession, at least not nearly yet.) Oil and gas prices have gone up almost 50% in less than two years, and there is no arguing that it's a result of supply and demand; not some supposed conspiracy between "Big Oil" and Halliburton.

There is a lot of untapped oil in America, and the primary thing that's keeping it untapped is our own government getting in the way. Why we continue to bar American oil companies from drilling in ANWR and within 100 miles of the U.S. coastline is beyond all logic; especially when we have other countries drilling within about 60 miles of our coast. If it's really a concern for "the environment", can't we do it at least as cleanly and safely as other countries, if not better? (read "Seeing Green" on my newly started "Drill Domestic Now" blog)

I agree that we have to keep in mind the importance of conservation, and that we need to be good stewards of natural resources. But the extreme restrictions and over-regulation on domestic oil production in this country is a result of such environmental extremism and minimizing the value of human progress that one can see it as the rise of a sort of anti-human neo-paganism.

We need a whole solution for any economic woes that we have, not a short term "stimulus." If anyone cares to look back to the economic disaster of the early 1970's, it was clearly brought on by over-regulation, high taxes, and trouble with the oil supply/prices. To a great extent, the oil and economic problems of the Carter era were rooted in an issue we still haven't resolved; too much dependence on foreign oil, and in particular from the middle-east.

We need more domestic oil production, a bit less regulation (as in CAFE standards) and lower tax rates (not a quick loan against future tax increases). Long term we absolutely need to change from taxing production (income tax) to a consumption tax; such as the "FairTax", being supported by Mike Huckabee.

And speaking of Mike Huckabee (as I often do), he has his own economic growth plan. Although he does use the currently popular "stimulus" buzzword as part of the description of his "A Fair Deal for All Americans" plan (-link-), it really is more of a long-term growth plan that includes some short-term measures.

We do need a real growth plan, not just a temporary "quick fix;" and I can't say too often or too emphatically, that what amounts to a tax loan against the coming tax increase is no stimulus at all!

Michelle Malkin Recognizes Conservatism in Huckabee...

2008-01-17T07:48:00.000-05:00

...but wants to see more.

Michelle Malkin, well known conservative commentator, recently wrote an article titled "Wanted: a 'Suck It Up" Candidate." In her commentary against Nanny State-ism, she both credits Mike Huckabee with a great conservative statement, and faults him for later softening on the same issue. She writes;

Last month, Mike Huckabee told an NPR reporter unequivocally that it "is not the purpose of government to prop people up from every poor decision they make." Amen, Rev. Huckabee. But at the New Hampshire debate, he sheepishly avoided tough pronouncements and instead voiced support for President Bush's Hillarycare-Lite housing bailout approach since it "didn't involve tax dollars." Yet.

There is much more to the article, and it's well worth reading. She goes on to fault every other Republican presidential contender for liberal statements*. I find it particularly noteworthy that she reveals "Fred Thompson, supposedly the conservative's conservative" as only a pretender to the Reagan mantle; pointing to his acceptance of the liberal call for a "fiscal stimulus" package.

OK, so Malkin also faults Huckabee for supporting Bush's "bailout approach." His personal view is still the only candidate statement she finds conservative enough for a hearty "Amen"; at least in her commentary.

As for me, I'm not sure how I feel about Bush's solution for the mortgage situation. I heard Huckabee's statement of "support" myself; and I think Huckabee was trying to make the point that tax dollars shouldn't be spent on a Nanny State solution to personal/corporate bad debt.

As for a "stimulus"; the best economic stimulus I can think of is the combination of lowering marginal rates for everyone (yes even the "rich"), and immediately boosting domestic oil production. If you think you've heard that somewhere before, then you must have been listening to Mike Huckabee.

I'm not ignoring the fact that Malkin finds not even Mike Huckabee conservative enough for her taste. But I was glad to see such a strong conservative as Michelle Malkin willing to give Huckabee credit where it's due.

*[Yeah, she doesn't mention Duncan Hunter or Ron Paul. But Hunter, though conservative, really isn't in the running. Ron Paul on the other hand, not only isn't in the running, but in my opinion should either be running as a libertarian or from the men in "those nice white coats".]

Limbaugh's Logic Proves Huckabee Lowered Tax Rates

2008-01-15T19:53:00.000-05:00

The "Talking-Heads" of both talk radio and cable news are at it again. Spurred on by a Mitt Romney talking-point; they are accusing Mike Huckabee of "a net [tax] increase of half a billion dollars," during his time as Governor of Arkansas. This includes some of the most vocal political analysts and commentators from Rush Limbaugh on down.

They base this conclusion on the fact that, even though Huckabee presided over more tax-reductions than tax-increases, there was an increase in taxes collected. Let's remember one of those economic principles that Reagan's opponents called "voodoo-economics", but which have proved to be true. An overall decrease in tax rates boosts general prosperity, which in turn results in an increase in tax revenues.

Yes, when the government takes a thinner slice of the pie, the pie gets bigger; and as a result, even the government ends up with a bigger piece of pie.

I searched Rush Limbaugh's website , and found this specific instance of how the self-proclaimed "Doctor of Democracy" explains the relationship between tax rates and tax revenues.

"You know, they keep calling the Bush tax cuts, 'tax cuts.' They weren't. They were tax increases! The amount of money that roared into the treasury increased after the tax cuts. We had tax rate reductions, but tax revenue increased. You could actually more accurately say that the Bush tax cuts were tax increases. They were just happened by virtue of rate reductions." - Rush Limbaugh: 2007.12.19 "Stack of Stuff Quick Hits page", article #12 (emphasis mine)

Rush is fond of "illustrating absurdity by being absurd," and it's pretty obvious that he's doing just that in the quote above. Who would be so absurd as to actually call the "Bush tax cuts"; "tax increases".

Likewise, those who confuse (or ignore the difference between) tax revenues and tax rates to tar Mike Huckabee as presiding over "a net increase" in taxes can only be called one of three things; Absurd, Mistaken, or outright lying! Even Rush Limbaugh should admit that either he now thinks Reagan's tax principles are "voodoo-economics"; or that Mike Huckabee really did lower overall tax rates as Governor of Arkansas.

Related posts:
"Can a Populist be Conservative?"-2008.01.04
"Huckabee Shows Fiscal Conservatism"-2007.12.14

Huckabee is NOT Against School Choice...

2008-01-08T00:35:00.000-05:00

...No matter what Rush Limbaugh says.

Yes, Rush continues to beat the drum that Mike Huckabee "just isn't conservative". His latest tactic is to sarcastically say he's finally been convinced that Huckabee is conservative; but then post a litany of statements intended to damage Huckabee, under the banner of "Huckabee & the New Conservatism."

One or two may initially seem to have some grounds. For instance Huckabee's poor choice of words in saying the Bush's administration had an "arrogant bunker mentality"; rather than just saying that there should have been more "boots on the ground" all along. One who reads the whole article from which that quote was taken, will find that's unquestionably the point Huckabee was trying to make.

However, the majority of Rush's anti-Huckabee list is a combination of mischaracterizations, misinterpretations, and outright untruths! Not least of these is the false assertion that Huckabee is against school choice.

I knew I had heard or seen a statement from Governor Huckabee saying he was for school choice so I started checking; but Rush repeatedly claimed he was opposed to school-vouchers and therefore school choice.

Neither willing to believe that Huckabee nor Rush was telling an outright lie, I first thought perhaps he opposed only Federal vouchers because I also know I've heard Huckabee say public schools really should be a state and not a federal matter. When I went checking to make sure, I found it a bit more complicated but really more thoughtful and absolutely right.

I do mean Huckabee is "Right" in both senses; correct and conservative! I found a long interview with him on that very subject at Crosswalk.com, and I strongly encourage reading the interview. (-link-)

The vouchers in question were actually state-vouchers. But Huckabee was wise enough to realize that the government seldom writes a check for anything*, without strings attached. That includes state governments.

Huckabee's argument seems to be based in the astute perception that if the government starts sending money to private schools, they are virtually being engulfed under the umbrella of the same regulation that makes so many public schools unproductive. Voucher programs run the risk of basically turning a private school into a public school!

Mike Huckabee does, however, propose a mechanism for the financial end of school choice:

"Well, I think that we ought to have tax credits for a family whose decision is to put their children in an alternative environment. And that is something that I would support. It's an empowering method to families."

It might be seem like a trivial distinction, or in some instances seem more cumbersome than a voucher; but seems to be enough of a distinction to keep the government from taking control of private schools. In any case, it's clear that Limbaugh doesn't have all the facts. Mike Huckabee is NOT against school-choice!

*[except maybe foreign-aid]

Mike Huckabee Using a "Mary Poppins" Strategy

2008-01-06T10:54:00.000-05:00

Having spent some time examining the speeches, positions and history of Mike Huckabee; it recently struck me that his combination of Populist concerns (more often raised by Liberals) and Conservative solutions to those concerns seems to utilize the same strategy described in the song "A Spoonful of Sugar."

This song was sung by Julie Andrews as the title character in the classic Walt Disney film "Mary Poppins." In the film, Poppins magically poured medicine from the same bottle in three different sweet flavors. In real life, the lyricist is reported to have been inspired by his son receiving a polio vaccination by swallowing a sugar cube to which the vaccine had been applied.

In the same way the use of sugar was a useful method of getting children to swallow polio vaccine, I think Mike Huckabee is being very shrewd when he talks about what he calls "Vertical Politics." One such recent quote comes from his appearance on Jay Leno's Tonight Show:
"Everything in this country is not left, right, liberal, conservative, Democrat, Republican. I think the country is looking for somebody who's vertical, who's thinking, let's take America up and not down. And people will forgive you for being left or right"

This minimizing of "left, right, liberal, conservative" as identity labels has apparently been driving some Conservative political analysts and commentators crazy. They seem to assume that a lack of pushing the "Conservative" label means Huckabee is abandoning Conservative solutions.

Rush Limbaugh addressed this directly on the January third edition of his radio program. The following quote of Rush, from that day helps show how he interpreted Huckabee's statement.
"let's take the country up instead of taking it left or right. See, that's the thing, folks. You take the country up by taking it right. It's been established."

There is one significant difference between the statement Huckabee made and the way Rush interpreted it. Huckabee didn't say there was no difference between taking the country left or right; just that the motivation should be to take the country up, rather than placing "left or right" labels ahead of the good of the country.

As a generalization, I have to say I agree with Rush's statement; "You take the country up by taking it right"; and I think Huckabee does too. But by putting the focus on the goal while guiding the listeners through the method; Huckabee is using a Populist "Spoonful of Sugar" to get at least the more moderate of his "liberal" listeners past the conservative label through his conservative solutions, to the "vertical" goal.

Such tactics may seem weak or deceptive to some, but I think it's a wise recognition of a well known psychological reality. The single biggest reason for one person to dislike (or be against) another is when the first person thinks the second dislikes (or is against) them, whether it's true or not.

If you tell Liberals you want them to adopt a Conservative goal, especially after years of left/right antipaty, they are very likely to be against your solution before they ever hear the details. You stand at least a marginally better chance of convincing them if you present the details of the solution without focusing on it's "left/right" placement.

It does even seem that Huckabee and hard-line conservatives have different goals. The "hard-right-wingers" have moving America to the right as the primary goal, expecting that it will lift America up. I think Mike Huckabee really has lifting America up as his primary goal. While his solutions that I've examined so far are conservative (at least right-of-center), I think that's secondary to Huckabee.

I would use driving a nail as an example. Now some people may really like hammers and some have an affinity for pillows. When a nail needs to be driven, Mike Huckabee is going to hammer that nail; not because he is primarily a hammer enthusiast, but because that's what you use to drive a nail. In exactly the same way, Huckabee proposes conservative solutions because he's motivated by lifting America up rather than being obsessed with wearing the "Ronald Reagan Mantle" as his foray into "identity politics".

"A Spoonful of Sugar" may not be nearly so great a quote as "Tear down this wall"; but if that's what it takes to nudge more voters toward conservative solutions, so be it.

Related posts:
"Can a Populist be Conservative?"-2008.01.04
"Rush is Wrong about Huckabee Supporters"-2007.12.21
"Huckabee Shows Fiscal Conservatism"-2007.12.14
[I plan a later post detailing examples of Mike Huckabee executing this "Mary Poppins Strategy". Feel free to include your own examples with your comments.]

Will McCain-Feingold be the "Elephant" in the GOP Room?

2008-01-04T21:35:00.000-05:00

McCain-Feingold is a travesty. It's the thing that initially made it crystal clear to me the meaning of the term RINO (Republican In Name Only) and that John McCain is a prime example.

Sections of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance (alleged) Reform law are an outright assault on the First Amendment and the kind of grass-roots support that is helping fuel the Huckabee campaign.

Among other things, this egregious "Incumbent Protection Act", as I've heard it called (by Limbaugh?), prevents any interest group (large or small) from running radio or TV ads (that include a candidate's name) within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election.

This (along with Religious Freedom) is exactly the kind of Speech the First Amendment was created to protect!

I know Mike Huckabee is trying (at least for the most part) to live by Ronald Reagan's "11th Commandment", and not attack other Republicans. But how can Mike Huckabee possibly NOT eventually use this against John McCain, and still stand up for the rights of voters and his grass-roots supporters?

Will both Huckabee's nice-guy strategy and the added clout this gives big-money campaigns (by removing grass-roots competition), make McCain-Feingold the Elephant in the GOP living room during McCain's presidential bid?

[If anyone has a quote from Huckabee on McCain-Feingold, I'd love to see it and the source.]

Rush Seems Concerned About "Christian Conservatives"

2008-01-04T14:49:00.000-05:00

In an earlier post, I charged that Rush Limbaugh seemed to be showing lack of concern for issues of concern to those often referred to as "Values Voters" or "Christian Conservatives". This was based on Rush's continued statements against Mike Huckabee.

My opinion of Rush's motivation has changed after a statement Rush made the night of the Iowa caucus. He made a statement to the effect that Democrats want to face Huckabee because of their fear and/or hatred of "Christian Conservatives"; and their hope that they could defeat Huckabee as the embodiment of the "Christian Right", and thus forever eliminate "Christian Conservatives" as a political force.

I now think Limbaugh believes Huckabee would be very likely defeated by the Democrats, and his loss would indeed marginalize "the Christian right." Especially after talking to Rush on his show today, I think he's actually very concerned about "Christian Conservatives", just as much as he has concern for the whole of Conservatism.

I originally called Rush yesterday (yes, one really can get through on that number he gives on air), and told his call-screener that I thought one of the big reasons people were supporting Mike Huckabee was the feeling that our "Christian Conservative" issues were not being taken seriously enough by the GOP. That they talked about them in campaigns, but that there wasn't enough follow through. The call-screener said it was a good comment for the show and raised a topic Rush would want to cover.

I'm really grateful to Rush and his staff. Even though Rush ran out of time and couldn't take my call yesterday; they actually took my number and they called me back today so the topic could be covered. This, along with the respectful way Rush dealt with my comments, really showed his concern for our issues. [Here is the link to this on Rush's site: -link-*]

I was given several minutes on the air with Rush, who in all fairness did point out some significant things Republicans have done on Family Values issues. While I acknowledged them, I pointed out that they were in lower profile areas than things such as a Marriage Amendment that gets bigger media attentions; and insisted issues rather than simply "identity politics" was a big draw for Huckabee.

There was even time to include the fact that although Huckabee often leads with a Populist message, he has real Conservative solutions. When I said I just wish Huckabee would emphasize his conservatism rather than letting it get lost behind the Populist lead-ins; Rush reminded me that this is just the beginning of the race and it remained to be seen whether it might play out that way.

In any case, I regret that I previously jumped to what now seems an obviously wrong conclusion about Rush's motives. Even so, I still disagree with his current take on Huckabee. I think Huckabee's support is based primarily on issues and not in "identity politics."

I may have been mistaken about Rush's motive, but he is the one who's dreadfully wrong about Huckabee; and I still think Rush Limbaugh is Sawing a Leg Off Reagan's Stool!

Hopefully as the campaign plays out Mike Huckabee will use some of the additional media exposure he's receiving as winner in Iowa to shed more light on his underlying conservatism; and maybe even change the mind of Rush Limbaugh.

*[There is one small error in the transcript on Rush's site. The transcriber thought I said "and once I was told incorrectly", when discussing Fred Thompson's opposition to a Federal Definition of Marriage Amendment. I actually said "unless I was told incorrectly".]

Related posts:
"Can a Populist be Conservative?"-2008.01.04
"Rush Limbaugh Sawing a Leg Off Reagan's Stool"-2007.12.29
"Rush is Wrong about Huckabee Supporters"-2007.12.21
"Huckabee Doesn't Have Time for the Whole Sermon"-2007.12.17
"Huckabee Shows Fiscal Conservatism"-2007.12.14
"Rush Credits Huckabee with Best Debate Statement on Hillary"-2007.10.26

Can a Populist be Conservative?

2008-01-04T12:25:00.000-05:00

In the interviews following the Iowa Caucus results last night, Ed Rollins (National Campaign Chariman for Mike Huckabee) said Huckabee's "Populist" message connected with Iowa voters. To me, this begs the question of whether a Populist can be a Conservative.

Those most often proclaiming a Populist message have been Democrats, who then use Populist concerns to lead to a liberal nanny-state conclusion. Meanwhile, they demonize Conservatives as being oppressive Patrician aristocrats. However, as Rush Limbaugh has frequently pointed out on his program, it is the Democrats themselves who are in fact the practicing Patricians.

Therefore, I don't believe that a Populist is of necessity a Liberal. I believe the best real solutions for Populist concerns are Conservative solutions; with both control and responsibility for outcomes shifting away from the Federal Government and toward the State, Local and Family.

It is my perception that Mike Huckabee shares this belief. I also think Huckabee is actually trying to avoid "Identity Politics" by way of not wanting to run on the "I'm the Reagan Conservative" identity.

Huckabee seems to be trying to lead other Populists to Conservative (or more specifically Federalist) solutions, without specifically beating the Conservative drum, and therefore not immediately turning off those who have already fallen prey to the Conservative=Patrician myth. Even so, he needs to be more up-front and clear about his conservative solutions, whether or not he labels them as such.

One thing Mike Huckabee must realize is that those of us who are primarily Conservatives will be watching him closely, to make sure doesn't let his Populist good-intentions pave the road to Liberal perdition.

As for me, his Populism is not as relevant as whether he uses it to pave the road toward (at least 80%) Conservatism. No matter what some think about Family Values Voters (who the MSM labels "Evangelicals"), we would absolutely not become "left-leaning kool-aid-drinkers".

Rather, we should understand that it's possible for a "Christian conservative" to be a "right-leaning Populist". And with in the case of Mike Huckabee, it seems not only possible, but a reality.

Huckabee Shows Real Guts on Immigration

2007-12-31T17:01:00.000-05:00

I was just watching a YouTube replay of Mike Huckabee on "Meet the Press" , and am grateful that the web often makes it unnecessary to remember how to program the timed-record on the old VCR. At one point, Tim Russert set up a real "gotcha" on illegal immigration.

Russert first played a clip of Huckabee from a debate, in which Huckabee said; "We're a better country than to punish children for what their parents did." Then Russert showed a quote from Huckabee's "Secure America Plan", that gives a 120 day window for illegals to register and return back to their country of origin, otherwise be barred from re-entry for 10 years.

After quoting both statements out of context to set it up, Russert executed his seemingly perfect "gotcha".

Russert-"Children born here are American citizens..."
Huckabee-"Mmm Hmm"(agreement)
Russert-"..and you were saying that, don't punish those kids. A week later, you said no, no, no send the parents home. And what happens to the kids?"

Now I was certain that any politician would find some way to dodge such a question. But what did Huckabee do? Without even the slightest pause, he said; "They go with their parents. I mean I can't imagine a parent not taking th..." While this made my heart fairly sing, Russert's "gotcha" clearly wasn't having the desired effect; so he cut off Huckabee for another pass at it.

Russert-"But they're American citizens. Why do they have to leave the country?"
Huckabee-"Because they're...they're first; before they're American citizens, they're the children of their parents."

No it's important to know that they had just finished discussing (by Russert's choice) Mitt Romney's position changes and dishonesty in campaign attack adds. He was clearly trying to make Huckabee look like he had either changed his own position between the two statements or was being dishonest himself.

Russert even continued trying to make it look like Huckabee's answer resulted in punishing the child, in contradiction to his previous position statement. When he found that didn't work, he started another "gotcha" setup, about how sending home all those illegals might hurt our economy, which Huckabee quickly countered before letting the host complete his new setup.

Huckabee stood firm, his primary position being that we absolutely must secure the border. His not directly stated, but clearly suggested, idea being that if we discover negative secondary effect after securing the border; we can certainly find solutions that work. But first and foremost, we must secure the border.

Even those who, like me, think children born of illegals shouldn't be citizens have to give Mike Huckabee a lot of credit. He showed a great deal of courage in giving such an honest answer. I'm sure a lot of liberals will see Huckabee as an outright villain for daring to say the children should be expected to leave with their parents, and I'm sure he knows it.

But it still allows for those children to re-enter the country later, as citizens; thus, not punishing the children for the crime of the parents. And it still stays firm on securing the border and enforcing Huckabee's Secure America Plan.

I'm sure there will be times and issues where changing conditions or new information will result in Huckabee changing his mind. But it seems pretty clear that he's a man of integrity, and he's no flip-flopper.

Rush Limbaugh Sawing a Leg Off Reagan's Stool

2007-12-29T03:37:00.000-05:00

Many credit Ronald Reagan (and I think rightly so) with building the "3-legged stool" that is the modern conservative movement. The three legs being Defense Conservatives, Fiscal Conservatives, and Social Conservatives.

Rush Limbaugh needs to realize his own marginalizing of moral and social issues (at the root of his attacks on Mike Huckabee) is in danger of cutting off the Social Conservative leg. A leg that the leaders of the Republican party have been doing little beyond rhetoric to shore up in recent years.

I think there are two basic reasons Rush is attacking Mike Huckabee. Number 2 is that Huckabee does, admittedly, often lead with a populist sounding attention getter up front and one often has to sift for his solutions; which ARE CONSERVATIVE.

The Number 1 Reason is the one area where RUSH IS NOT CONSERVATIVE. Rush strikes me as having become too much of a hedonist (or at least giving a wink to hedonism) to be able to support anyone who takes issues like fighting homosexual mainstreaming seriously. As one who has listened to Rush for years, it's obvious that he thinks homosexual mainstreaming is no big deal. For me, it's the biggest.

We can recover from a temporary tragic bout of liberalism in fiscal areas. All but the most extreme far-left liberal loons become "Defense Conservatives" when our nation is obviously threatened. But a governmental sanction of homosexual practice would shatter our basic culture to such a degree that we would never recover.

Huckabee needs to put his conservative solutions more up-front in his speeches and answers. This would help put those at ease who, after hearing Rush's false charges that Huckabee is liberal in the Defense and Fiscal areas; and may not look deep enough into his record and statements to see Huckabee's firm support for all three legs.

Although it's apparent that Rush does believe in God as the Creator (see his "Undeniable Truths of Life" #s 20&23); he seems to worship at the altar of the "Almighty Dollar" first and foremost, and seems incredulous that any candidate mentions any subject more often than money.

Rush has enough staff and history of deep research that he either knows his charges are false, or he is predisposed to believing the worst about a candidate who is dedicated to supporting the Conservative stool by three firm legs even if he has carve a replacement for the fragile Social/Moral leg himself from a tree of basically Biblical values. I have enough reason not to doubt Rush's honesty that I believe it's the latter, and therefore he simply hasn't bothered to get all the facts about Huckabee.

In either case, it seems to indicate Rush believes more in a stool supported by two legs and a broom-straw, than the 3-legged stool of Ronald Reagan. [note (2008-01-03): My opinion of Rush's intention have changed after a statement Rush made the night of the Iowa caucus. I now think he believes Huckabee would be very likely defeated by the Democrats, and his loss would marginalize "the Christian right." Look for a more in-depth post on that subject later today.]

Rush is Wrong about Huckabee Supporters

2007-12-21T22:00:00.000-05:00

Rush is rarely wrong, but he is absolutely dead wrong on his perception of the reason for the Huckabee surge. He claims it's a result of "identity politics"; that is voting for someone because they are a member of a particular group.

Rush says Christian Conservatives are supporting Huckabee because he is a Christian and is a former Baptist minister. In this, Limbaugh is absolutely, completely and infuriatingly wrong!

I have been trying for 3 weeks to get through to enlighten Mr Limbaugh as to the reason at least I am supporting Huckabee; and I don't think I'm alone in my reasons. It has a lot more to do with my goals as a Christian in America than with Huckabee himself being a Christian. And I think Limbaugh is basically insulting us and Huckabee for actually sticking to our core values.

I am sick and tired of the Republican party talking the talk on moral issues, and not walking the walk. Does Limbaugh actually fall into the Liberal trap of thinking the GOP lost the House and Senate because of the war? Anyone who believes that needs to open their eyes to the moral questions being raised during the last election and especially as relates to the issue of homosexual activity and turning a blind eye to it.

As much as I'm with Limbaugh on a number of conservative issues, I'm much more concerned about the moral degradation in this country. To quote Mike Huckabee; "What's the point of keeping the terrorists at bay in the Middle East if we can't keep decline and decadence at bay here at home?"

Limbaugh has repeatedly brought up the issue that Democrats somehow keep getting the support of black voters by playing to their concerns; even though they never really do anything to resolve the issues. He verbally wonders when they will get wise to the Democrats and start looking for real solutions over rhetoric.

In the same way that a growing number of "African Americans" are reportedly starting to look to more conservative solutions, we "values voters" are done with having Republicans talk about "our" issues and then do nothing legislatively. We're also appalled at seeing their lives filled with just as much hedonism and elitism as the furthest left-leaning Democrats.

To sum it up in a single phrase that even those who seem to put economic policy above all, such as Limbaugh, can understand; It's Ethics and Morality Stupid! And if you can't understand that it's not dependent on someone "being" a certain religion or of a specific sectarian persuasion; then you're in the same boat as those Bible-hating ACLU lawyers who argue for suppression of religion in the name of a mis-interpretation of "the establishment clause" of the first amendment.

While Rush may be the bastion of conservatism on fiscal and security issues, he's too busy joking about having "mistresses" in various states to entertain the notion that our support is due to the fact there are ways in which Mike Huckabee is more conservative than Ronald Reagan!

For one thing, Mike Huckabee has remained in a faithful marriage to his first and only wife, which is something that not Ronald Reagan, nor Newt Gingrich, nor Rudy Giuliani, nor a host of other Republican "icons" have managed to do. When he talks about the sanctity of marriage as the union between one man and one woman, you know he not only means it but he lives it.

Mike Huckabee helped pass a constitutional amendment in Arkansas that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and helped pass an "Unborn Child Amendment". If such had been done nationally by Ronald Reagan or during any of the subsequent Republican administrations, I'm convinced that not only would congress would still be in Republican control, but we would be well on our way to solving some of our worst social problems.

Rush and other conservative commentators have revealed amazement at how disconnected politicians seem to be from the concern of most Americans over illegal immigration. Well I'm flabbergasted at how disconnected and blind Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, and a host of others seem to be on the issue of homosexual-mainstreaming. So called "gay-marriage" is a big part of it, but that's not the whole issue.

Now I'm not saying that practicing homosexuality is somehow "the biggest sin". However, societal acceptance of homosexual practice is a good barometer of the general moral condition of that society. The marginalization of marriage has already been a huge problem in this country, and that needs to be reversed.

Instead of working to strengthen the family unit, we have Liberals wanting to put a governmental stamp of approval on the practice, whether as "gay-marriage" or "civil-unions". Meanwhile, many supposed conservatives are content to sit idly by or even gladly accept governmental endorsement of homosexual practice as just an "alternate lifestyle", as long as it's not called "marriage".

It makes my blood boil when I hear Rush talk about Liberals accusing Republicans of being "Racist, bigot, sexist, homo-phobes". Rush seems to be suggesting that Republicans who stand against acceptance of homosexuality deserve the ire of those who rail against us; the same as if we were racists, bigots, and sexists.

Furthermore, a phobia is a fear of something that there is no reason to fear. In case Mr Limbaugh hasn't noticed, there is a real movement to force acceptance of homosexuality as part of the American (and world) culture. How can one conceivably be considered a conservative, if one is willing to make something part of the American mainstream which would fundamentally and change the basic fabric of American society forever rather than conserve it?

I'm full to bursting on the subject of "conservatives" who scoff at social conservatism, but I'm trying to stay on topic of things either said directly by or quoted (without contradiction) by Rush Limbaugh; and specifically those things that allow for his view of "identity politics" as the only reason he sees that we support Mike Huckabee.

You say Mike Huckabee went along with raising some taxes as Governor of Arkansas? Well Ronald Reagan went along with raising taxes as governor of California. (Plus Huckabee lowered taxes many more times than raising them)
You say Mike Huckabee is soft on illegal immigration because he was in favor of allowing scholarships for the children of illegals in Arkansas, even though he now proposes a Border Security First plan? Well Ronald Reagan gave us an Amnesty for illegal aliens themselves, in advance of a promised border security that never happened.
You say Mike Huckabee is taking the Democrats side on Iraq, because he said Bush showed an "arrogant bunker mentality". Well Ronald Reagan was accused of condoning the Holocaust, for placing a wreath on a grave at the Bitburg military cemetery in Germany, in 1985. Both accusations were false. Reagan was simply trying to ensure solid relations with Germany (as an ally against the Soviet Union), 40 years after WWII; and Huckabee said the battle in Iraq should have been supported with more strength, not less. So he was actually taking a position opposite the Democrat view that our troops were either too aggressive or shouldn't have been there at all.

I'll admit that in some areas, I'd like a candidate more conservative than even Ronald Regan ever was. But I don't see that Huckabee is noticeably less conservative than Reagan was prior to the White House; and Huckabee certainly isn't less conservative than Romney, McCain, Thompson, or (God-forbid) Giuliani.

I'm not abandoning my conservative principles to follow someone who happens to be called a "Christian." I suggest rather that Rush, along with the majority of "conservative" pundits and Republican legislators, is simply continuing the tradition of which he accuses Liberals; looking at Christian Conservatives as "a bunch of rube, hayseed hicks".

Are they so obsessed with worshiping at the alter of "Fiscal Conservatism" that they feel threatened or confused by the idea that we actually take other areas of conservative thought just as seriously? Why is it so hard for them to realize that we can have conservative social issues as our highest priority, without abandoning other conservative issues or blindly following some religious label. Yes our social views are in line with religious convictions. But as the Declaration of Independence says, our inalienable rights are endowed by our Creator, not by Wall Street.

Rush rages against Liberals when they accuse his listeners of being "mind-numbed robots" who agree with anything he says; when we're really agreeing with him when he says what we already believe. Now Rush Limbaugh has basically accused us of supporting Huckabee like mind-numbed robots because he's a "Christian"; when in fact we're supporting Huckabee for demonstrating he can get the results in which we already believe.

In spite of what Rush has been saying recently, I want to credit him for influencing me to choose Mike Huckabee as my candidate for President. It's largely at his urging over the years and in investigating things Rush has said (and others have said about him) that I've learned to investigate the whole matter and whole record in politics; rather than taking the most repeated or harshest statements at face value.

It's not a shared religious label, as Rush Limbaugh supposes, but a result of my personal search for the facts that is at the root of my support for Mike Huckabee.

The Cry of the Far-Left-Loon

2007-12-20T11:25:00.000-05:00

Although I actually moved to get out of Cynthia McKinney's (former) congressional district, I was most amused to see she recently announced her campaign for President, on the Green Party ticket.

McKinney is credited with being the first black woman to represent Georgia in the U.S. House. She is, however, most famous for her outrageous statements and behavior; such as her ubiquitous race-baiting, accusing George W Bush of having foreknowledge of the WTC attacks on 9/11, and striking a capitol hill police officer. Her Bush-hating 9/11 conspiracy theory alone should make her appealing to some of the "far-left-loons", who in recent years have been a mainstay of the Democrat party.

I found her campaign site at http://www.runcynthiarun.org/, and couldn't help but to immediately think of "run Forest run." The phrase is of course from the popular Tom Hanks movie, "Forest Gump"; in which the title character was fictionally given credit for, or interjected into some notable events in history. It was a masterful use of then-new video technology to paste Hanks into existing historical footage.

I expect that as Cynthia "runs", her only impact on historical events will be to draw a small percentage of those "far-left-loons" away from the Democrat party; splitting the socialist vote so we can get past the residual impact of the Soviet social meddling targeted at the baby-boomers. (that and being a source of amusement for rational voters)

Maybe she'll even serve as poster child for what's wrong with the Democrat party, and pave the way for a return to paths trod by those such as Joseph Lieberman and Zell Miller. Yes, many of their ideas are still a bit too liberal for my taste. But unlike the radical "bomb-throwers" that seem the Democrat norm under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, I can consider those such as Lieberman and Miller respected members of a worthy opposition.

If on the other hand, Democrats want to continue as "fellow travelers" along the path of the "far-left-loons"; taking a good look at Cynthia McKinney will give you a clear idea of their inevitable destination.

Huckabee Doesn't Have Time for the Whole Sermon

2007-12-17T16:25:00.000-05:00

I'm getting a bit frustrated with hearing from conservative talk show hosts, that Mike Huckabee sounds too liberal. This is especially true of THE conservative talk show host, Rush Limbaugh. However, I can't fault Rush too much for that. I have to lay it at Huckabee's doorstep.

I'm not agreeing with those who say Huckabee is too liberal, just that he sometimes sounds too liberal in the media sound-bites. After reading and listening to many of the former baptist minister's whole speeches; it seems he often starts with a "centrist"/liberal sounding introduction, and then develops a case for his conservative solution.

I suspect this is the result of both having to deal with a heavily Democrat legislature in Arkansas, and the "sermon" format he was used to in the pulpit. In those situations, he had to make the message sound appealing to the listener he was trying to engage; and then as the speech developed lead them to the details of the real solution.

A perfect example of what I believe Huckabee is doing is found in the Bible itself, in John 3:16-18; which begins; "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Most Christians can quote John 3:16, but how many remember that in verses 17&18, Jesus makes the point that he didn't come to bring condemnation to those who wouldn't believe in Him, but that all were already condemned before He came; and His sacrifice offers the chance to escape that universal condemnation. Now how many would recite that passage if John 3:16 began with; "He that believeth not is condemned already"; even though that's really the reason Christ came to begin with. If we were not in peril we wouldn't have needed saving.

As this applies to Huckabee's speeches and answers to press questions; he's got to realize that they're only going to report the conservative details of his speeches if he makes them an integral part of the quotes they are going to pick. Most voters will not look for, nor pay attention to, the extended details contained within sermon-length speeches or articles.

One example I can think of is Huckabee's view that arts and music are an important part of a well rounded education. He makes statements such as "Music and the arts are not extraneous, extra-curricular, or expendable - I believe they are essential." But in more extended articles and interviews has also said things like "education is a function of the states, not the federal government".

The latter, more conservative statement is not in conflict with the former; but one would certainly not expect the latter from hearing only the former. Now which of those statements do you think a liberal media is more likely to report? And which part will conservative commentators see, especially if the second is buried ten or more paragraphs into the story?

I'm no political speech-writer; but let's try something like this:
I believe that education is a function of the states, not the federal government; just as strongly as I believe that music and the arts are an essential part of education. So as President, I would use the "bully pulpit" to emphatically recommend that the States include these in their education programs. But I would not make this a Federal mandate nor create a new Federal program for this purpose.

Get the idea? I'm sure Mike Huckabee will do a much better job of articulating such; if he will just realize he doesn't have time for the whole sermon.

Hunter Calls on Bush to Pardon Border Agents

2007-12-15T15:36:00.000-05:00

A Washington Times story about members of congress calling for a presidential pardon of Ramos and Compean, after noting that their names were again absent from the list of the 29 pardons Bush issued this week.

These two Border Patrol Agents were given multi-year prison sentences for what amounts to having apparently failed to fill out some paperwork; after firing at a drug-smuggling illegal alien who they were trying to apprehend; but who escaped back across the border into Mexico.

Among those quoted, Republican Presidential hopeful Duncan Hunter had this to say:

"By refusing to pardon agents Ramos and Compean, the president has missed yet another opportunity to correct this miscarriage of justice, The fact that the drug dealer, whose testimony sent the agents to jail has been indicted for running drugs across the border while serving as a federal witness necessitates a presidential pardon. Agents Ramos and Compean deserve to be pardoned and returned to their families for Christmas,"

I must say I agree with Hunter on this point. (actually on enough points that he's probably my second choice among the presidential candidates, but that's beside the point of this posting)

I think President Bush has generally done a good job of fighting the war against Terrorists (more properly labeled Islamic fascists); But I continue to be concerned about the personal war Bush is apparently waging against American Sovereignty. His unwillingness to pardon Ramos and Compeon is just more evidence of the biggest glaring fault that can be seen in his presidency; his failure to protect our borders from illegal invaders and outright promotion of turning over parts of our country and culture to the "re-conquistas".

O'Reilly Fair on Faith, Spins on Immigration

2007-12-14T23:59:00.000-05:00

I'll have to admit that Bill O'Reilly was civil rather than hostile in tonights interview with Mike Huckabee and Chuck Norris. The two issues he touched on were Liberal attacks on Huckabee's faith and illegal immigration.

Huckabee was asked about religious attacks and O'Reilly gave him a fair chance to respond on the subject. However, O'Reilly still seems stuck in the "secular government" rut. He said something about Huckabee executing his office as Governor of Arkansas in a "secular" way; which he seemed to have intended as a compliment.

It makes me wonder if Bill really doesn't get the fact that religious freedom, rather than secularism, is a cornerstone of our country's founding. Religious freedom certainly allows for a secular world-view, but they are not by any means the same thing.

O'Reilly then brought up illegal immigration, playing cuts from Huckabee's first commercial with Chuck Norris. Norris was then asked what he thought about being Huckabee's plan for border security, as per the obvious joke from the Huckabee commercial. What O'Reilly didn't do, however, was offer Huckabee himself a chance to speak about the immigration issue.

With the fact that Mike Huckabee recently released a nine-point plan for immigration enforcement and border security, I'm disappointed in O'Reilly for not doing his homework enough to ask about it. I'm also a bit disappointed in Huckabee for not forcing himself to be rude to the Spin-Meister at least long enough to push out that vital bit of information. (I guess it could have been edited out, but I think it was a live interview)

While I didn't notice Bill O'Reilly saying anything directly untrue, it seemed he was trying to leave the impression that Mike Huckabee is a bit of a light-weight on immigration. Let's see; giving only part of the information or allowing only part of the answer, in a way that leads to an inaccurate conclusion is called... uh...hmm... what was that again? Oh yeah.. SPIN!

Huckabee Shows Fiscal Conservatism

2007-12-14T02:16:00.000-05:00

I was just listening to a Mike Huckabee interview on BlogTalkRadio with Ed Morrissey, and heard him say something I think all of us Fiscal Conservatives have been waiting to hear said so plainly from one of the current Preasidential candidates.

Morrissey asked questions about the size and role of the federal government. Here are some of my favorite parts of Huckabee's responses in this area:

"What government really ought to do is to provide a sort framework in which we can live our lives with as much liberty and freedom and with as little government as possible."
"Essentially my attitude would be that Government should protect it's people but shouldn't provide for them. It's up to us to provide for ourselves."
"I'm a big believer that education is a function of the states, not the federal government. If there is any role at all; and there doesn't have to be one; but if there is one, it's to be a clearing-house for the best-practices of the states."
"The concept is that we have a limited federal government, with power pushed to the states and to the local communities."

Please don't take these quotes out of context and think Huckabee has some secret plan for ending all social programs and taking a slash-and-burn approach to reducing the size of government. These are general statements on his philosophy regarding the role of government, and as such this is the heartbeat of fiscal conservatism!

One thing Huckabee desperately needs to do, is to say these things more often and louder. By louder, I mean he needs to fight to make space for these statements whenever he has a higher profile interview or event. ( such as those Hannity and Colmes hit-pieces where all they seem to want is to bring up the smears against him)

He needs to be really careful when sharing his views about what "we" should do in regard to things like education, health care, are helping the poor. Having spent a good deal of time watching and listening to Huckabee; I understand the "we" of these statements to range from State government to Federal government to Local Government to the collective effect of individual actions; as appropriate to the subject under discussion.

But there is a tendency to think the "we" must mean the Federal government when coming from a candidate for the highest Federal office. This is especially true for those whose only exposure to the candidate in question has been "drive-by media" sound bites. It's this misunderstanding that has allowed some to erroneously pin a "big-government liberal" label on him. This has served as a weapon of mass distraction for social liberals who don't want voters to notice Huckabee is the only candidate (among those getting serious attention) who is serious about social conservatism.

So Huckabee needs to make clear who the "we" is when talking about the need for social action. And while he's in no danger of joining the teeny-tiny-government-libertarian camp; he needs to be much more insistent about sharing his smaller-government-conservatism. Because when you hear Mike Huckabee say these things, you can tell he means them.

Kudos to Romney on Faith Speech

2007-12-07T21:39:00.000-05:00

Just because he's not my choice for President, doesn't mean I can't recognize the positive contribution Mitt Romney made with his speech on Faith. Some are saying he was wrong not to specifically include atheists in his speech.

Wait a minute... "wrong"? Yes, even atheists have things they consider "right" and "wrong". From where I sit, any belief that includes a moral code is a religion. The only distinction is that in atheism and humanism, it is man (whether individual or plural) who is seen as the source of the moral code, rather than God. So by including all "religions", Romney did include atheists and humanists.

Because some have attributed the timing of Romney's speech to the rapid rise of Mike Huckabee (also a former Baptist minister) in the polls, I want to mention two things. First, that Mike Huckabee strongly denounced an Iowa push-pole that brought up the question of Romney's religious beliefs. Second, that Huckabee himself has also been the target of repeated attacks on his religion; primarily over the fact that he was a minister and his strong belief in Divine Creation.

Like the upset of these atheists over Romney's speech, I think the attacks against both men are probably grounded in a disdain for anyone who actually believes the basis for "right and wrong" comes from a Divine source, and is not subject to our human whims.

also see:
No Law Respecting An Establishment of Religion
Huckabee accused of believing in God
A Candidate with Moral Clarity

A Crow Dinner for Bill O'Reilly

2007-12-05T20:40:00.000-05:00

As of today, Mike Huckabee holds a solo first place in the Rasmussen "Daily Presidential Tracking Poll".

Huckabee 20%
Giuliani 17%
Romney 13%
McCain 13%
Thompson 10%

I can't help but be reminded that Bill O'Reilly recently lost a steak-dinner wager with Dick Morris, when Huckabee reached 10% in another poll; an event the master of the supposed "No-Spin Zone" said would never happen. Even after losing his bet with Morris, O'Reilly has repeatedly said Huckabee "has no chance".

In light of Huckabee reaching the number one position in the Rasmussen poll, and at double the percentage O'Reilly said he'd never reach; I'd like to state publicly that I would be more than happy to by Mr O'Reilly a "crow dinner".

Who Do You Trust?

2007-12-04T16:32:00.001-05:00

With the new Rasmussen "Daily Presidential Tracking Poll" showing Mike Huckabee in a tie for first place with Rudy Giuliani; I'd like to offer my opinion on how the new "Man from Hope" has made such gains on the Golden Boy of the NYC news elites. I think it has a lot to do with the attacks made in recent days, including in the CNN YouTube Republican debate , against both Huckabee and Giuliani on their respective perceived weaknesses.

Both were questioned, in the YouTube debate (an obvious far-left-leaning assault against Republicans), about their history regarding illegal immigration. Mitt Romney accused Giuliani of a sort of passive amnesty for illegal immigrants in running New York as a sanctuary city; and accused Huckabee of what is basically leniency regarding the children of illegals applying for scholarships in Arkansas.

Although a hard-liners on immigration like me don't agree with Huckabee's position on children brought here (possibly born here) by parents who broke our immigration laws; it's a far cry from giving sanctuary to the lawbreakers themselves, as seems to be the case in Giuliani's record. Still, this is at least a perceived weakness for both candidates.

Apart from immigration, each has been labeled as lacking in conservative in a different area. For Huckabee, some have questioned his credentials as a fiscal conservative, primarily over a few tax increases he agreed to as governor of Arkansas. For Rudy his long standing positions of supporting abortion-on-demand, gun control and gay-unions are a challenge indicate a lack of social conservatism.

In Huckabee's defense, he offers statistics of having cut taxes over 90 times, reducing discretionary spending, and balancing the Arkansas budget. Meanwhile, Giuliani offers to "nominate strict-constructionist judges" when asked about abortion; says gay-unions should be a matter for the states (as does Fred Thompson); and pays a weak lip-service (it seems to me) to the Second Amendment by claiming the Federal Government doesn't have the same authority cities (and possibly states) do in the area of gun control.

I think it all comes down to a matter of trust. Do you believe those making the accusations, or do you believe the candidate's defense? This is where character really counts in the public eye. I think today's Rasmussen poll results are a good indication of who people think more likely to live up to promises to secure our border; and that people trust Mike Huckabee to be a Fiscal Conservative more than they trust Rudy Giuliani to be a Social Conservative.

The Perfect Liberal Presidential Candidate

2007-12-03T13:52:00.000-05:00

I don't consider myself a Liberal by any means. However, I've just posted about my ideal of a perfect Conservative Presidential candidate; and am asking for reader comments on the same. I thought I should create a separate place for any liberals wandering by to leave their comments on liberal "perfection."

The Perfect Conservative Presidential Candidate

2007-12-03T11:47:00.000-05:00

I'll admit that in my view there is no "perfect" candidate in the current field of Presidential hopefuls. Nevertheless, I want to list some characteristics and issue positions that I think would make my "perfect" candidate. I'd also like to see comments on what others would like in a candidate.

Moral Values Issues:

Human life is sacred, from the earliest moments in the womb until the last breath leaves the body. While I see potential for some "gray" area in extremely rare cases such as detectable fetal abnormalities that would be fatal outside the womb, or pregnancies almost certainly fatal for mother and child; abortion as a convenience absolutely must end. It's nothing less than murder. Likewise, "euthanasia" is an abomination. Therefore, I demand a candidate that will actively work for a sanctity of life amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Good examples of this are the one passed in Arkansas under Governor Huckabee, and the one currently under consideration by the Georgia state legislature. "Overturning Roe-vs-Wade" on grounds of sloppy adjudication (which it was), is desirable, but not enough at this point.
Homosexual unions cannot be government sanctioned at any level in any form. No "gay-marriage", no "civil unions", and no supposed "anti-discrimination for sexual orientation" laws. Any governmental stamp of approval on the practice of homosexuality would not only be supporting a religious abomination, but would be nothing less than a powerful weapon for anti-Christian activists to use in attacking religious free speech, is the guise of slander and "hate-speech." A candidate must support a federal preservation of marriage amendment, as between one man and one woman. While homosexual unions do touch on a religious issue, this is not particular to just one sect ("an establishment of religion" in the Constitution) or a small subset of religious bodies. Plus is has widespread consequences if we allow general disruption of our basic social structure.
Religious Free Speech is not only a long-standing tradition in America; it is absolutely demanded by our Constitution. While I can't think of additional legislation required, a candidate must firmly express the importance of this value and a return to a proper view of the First Amendment. That view is for freedom of Religious and Political speech. It is not for suppression or religion and promotion of vulgarity and pornography, as modern liberals have successfully misused it in our courts.

National Security:

The USA is a sovereign nation, owing no higher allegiance to any international governing body
The USA absolutely must do it's utmost to become energy independent as quickly as possible; otherwise it will be at the mercy of other oil-producing nations for the remainder of it's needs.

Personal Characteristics:

Has a history of demonstrating achievement in line with his positions
Has lived faithfully in marriage and never divorced
Demonstrates a belief in the God of the Bible (the government is constitutionally prohibited from making this a test, but I as a citizen am not)
Is an articulate and engaging speaker, able to clearly and honestly state his positions, be convincing to those who are undecided, and firm but respectful when standing against those with whom he disagrees.
Is not given to displays of temper, nor outbursts of vulgar language. (A President must be even-tempered to wield such power)

I'll be adding more to my own list as time allows, and hope to see yours. (Please no comments that are just "I think {candidate name} is the perfect candidate" although you may feel free to include the name of your current choice.

Ann Coulter on Candidates at NJC

2007-12-02T13:39:00.000-05:00

In a question and answer session at the National Journalism Center, Ann Coulter said there are three key core conservative issues where Republican candidates need to be strong. Those are National Defense, Right to Life, and Smaller Government. She also stated her apparent amazement that Rudy Giuliani is considered a Republican front-runner, when he is clearly not a Right to Life candidate.

She was answering an audience question about who she supports for the Republican Presidential nomination. Her initial response was that she most strongly supports Duncan Hunter, while admitting that he doesn't seems likely to succeed. Coulter also revealed that she's not a big fan of Romney, and described Mike Huckabee as the "new John McCain" (marking them both as lacking firm conservative credentials.

When asked directly about Fred Thompson, she made it clear that she hasn't thought much of the former Tennessee Senator since he displayed a lack of backbone by splitting his own vote during the impeachment of Bill Clinton for perjury and suborning perjury. Even with all that, she did say she would support any of the Republican candidates, "even Ron Paul", over any of the Democrats.

I'm a bit confused by Ann Coulter's take on Mike Huckabee. She and I obviously see either a different John McCain or a different Mike Huckabee. Since she also mentioned John Kerry's flip-flops, I assume her swipe at McCain and Huckabee indicated a perceived tendency to sway with the prevailing political winds. I tend to agree regarding McCain, but not with Huckabee. Is Coulter is seeing something I don't, or have I managed to see something she doesn't?

I do applaud her for continuing to support her favorite candidate, even though it's Duncan Hunter. Not that I have anything against Hunter myself. He seems to be a fine man, and I was considering him favorably until I discovered Mike Huckabee. I think if we would each actively support the candidate we like best, the best candidate would win. I happen to think that candidate is Mike Huckabee.

That same philosophy should prevail when choosing a Vice-Presidential running mate.
I suspect many political strategists will suggest Huckabee choose either Giuliani or McCain as running mate in the general election to "broaden the ticket". Personally, I think he should choose someone whose ideals and performance are most like his own. I think it's that person just may be Duncan Hunter, Ann Coulter's first choice and my second.

Although caustic commentary and hyperbole are Coulter's hallmarks, I've usually agreed with her viewpoints. In the case of Mike Huckabee, I have to disagree. Perhaps she just has a hard time believing one can be conservative without being caustic. Huckabee certainly is a dynamic speaker. He's just not at all caustic. But if I remember correctly, neither was Coulter's idol, Ronald Reagan.

Returning to what Ann Coulter said a Republican candidate needs to be; I think it's beyond question that Mike Huckabee is strong on National Defense, and immovable on the Right to Life. I also think if Ann Coulter will examine Huckabee's record and positions in the fiscal arena; she'll discover Mike Huckabee is also a strong proponent of a smaller federal government.

Romney Scores On Rudy but Misses Huckabee with Immigration Attacks

2007-11-29T10:23:00.000-05:00

In last night's CNN YouTube debate, Mitt Romney continued his false characterization of Mike Huckabee's history on the children of illegal aliens. Of course to attack Huckabee, Romney had to mis-state what he actually supported as Governor of Arkansas. Especially since what Huckabee actually supported was practically indistinguishable from what Romney had said was legally required in educating the children of illegals, in just having traded salvos with Rudy Giuliani over giving sanctuary to illegals.

Romney said New York was a sanctuary city for illegal immigrants under Giuliani. Rudy retorted that Romney at one time had illegals working at his "sanctuary mansion". Romney offered clarification that the illegals were brought in by a contractor he hired (supposedly without his knowledge). He then rightfully continued his declaration that Rudy should not have given any sanctuary to illegals, except emergency medical care, and education of their children as required by law. (not an exact quote but I'm sure the meaning is intact)

Later in the debate, Romney claimed that Huckabee wanted to give special treatment to illegal aliens regarding scholarships. What he actually supported, though it was never passed, was basically treating children of illegals the same as known citizens; providing they had attended school in Arkansas all the way from first grade through high school. (There were also other requirements that can be found on Huckabee's website) Under those conditions, the children were too young to have had any choice in crossing the border, and may in fact have been born here; which under current law would make them citizens.

While Romney tried to say Mike Huckabee's explanation sounded like a liberal excuse, to me it sounds like a logical part of the "sanctuary" for children of illegals (not the illegals themselves); which Romney says is already required by law. As for me, I would much rather change both any law that requires educating children of illegals, and that makes all children born here (even those of parents here illegally) citizens. Philosophically, I do hesitate to "punish the children". But the reality is that we currently benefit the children for the crimes of the parents; and a significant benefit to their children is powerful motivation for the parents to commit the crime.

But while I personally disagree with providing any government funded services for illegals (beyond emergency medical care), Huckabee's stance against the illegal invasion in general and for preserving the sovereignty of the United States seem as solid as Plymouth Rock. Sure, I'd like to find a candidate who is perfect in every way. But as Huckabee pointed out in the debate, Jesus was too smart to run for political office*.

*(not to mention born in Bethlehem and therefore not qualified to run for President of the USA, even though Divine)

When You "Cry Wolf", Mean It!

2007-11-28T01:19:00.000-05:00

I think I finally figured out how to define the frustration I feel with Washington Republicans, and possibly why they lost both houses of Congress. The Republicans have been treating Social conservatives like the Democrats treat "minorities". (I put "minorities" in quotes because we're all Americans. The Democrats just seem bent on dividing us in their attempts to conquer.)

{{Warning! You are about to enter an unrestrained (but still G-rated) "Free Speech" zone! Names have been withheld to protect the innocent, the guilty, and those who don't have a clue what I'm talking about.*}}

Democrats engage in fear-mongering among "minorities"; usually accusing Republicans of things like not "caring" about them, and wanting to return to "Jim Crow" laws. Likewise, Republicans bang the drum on saving us from the Democrat agenda of abortion-as-birth-control, government endorsed gay-unions, and generally promise to preserve the traditional American way of life. The only difference between the two is that "minorities" really have nothing to fear from Republicans, and can do much better than the "daily fish" the Democrats dangle. Both have "cried wolf" far too many times, without showing enough concern about "the wolf" to actually get rid of it. (To make it clear, lest I be accused of promoting something totally irrational; I'm talking about taking care of the issues, not getting rid of the other party.)

The Democrats, are still peddling the same old Johnson-era failed social programs; designed to try and make citizens dependent rather than self-sufficient. They focus first on those whose ancestors were victims of rampant bigotry, and try to convince them that nothing has changed. Meanwhile, rather than taking action that helps to actually raise those who might still be considered to have some starting disadvantage (such as broken homes created by the very social programs the Democrats instituted); they only act to lower those who have achieved by shackling them with crippling taxes and irrational levels of controls on free enterprise.

The Democrat's ultimate end, of course, is to make us all into a dependent class. How else could one possibly explain the recent illogical attempt to expand the S-CHIP program to include 24 year olds making three-times the "poverty level" in income; but as a head-start on enslaving us all to government run, socialized medicine. Anyone who disagrees with the President's recent veto of the S-CHIP travesty needs to pay more attention! (That doesn't include closet socialists, who should either become enlightened as to the virtues of mildly-monitored capitalism under a representative republic; or move to Canada and get it over with!)

As for the GOP, they perpetually point out the existing tendency of Democrats to expand government to the point of being an all-controlling socialistic "Big-Brother" on fiscal issues, and being unrestrained libertines on social issues. Meanwhile the Republican leadership takes no serious action to actually slow abortions, take a stand against sexual degradation (including the false idea that pornography is protected "free speech"), or to get serious about protecting our borders. Like most Democrats, most Republicans seem to think that if they actually solve the problems they speak about (real or inflated), they won't have enough fears left to lure their respective voters to the polls.

Now we have a field of Republican presidential candidates, of whom only one has done more than pay lip service to the issues most dear to Christian Conservatives; and I'm not positive even he is quite as firm on the issue of illegal invaders as I'd prefer) Meanwhile a few big-name supposed "Christian leaders" are joining internationalist country-club libertarian-republicans to assault that lone voice of moral reason.

As one of those "Christian Conservatives" who have been the life raft of the Republican party; I'm getting sick and tired of keeping them afloat while most of their supposed "front-runners" snicker up their collective sleeves at the very values that give us buoyancy.

THAT'S JUST CRAZY!!!

{{sound of an enormous sigh}}
We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming...beeeep...

*{PS:Those who don't have a clue what I'm talking about should try listening to Rush Limbaugh once in a while!}
{PPS: Reading David Limbaugh's book "Persecution" wouldn't hurt either.}

Doing the Next Right Thing

2007-11-26T22:57:00.000-05:00

A recent Zogby poll shows Mike Huckabee poised to defeat Hillary Clinton by the greatest margin of any Republican candidate. While I'm pleased by the news, I don't think it changes what voters should be doing one bit.

Those using the "Huckabee isn't electable" ploy as a red herring to draw voters to another candidate will simply find some other excuse. It's more convenient than admitting they don't really care about the moral values they claim to stand for and that Huckabee really does. Meanwhile, there are those to whom those issues really are dear, but are reluctant to become involved without prior assurance of the desired outcome. To those, I suggest they are unwittingly practicing "Situation Ethics."

Sure there may be times when we're not sure of the right course. But some things, like protecting a helpless child, are always right. Some things, like promoting rampant sexual immorality or personal violence, are always wrong. When we avoid doing the right thing or excuse doing the wrong thing because of convenience or because the situation seems to impact our ego, we're acting as if we've "moved" an immovable boundary.

As per a quote I've heard attributed to numerous sources; "all that's required for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing." Well unless our country and our government are perfect; and will be just as good no matter who our elected officials are; somebody needs to do something. In a representative republic, such as the United States of America, each of us is that "somebody."

Don't wait until you're sure you see an assurance of success all the way down the road. Find the next right thing you can do and do it! While it's conceivable, however unlikely*, that I might find it necessary to support another candidate after the primaries; right now the only candidate I can support is Mike Huckabee. So writing this blog, talking to people I meet and sending contributions to the Huckabee campaign when I can are each "the next right thing" to do, as I am presented with those opportunities. (I wish the counter at the top of my blog could include the contributions I made before the widget was developed, so the reader could see that while not rich, I'm serious. Perhaps readers will help turn it up a bit.)

I hope the path of "right things" will lead in the direction I think it will. But I have faith that if each of us will keep doing the next right thing as it's presented to us; that together we will arrive at the right destination.
-------

-------
(video framed from the "You be the Somebody" post at www.MikeHuckabee.com

*The choice seems so clear to me that I almost felt my fingers burning just to type that I might support someone else later! And for clarification, I can't see myself EVER supporting someone like Giuliani, who is unquestionably a moral relativist.

Bush Pardons Thanksgiving Turkeys and Leaves Border Guards in Prison

2007-11-21T13:08:00.000-05:00

Do I need to say more?

A Candidate with Moral Clarity

2007-11-20T11:56:00.000-05:00

On the Glenn Beck radio program today, he and Bill Bennett were discussing the Presidential race. After immediately dismissing the current field of Democrat candidates, Bennett said what we need most right now is a President with "moral clarity".

The Zig Ziglar endorsement of Mike Huckabee certainly describes a man who has moral clarity. Among other praise, Ziglar calls him "a man who's word is his bond." He also says Huckabee is; "a good person that knows where our country needs to go, and I believe he's been preparing all of his life, to take us right there."
-----

-----

When the presidential race initially started, I was somewhat distressed that while I saw a few who showed some degree of fiscal discipline; I didn't see a candidate who also had a clear record of integrity on moral issues. But that was before I discovered Mike Huckabee.

Now I urge you to take a look at Mike Huckabee; and if you also find him to be that man with moral clarity, please give him your support. Pass on this blog and the Huckabee website to those your friends. Please also use the "widget" at the top of this blog to go to the Huckabee website and contribute to his campaign.

Does Limbaugh Like Mike?

2007-11-20T04:45:00.000-05:00

In response to a caller who asked Rush Limbaugh why he doesn't promote Duncan Hunter, Rush answers that it's the job of the candidates to promote themselves; and that he avoids picking a candidate in the primaries. (link to guest transcript)

Part of Rush's description of what candidates should do sounds quite a bit like Mike Huckabee to me. This included the tip that to "get out of the bottom tier" a candidate would need "a really humongous debate performance". I took this as a veiled reference to Huckabee, especially when coupled with a comment Rush made about "going against somebody that's going to benefit from all the conventional wisdom, the media and others."

Just a few days earlier Rush commented about how a Huckabee was poised to "throw all the conventional wisdom out the window" with a win in Iowa. To read those comments, click here for Rush's "Stack of Stuff Quick Hits" page; then go down to "Story #6: On the Cutting Edge:Huckabee Surges in Iowa".

Rush also took a small swipe at the conservatism of some candidates, saying that journalists from Washington and New York; "are willing to overlook, in some cases, the lack of genuine conservatism in some candidates because they're from the northeast." Can I be the only one to whom this sounds like it at least includes Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani? Click on this LINK to the transcript at RushLimbaugh.com.

True to his word, Rush Limbaugh continues to play it close to the vest. I don't claim that Huckabee is the only candidate he views favorably. But with comments like, "I just sit and watch until one of them surfaces", in context of the above; it doesn't require much reading between the lines to conclude Rush likes Mike.

Also read my previous post: Rush Credits Huckabee with Best debate statement on Hillary

Use the above Limbaugh links soon, while still available to guests; or subscribe to Rush 24/7 for full access. It's money well spent, that I recommend almost as much as contributing to the Mike Huckabee Campaign!

No Law Respecting An Establishment of Religion

2007-11-17T04:49:00.000-05:00

I've seen a few express concern over the religious affiliation or connection of one or more of the Republican Presidential candidates. These have mainly focused on Mitt Romney's Mormon faith, or the fact that Mike Huckabee was a Baptist minister, before he became Governor of Arkansas.

One example is the recent "push poll" that apparently seeks to make voters uneasy about Romney on the basis of particular beliefs, apparently held by the Mormon church. While I think it not only more appropriate, but a better strategy, to question the sincerity of Romney's recently reacquired pro-life stance, I find it absolutely despicable to attempt what the First Amendment was expressly crafted to avoid. That is in using differences between particular "establishment[s] of religion" to fight for political control along "sectarian" lines.

A more rational example is an apparently genuine question of concern by Robert Roach; which he entered as a comment on one of the "What Leadership Looks Like" Blog post at www.MikeHuckabee.com. Part of Robert's comment was; "I strongly believe in the separation of church and state. To that effect, I am somewhat offended by the level of 'religious' comments on the Huckabee site. I would like to believe that as "Americans" the majority of you support the Governor, not as 'Christians.' "

In an attempt to assuage the concerns of those who might share Robert's concerns, I offer the following:
I understand your concern and I share your concern over the intermingling of government and religion. The phrase you quote; "separation of church and state"; while actually part of a Thomas Jefferson letter to the Danbury Baptists rather than part of the Constitution, is often used to describe this concern.

You may be surprised to learn that much of the "Christian" enthusiasm you see here is a result of sharing your concern rather than a desire for a "national church" of some kind. In my case, at least, it comes from a real desire to return to a Constitutional relationship between religion and government, which has the government looking favorably upon religious speech and practice in general, but never selecting or promoting a specific religious faction.

Too often in recent times, has the phrase "no law respecting an establishment of religion" been misconstrued to mean the government should be disrespectful toward religion and religious expression. In the words of Joseph Story (an early supreme court Justice) from his multi-volume commentary on the US Constitution, in his section on the Bill of Rights:

"§ 1871. The real object of the amendment was, not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government.It thus cut off the means of religious persecution, (the vice and pest of former ages,) and of the subversion of the rights of conscience in matters of religion, which had been trampled upon almost from the days of the Apostles to the present age."

A full reading of Justice Story's section on the First Amendment explains that the same wording that prevents a specific Christian sect from becoming an arm of the National Government, also ensures citizens are free to follow non-Christian religions, or no religion; without governmental interference and with equal protection under the law. (this would of course not apply to supposedly religious practice involving things like "honor-killing", polygamy, "child-marriage", etc)

The first amendment has all to do with preventing the government from running a church, and nothing to do with preventing religiously minded citizens from using the moral values grounded in Christianity (or any other religion) from becoming active participants in the political process.

I only ask to be allowed to work for laws that recognize values such as the sanctity of life and the importance of marriage (as per traditional definition), without being silenced by a militantly-secular court; on the false grounds that since those values are part of Christianity, such laws are an establishment of religion; And further that I that must be silent about my faith or be found guilty of a hate crime, simply for speaking peacefully.

Unless I'm very much mistaken, thats all most of the very vocal "Christians" want too. Sure, I'd like to peacefully persuade others to believe as I do; but only by sharing the Bible with those willing to listen and NEVER by the force of government. Not only would that not be American, it wouldn't be Christian! Furthermore, and no disrespect intended, I'm certainly NOT supporting Mike Huckabee for national preacher. But I do share the pro-life, and pro-family positions he says are rooted in his faith, and which are are rooted in mine.

Though there are many other planks of the Huckabee platform that would already make him my favorite choice as President, I'll readily admit that it's these common views on "faith based issues" that make him my only choice for President. Again, it's not because we are of the same Christian "sect" (to those who focus on religious divisions, we would definitely not be seen as such). It's because we share the same goals on issues.

Please also see my earlier post:
Where Mike Huckabee is Wrong (but it's "Alright")

Huckabee "Least Scripted", yet most consistent

2007-11-14T21:29:00.000-05:00

I just finished listening to the Michael Medved interview with Mike Huckabee. During the interview, the popular talk-show host and townhall.com contributor called Huckabee "the least scripted candidate" in the presidential race.

In listening to Huckabee's subsequent responses to Medved's questions, I noticed that while he gave answers completely consistent with previous answers to similar questions in other places; it didn't seem at all "scripted". I did find the timing a bit ironic, considering the recent revelation of questions being planted for Hillary Clinton to answer. It also highlights her recent trouble with stating a clear position on giving driver's licenses to illegals.

When one consistently holds the same positions, as Mike Huckabee does, I guess it's easier to give consistent answers without being "scripted". Perhaps Hillary, along with many of the other waffling candidates, could take a few lessons from Mike Huckabee in this regard.

Then again, the dedicated moral character Huckabee shows might be a prerequisite. If the Dick Morris' analysis of the "real" Hillary Clinton (as per his book "Rewriting History") is even close to the truth; I'm not sure whether she's able to learn the lesson Huckabee is teaching.

After the interview, Michael Medved went on to give an analysis of the Republican primary race that I found very astute. He envisions Iowa as pivotal in determining which of the Pro-Life candidates will challenge Rudy Giuliani for the nomination. Medved includes Huckabee, Romney and McCain in his list of (in the running) pro-lifers, but acknowledges Romney's changing positions on abortion (and gay-advocacy).

Like many analysts, he says Huckabee has a real shot; whether he finishes first or second in Iowa(which he now seems almost certain to do). He admits (wearily) having heard the naysayers questioning whether Huckabee can win; but sees Huckabee, Romney, Rudy, and McCain (whom he also likes) with an equal chance. He sees the real question as whether the Republican party will be true to it's long term commitment to life.

I would restate the choice as simply whether or not the Republican party will continue to have a "soul." Going with Mr. Medved's scenario, I think that question will be answered by whether Mike Huckabee or Rudy Giuliani is the Republican nominee.

Faith First!

2007-11-14T02:59:00.000-05:00

I was reading a recent blog post on www.MikeHuckabee.com, when I came across the comments of a Romneyite acting in a way that obviously marked him as what Rush Limbaugh would label a "seminar caller". (i.e. "I really agree with you but in this case you should change your mind")

To begin with, I found it amusing, that someone would try such an obvious tactic as wait until next election for Huckabee and support Romney now; But as I entered my own comment on why I found his suggestion unacceptable, I grew more passionate in my response. Part of this probably came from my feelings about recent unfathomable announcements by supposed religious/moral leaders who chose to endorse candidates that either are or have been supporters of abortion-on-demand and/or government sanction of homosexual-unions. Although probably not the most eloquent writing (even by my poor standards), I thought it worth copying here as a post:

WOW, Romney and/or his supporters must be worried to try and distract us with comments like those of "AZ, RHR".

To me it's simple. The two issues that are most import right now are Sanctity of Life and stemming the tide of Homosexual-mainstreaming.

I only trust 3 candidates on these two issues; Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, and Tom Tancredo. I will not vote for a ticket with anyone but one of these three at the top. Period, that's it.

I've come to the point in my absolute revulsion with the moral direction our country has been drifting that, if the Republicans nominate a candidate soft on moral issues, I'll take it as a sign we need to "hit bottom".

No insult intended to the other two candidates, but I think Mike Huckabee has the most passion on those two subjects. It doesn't hurt that I also really like his take on FairTax, National Sovereignty, Energy Independence, etc. So he's my first choice.

I don't agree at all with RHR's claim that Romney is "more fiscally conservative". The accusation about Huckabee's supposed "big government" spending seem to be all infrastructure issues. Hate to tell you, but that IS a function of government! The challenge in those areas is not elimination, but managing them in a responsible way, which Huckabee has done.

Again to my bottom line: try reading Matt 6:24-34, about making God or money your main concern. To quote verse 33; "But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you."

I would rather live in a tent in a nation that upholds Godly principles and honors God, than a mansion in a nation that holds life cheep and holds perverse sexual practices in the same light as the marriage of one man and one woman. I am also absolutely confident that seeking God first, including voting for candidates upholding Godly values, will make it less likely that we suffer financial ruin than if we neglected God to focus on chasing money. (Let me make clear, I'm not talking about choosing God to get money, but the idea that blindly choosing money over God will eventually lead us to ruin; including financial ruin.)

Now can anyone tell me how I could possible in good faith accept Romney, McCain, Thompson, or Giuliani; or why I would conceivably choose any other candidate above Mike Huckabee?!?

Mike Huckabee Shows Faith By His Works

2007-11-08T13:19:00.000-05:00

While reading a recently promoted blog entry (and associated video) from Mike Huckabee titled "Our Faith Makes Us", it struck me that many of his statements shared thematic elements with the 2nd chapter of James. Not that I'm by any means placing www.mikehuckabee.com on par with God's Word; but then Huckabee is running for President, not Divine Creator. However, it does seem obvious that the former Governor of Arkansas has spent some serious time with those writings originating from the ultimate author.

"Real faith makes us humble and mindful, not of the faults of others, but of our own. Because of our faith, we become less judgmental in that we see others having the same frailties as ourselves." - Mike Huckabee

"If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors." - James 2:8-9 KJV

Reading and listening to Huckabee's words, it becomes clear he understands that while the Government should never run the church, Christians must not shrink from participating in the government and the political process. While we should not be politically divisive over sectarian labels, we must use our whole value system in voting and governing. That includes holding firm to Christian principles.

"Recently, out on the campaign trail, a voter asked if my personal faith informed my decisions. My answer was simple, just as it always has been: my faith is my life - it defines me. My faith doesn't influence my decisions, it drives them. ... Faith gives us strength in the face of injustice and motivates us to do our best for 'the least of us.' " - Mike Huckabee

"What [doth it] profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be [ye] warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what [doth it] profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone." - James 2:14-17 KJV

We American Christians should be especially grateful that we are privileged to be citizens of a country where we, through our representatives, can help shape the policies of our nation. Since we are also citizens of a higher country, we have a responsibility to do so in keeping with our primary allegiance to our Heavenly King.

As Huckabee so eloquently points out; rights and responsibilities do not come to us from the government, but are granted by the sovereign Creator. "They are God's gift to us as individuals, not government's gift to us as a group." In our representative republic, we in turn loan powers to the government. Therefore, we must make sure to support, elect, and then hold accountable leaders who show their Faith by their works, and not just by their words.

"Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works." - James 2:18 KJV

In light of that passage, although I hesitate, I feel compelled to go at least a single step in a direction other than the gracious route chosen by Mike Huckabee in his comments on the Pat Robertson endorsement of Rudy Giuliani. I simply can't understand how any Christian could in good conscience endorse a known supporter of both abortion-on-demand and gay-mainstreaming, simply because he now proclaims he would appoint "constructionist judges."

I wholeheartedly suggest reading both the 2nd chapter of James, and Mike Huckabee's "Our Faith Makes Us" (plus watching the video). Then search out the history of each candidate and evaluate them in the light of James 2, and this quote from Matthew 7:20 - "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."

Hillary Down, Huckabee Up, O'Reilly admits defeat

2007-11-07T02:58:00.000-05:00

In the CNN Polls, released Nov-5; Mike Huckabee was up and Hillary Clinton was down.

To be fair, Clinton (in addition to being pre-coronated president by the left-wing media) was still first among Democrats, although her ranking fell from 51% in Oct to 44% in November. The really amazing thing is that the very next day, CNN posted a story questioning the value of polls this far from the election. The result was that three places above the CNN link titled "Poll: Clinton's Support Slips", was another reading "Analysis: Polls poor predictors."

One would think such a "coincidence" to be a big enough show of Clintonian bias, but apparently it wasn't a massive enough display for CNN. The latter story seems to promise a tale of general polling inaccuracies this far out; But in a flip flop on the scale of Hillary's recent responses on giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, CNN basically says that Hillary's coronation by the Democrats is already assured. They then claim the Republicans are in for a "topsy-turvy year."

In that at least, it seems they may be right. The only constant in Republican polling seems to be Rudy Giuliani as the national front-runner; at least so far. But one detail in the CNN poll results tends to confirm the vulnerability of Rudy's lead that has been speculated about in other places. Rudy is reported to still lead among Republicans with 28%. CNN also gleefully reports that 18% of Republicans intend to defect to a Pro-Life third-party, if Giuliani takes the GOP nomination; in an apparent repeat of the Ross Perot scenario (over Bush 41's "no-new-taxes" and "new-world-order") that put Bill Clinton in power.

Meanwhile, the CNN poll showing Mike Huckabee at 10% seems to have been the proof Bill O'Reilly was waiting for. Despite the fact that Huckabee has been between in double digits in the Rasmussen national tracking polls since October 25th, O'Reilly finally conceded on his program Tuesday evening that he owes Dick Morris a steak dinner as the winner of their dispute over whether those polled would ever "like Mike" enough for the "other man from Hope" to reach the 10% milestone.

By some coincidence (or could it be Providence), adding the 18% of dedicated pro-life voters to Huckabee's 10% equals (you guessed it) Rudy's 28%. Of it's likely that some of the 18% are already Huckabee supporters. But the total percentage for candidates at least generally seen as social conservatives is 40% (19% Thompson, 11% Romney, 10% Huckabee). In a poll run by strongly liberal CNN, that's saying a lot.

After Iowa and New Hampshire primaries, social conservatives will probably gravitate toward the one of those three who is the best combination of getting the highest percentage of votes in Iowa (the more conservative of the two states), has the most consistent record as a social conservative, and is the most motivating speaker. So which highly motivating speaker both has the most solid record as a social conservative and is currently polling very well in Iowa? Mike Huckabee of course; and in the Rasmussen polls (historicaly more reliable than CNN's), he's currently in 3rd and moving up, with Thompson showing a significant downward trend and Romney somewhere between stagnant and a slow decline.

If these trends continue, CNN's postulation of Rudy's nomination and an ultimate Hillary victory will be a poor poll prediction indeed. In Huckabee, Pro-life voters would get a President determined not only to appoint judges fair to their cause (to which Rudy gives lip-service), but to actively urge congress to pass pro-life laws. I hope Dick Morris enjoys his steak dinner. O'Reilly certainly made Huckabee work for it!

Where Mike Huckabee is Wrong...(but it's "alright")

2007-11-05T00:41:00.000-05:00

As Mike Huckabee has been continually hammered about believing in Creation rather than Evolution; it concerned me that concerned me that he seemed to be evasive about upholding a Biblical, six-day Creation, even though he has been consistently adamant that he believes God is responsible for our being, rather than random chance. The reason I found this troubling is because he always seemed so clear and fearless in every other answer, to any question of significance.

The answer to this quandary is one I only barely suspected, but it was made clear upon watching the Nov-1 Charlie Rose interview. As part of this interview, Charlie Rose piled-on to the Creation-vs-Evolution attacks on Huckabee. This included a demonstrably false statement by Rose to the effect that new discoveries in molecular biology support Darwinism; immediately after which he proceeded with his questions about Governor Huckabee's views on evolution. [In fact, discoveries in molecular biology such as the multi-part flagellar motor are exactly the type of (what we now call) irreducible complexity that Darwin wrote would falsify his theory.]

As part of his answer, Huckabee referenced Francis Collins, author of "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief". According to a Time Magazine article, Collins concludes that God "preplanned the process of mutation and selection at time's beginning, knowing it would produce humanity." Mike Huckabee isn't the first sincere believer to fall into the trap of theistic evolution (which Collins renames "BioLogos" in his writtings). He's in the company of C.S. Lewis, who Huckabee also references in the Rose interview.

So there was the answer. What I initially feared might be reluctance to completely stand up for Creation, seems simply to be the result of a lack of knowledge regarding the subject rather than a lack of fortitude. From a Biblical perspective, both a scholarly analysis of Genesis in Hebrew and multiple subsequent references ( including a quote from the Son of God himself) make clear that the six days of the Genesis creation narrative(s) are really six days, not six "ages" as theistic evolutionists suppose.

I also think theistic-evolution is scientifically dishonest. Theistic-evolution seems to have originally been a construct of those who were rightly firm in believing that God is the Creator; but who felt overwhelmed by the supposed scientific evidence of the "geologic column" and other "Icons of Evolution". The supposed "geologic column" and the postulated era's of neo-Darwinism reveal themselves as nothing more than exercises in circular logic, to those who dive whole-heartedly into an investigation of more modern research in the subject. (i.e. "The fossils are millions of years old because rocks they are in are that old; and the rocks are millions of years old because the fossils in them are that old.") Most, if not all, of the other "Icons of Evolution" have now been shown to be either demonstrably false or highly questionable.

Although I have a passion for Creation apologetics, and demand scientific accuracy and honesty; my real purpose in this post is not to castigate Mike Huckabee for apparent shortcomings in this area. Rather is it to allay fears that he is being either weak, or disingenuous in his responses. To echo statements he himself has made, he is neither seeking a position as our national preacher, nor as the author of an eighth-grade science curriculum. It's more important that as a candidate for President of the United States, he has demonstrated the following (shown by the included imperfect quotes, as I remember them):

The wisdom to see the true foundational question behind the question ["What you're really asking is if I believe in God"]
The humility to admit the limits of his knowledge ["now as to exactly when God did it or how long it took, I'm not really sure. I wasn't there..."]
The integrity to stand firm for what he honestly believes ["but I believe God did it; and in the words of Martin Luthor, 'here I stand, for I can do no other'"]

So to those who share my belief in a "recent*", six-day creation; and have been expressing disappointment that Mike Huckabee seems to be soft when it comes to completely standing up for his beliefs on creation; I say he simply doesn't seem to completely share our belief. While I agree with them that he's wrong, I say it's "alright"; at least politically speaking. Theologically speaking, we can pray he gains a more complete knowledge in the same prayers we make that someone standing up for Christian values becomes president (and that we all grow in our understanding of and commitment to God's Word).

We may find this somewhat disappointing on an emotional level, and we might have to object if he were applying to fill the pulpit at our local congregation. However, a Huckabee supporter who finds this a "deal-breaker" is at least as much in error as the atheist who won't support him solely because he was once a minister.

[also see my previous posts regarding; - "Expelled; No Intelligence Allowed!" by Ben Stein and Huckabee accused of believing in God]

[*While even I suspect the 4004 B.C. date calculated by "Bishop Ussher" may be one of which we can't be confident; both an honest reading of the Bible and a growing body of scientific evidence preclude the multiple millions of years demanded by Darwinists.]

Huckabee Has Crossed the Delaware!

2007-10-30T22:51:00.000-04:00

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!]

Rush Credits Huckabee with Best debate statement on Hillary

2007-10-26T03:23:00.000-04:00

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!
---

---

Ben Stein Striking Again!

2007-10-25T01:43:00.000-04:00

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!

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

2007-10-22T02:04:00.000-04:00

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.

Harry Potter author joins the Raising Citizens for Sodom movement

2007-10-21T22:43:00.000-04:00

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.

Inconvenient Timing for Al Gore

2007-10-12T23:11:00.000-04:00

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:

The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.

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!

Huckabee accused of believing in God

2007-10-11T10:23:00.000-04:00

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.

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.
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.
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?

2007-10-11T00:17:00.000-04:00

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!

What are Crazy Politics?

2007-10-10T01:18:00.000-04:00

"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!

Date:	Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Time:	3:30pm - 6:30pm
Location:	In the general vicinity of Representative David Scott's Congressional office, near City Hall
Street:	173 North Main Street
City/Town:	Jonesboro, GA