Who Do You Trust?

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.

Romney Scores On Rudy but Misses Huckabee with Immigration Attacks

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!

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

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.

Does Limbaugh Like Mike?

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!

Huckabee "Least Scripted", yet most consistent

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.

Mike Huckabee Shows Faith By His Works

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

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!

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

In a FoxNews text-message poll following the Florida Republican debate Sunday night; Mike Huckabee was far and away the winner, at more than double the votes of the next-nearest Republican, Rudy Giuliani!

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

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

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

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

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

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

I can't describe the entire concept of the FairTax here, but the most concise description is an extended quote from the FairTax.org about page.

"The FairTax Act (HR 25, S 1025) is nonpartisan legislation. It abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax administered primarily by existing state sales tax authorities."

FairTax.org also has a page presenting video of presidential candidate Mike Huckabee talking about the FairTax to "Americans for Prosperity."

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

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

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

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

What are Crazy Politics?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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