The Wrong Time to Fall Silent

The Democrats have already held their convention; Obama has selected his VP nominee in Joe Biden. McCain has selected Sarah Palin to be his VP, and the Republicans are in the middle of their convention. And I haven't posted a thing. Of all times to disappear off the face of the earth, right? 

Well, I apologize. The fact is, my schedule is so busy right now that I don't see myself playing a consistent part in blogging the rest of this election cycle. Perhaps I will find a pocket of time in which I can insert my two cents every now and then, but I can make no guarantees. For now, I commend those who have remained committed to the task. 

 

The Need Persists

Over the summer, I've been considering how my blog might evolve into a more general conservative Christian site. I've even tried to come up with a new name, thinking that "We Want a Christian President" was overly provocative and a turn-off.

But, during this past week, I've discovered through editorials written in The Washington Times, which accused evangelicals of religious bigotry against Mitt Romney (who is a Mormon), and the reaction of Huckabee supporters on Huck's Army, that there is still a great need for this site, explaining why a political candidate's faith is important, and why it is not hateful, irrational, or bigoted to hold to that position.

Some at Huck's Army believe that I am harming the effort simply by making such statements. In my opinion, some of them just haven't really chewed over what I'm saying (or simply disagree). Others are allowing the fear of being mischaracterized dictate what they will say. And some may even be placing political expediency and a misguided notion of ecumenism above the truth.

Of course, I think there is a certain level of discretion one should maintain; we shouldn't give our enemies fodder easy to twist and turn against us; and we should always speak the truth in love. But we should speak the truth.

So, WWCP will continue as WWCP for the foreseeable future. If I need a more general site to post my material on, I may create a new blog or return to Kingdom Advancing.

For now, I will post some of my recent comments from Huck's Army (an extra note can be found at the bottom of this post):

Other's comment: Religion has no place in politics and we must separate it and stick to the issues and character of the candidates. Romney's religion, whether it is Christian, Mormon, one and the same, should never come into play here. It should only be about the reasons Romney is not "ready to be commander in chief...or 2nd in command...."

My response: Does character not have some connection to a person's relationship with God? Obviously, we can't know that any public figure has a close relationship with God, but we can know that those who openly profess a false theology do not. This is not to say that a non-Christian can't have the outward expressions of good character. But I'd prefer for his/her character to flow from God.

Do one's positions on the issues not have some connection to their relationship with God? A true Christian should be guided by the Word and Spirit, and strengthened by them.

Do one's beliefs not have some connection with their readiness to lead? The case could be made that some religious beliefs are so illogical that one who holds to them cannot possess the judgment to lead.


Other's comment: Please don't disect the Mormon religion or any other religion on this website. The Rombots are just waiting to catch somebody who is doing that so they can put it all over the web. The Washington Times has hurt us enough for even implying that evangelicals are against Romney because he is a Mormon. What do you think John McCain and his campaign are thinking about all of this? Don't you think they might consider Mike a risk because of people who claim we are bigots? Commenting on somebody's religious beliefs is just a bad idea.It's not that you are doing anything wrong, just do it in your own mind..don't post it. Don't give anybody ammunition that might hurt Mike. Just about all of the people on this website don't like Romney because of his character and he cannot be trusted. Those are big reasons!

My response: I'm not dying to get into a critique of Mormonism. But when people on a conservative, greatly Christian site like this say that "religion should be kept out of politics," I have to speak up. When writers begin a tirade on evangelicals by saying that "Mormons are Christians, anyway," [as the opiner in The Washington Times did] I can't let that slide... The Bible tells us to "be of good repute," so that our revilers will be "put to shame." It never says, "For the sake of political expediency, avoid speaking the truth." Of course, there is a level of discretion. But I don't think we should hide what we believe.

Other's Comment: I agree with what many of you have already stated -- having a theological discussion is not helpful at this time. It would only feed into their belief that we are predjudice against Romney for his religion -- which we are not. It would be different if they were open to hearing different doctrine, and if it were one on one privately, but they are not open and it is public. In all respect, please reconsider no longer responding to this website:

II Timothy 2:23-26 NKJV "But avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they generate strife. And the servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will."

Please dont flank me ... just sharing the concern of my heart.

My response: I understand what you're saying, but I still don't get the logic behind "don't stand up for truth, because our enemies might twist the truth and use it against us." That's just not a good enough reason to be silent on an issue.

What I'm concerned about is the possibility that some well-meaning Christians will dust topics like these under the rug because they're inconvenient, because they don't want to be branded bigots, because they don't want to hurt the movement, because they don't want to think critically about this issue. I'm concerned that there may be Christians who would prefer to know nothing about Mormonism except that "Mormons are good people," so that they can have some kind of plausible deniability with which they can say, "I could care less about a politician's religion."

That's unacceptable for the church to so cavalierly dismiss a person's relationship with God--a person who they are using their God-given freedom and ability to put into a position of great power.

--------------

Allow me to add a few final thoughts: I am not advocating, and have never advocated, giving a candidate a leg up simply because he claims to be a Christian. Read the intro to my blog: "Not just in word, but in deed...Not just in deed, but in practice." My position has always been that a Christian candidate's faith should be reflected in his political positions, behavior, and speech. One also must look at a candidate's talents and experience. God does not gift all Christians with the wherewithal to run civil governments, and we should carefully consider whether a Christian candidate is qualified.

I've also held that there may come a time when a non-Christian candidate would be a better alternative than the professing Christian. But it would be very difficult for me to vote for either in that scenario, and, with John McCain's less-than-stellar appearance on issues of faith (See my post: Sitting in the Aisle?), I really hope he picks a strong VP.

POLL: Charge of the Other Side of Netroots

Every once in a while, you get so immersed in your conservative circles, like Huck's Army, the F3 Coalition, the Huckabee Alliance, and the like that you forget that there's another side to the "netroots" coin. Obviously, I never really get a chance to forget about it, because I hear about MoveOn.org all the time. But I rarely see it personally.

Well, I got to see just a little bit of it in action recently with my latest poll. Someone commented on a popular liberal blog about my poll, and voila!

I asked: Which of the following best summarizes your reaction to the recent events relating to marriage in California?

The response:

A incredibly lopsided 242 (89%) said that "California's finally gotten it right. Now for the rest of the country."

The second-place group, consisting of 24 (8%), said that it "Just goes to show how much we need a federal marriage amendment."

A couple people each said that it "Just goes to show had bad activist courts can be" and that it's "Just a blip on the screen; stick with states' rights," neither attaining one percent of the vote.

With one vote, "Just goes to show how far-left California is" came in last.

You all may be interested in what my reaction was. Well, as the administrator of the poll, I have the luxury of not limiting myself to one answer. Needless to say, I do not agree with the 89% majority. I also don't think that it's proof of how liberal Californians are, although I think many of them are very liberal. This was a court decision, overriding the will of the people, who had already chosen to protect marriage and who will have an opportunity to do it again this November with a state constitutional amendment on the ballot.

Although I understand the point of view which urges us to stick to states' rights, I, as a proponent of a federal marriage amendment, do not concur, and I fear that this may be more than a blip on the screen in the long run if strong action is not taken.

I'm split somewhat evenly between seeing the need for a marriage amendment and recognizing the extent and effect of activist courts. Of course, the former is remedial action which one can take, whereas the latter is more just a realization.

Please vote in the next poll!

POLL: Credentials, Of Course!

Okay, time to get some of these old polls out of the way, and get a new one up and running.

First, I asked: In your opinion, what is the primary factor which McCain should take into account when selecting a running mate?

Overwhelmingly, you responded that Conservative Credentials were of the utmost importance. 37 (77%) of you chose that option.

Executive Experience came in a distant second with 7 (14%) votes. Yet, that was a solid second, for Youth/Freshness came in third with only 3 (6%) votes. State/Region captured a single (2%) vote. Neither Race/Ethnicity nor Gender garnered a solitary vote.

Decadence, Morality, and Homosexuality

Also posted here and here.

Someone really has to start keeping me from reading my local newspaper's main section. I'm fine as long as I restrict myself to the sports section, the comics, and the features. But when I delve into the opinion columns and the readers' letters, I likely won't come out without being fired up.

Most of the time, I write a response in my head, and that is enough to satisfy me. But, today, I decided to actually write a rebuttal. I'll post it here and a couple of other places, then perhaps submit it to my newspaper.

First, the original letter:

...America has become decadent.
It has become decadent when the personal, private and harmless activities of two consenting adults are grounds for immorality.
It has become decadent when one faith out of millions blelives that it has a monopoly on whom we may love.
It has become decadent when citizens believe their faith should override all others, ignoring the freedom of thought upon which this country was built.
And it has become decadent when fools cannot follow the teachings of their own religion: "Judge not, lest ye be judged" -- Matthew 7:1.

~Mr. C. Payton

Did that get you riled up? Here's my response:

~~
I suppose that the scathing "decadent" contributor on July 22 believes that his morality (if you can even call it that) should rule the day, for all legislation comes from a foundation of morality. He seems to feel very strongly on the issue of right and wrong, yet he gives no basis for his determinations. Is he depending on the "divine" wisdom or omniscience of his own mind? If so, that's "just his opinion or preference, just truth for him," as a relativist might say, and he might as well keep it to himself. Otherwise, he is the one exhibiting arrogance when he dares to pound the gavel on an issue with the arm of his own conjecture.

He certainly is not consulting the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," as the Founders did, for he skewers reliance on God and turns a blind eye to the obvious, common-sense, self-evident realization of that which is natural and that which is not. Our ancestors would go so far as to call homosexuality a "crime against nature."

We've reached an astounding level of illogic in this country when it is considered decadence to hold yourself and society to a standard of decent behavior, while following your own selfish passions no matter where they lead is deemed what? Virtue?

I fail to see where Christians are suppressing freedom of thought. I do see gay activists trying to restrict freedom of speech, the press, religion, and conscience through overreaching "hate speech" legislation, as well as employee "non-discrimination" measures. Not to mention how they endeavor to revolutionize the definition of marriage and family for everyone.

There's an erroneous notion prevalent today that to be a tolerant person means to be a political pushover for your opponents. Now, while this is a very advantageous concept for those opposing you, it is utterly ridiculous, and I will not yield to it.

Matthew 7:1 is a condemnation of hypocrisy and a caution to pride in oneself, not a prohibition on biblical discretion. Just read the following verses to see what I mean. We are to be careful when judging others, but it is irrational to claim that we aren't even allowed to judge conduct, especially when the Bible is so clear on a specific matter. Or else, there's no point to a law system and much of the Bible--Old Testament and New--is negated.
~~

Here are two things which I would like to point out but chose not to include in the letter, for the sake of its length and flow:

1.) The original writer makes the faulty assumption that something is not immoral if it is "personal, private, and harmless." First of all, he's taking the liberty to define morality for himself, as I alluded in my response. The "private and harmless" concept, from the biblical commandment to "love your neighbor as yourself," may form the basis for much of our civil justice system, but it does not decide what morality is and is not.

2.) He also makes the mistake of assuming that the sanctioning of homosexuality by our government would not have far-reaching effects on our society.

A Couple Updates on Marriage

Just wanted to update you all on a couple of marriage issues:

1.) The number of co-sponsors of the marriage amendment resolutions in the House and Senate continues to creep upwards...very, very slowly. In the House, new representatives lent their signatures to the measure for the first time in almost three weeks, bringing the total to 89. In the Senate, the number jumped from 11 to 16, but has been static for the past few days.

By the way, does anyone else think it is a shame that the House and Senate is split nearly down the middle between Republicans and Democrats, and yet the co-sponsors of these respective bills don't reach even close to 50% of the members of these two houses? Not to mention the Democrats who have joined in on this fight, pushing the Republican percentage even lower. It just serves as a reminder, all Republicans are not made in the same mold.

The Republican Leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, responded to two of my e-mails by saying that he supported and co-sponsored a similar bill in 2006, and will support this one when the "full Senate has a chance to vote on it." Perhaps the Senator should consider that he should, as the Minority Leader, lead on this issue, not follow or merely be a "yea" in the Senate rabble. Maybe I should contact him again and convey those sentiments.

There's no telling how many other congressmen and senators feel the same way: they plan to sit out until (and if) it comes to a vote; then they will cast their vote in favor of marriage, family, and morality.

That's why it's pivotal that the citizenry involve themselves. Perhaps, if a representative is contacted by enough of his constituents, he'll be energized and emboldened to stop sitting on his hands, and to start using them to co-sponsor the federal marriage amendment. Go to Traditional Wedlock to find helpful links.

2.) Good news! Homosexual "marriage" activists in California failed in an attempted lawsuit to get California's marriage amendment off the ballot. Now, perhaps the Democratic process can play itself out.

A Journey Worth Taking on a Summer Afternoon

Journey to the Center of the Earth -- 3D

Starring: Brendan Fraser, Josh Hutcherson

Plot Synopsis: A disrespected scientist and his teenage nephew take a trek to Iceland to investigate a previously unknown seismic sensor, which could lead to a great discovery or even information about the scientist's brother's (and nephew's dad's) mysterious disappearance. Hiring a mountain guide to lead them, they stumble onto (or should I say into) more than anyone could have expected (unless, of course, you've seen the movie's trailers or commercials).

Objectionable Material: Fortunately, there's not much to list under this heading. At one point, the young nephew uses a recently discovered scientific term as a euphemism of the s-word. And some may consider the female mountain guide's apparel to be less than appropriate at times, but that's about it. The main character does make a reference to "millions of years" when discussing a bird that had supposedly been extinct for that long. Of course, this is a science fiction movie, so why not allude to the most popular science fiction of all?

Analysis: The best part about this movie may be the fact that it doesn't take itself too seriously. In the parts that it does, I found myself pulling out of the story mentally, thinking "this is corny." Specifically, I'm referring to any part in which Trevor (Brendan Fraser) and Hannah--the mountain guide--tried to converse in an overly passionate, intense way. The movie is much more in its element when the expeditioners are falling endlessly and screaming their lungs out, only to momentarily fall silent. After a few seconds, Trevor yells, "We're still falling!!!" Or, while in the act of running from a T-Rex, Shawn (Josh Hutcherson) asks Trevor, "Haven't you ever seen a dinosaur before?" To which Trevor replies, "Not with skin on it!" The sarcasm and humor is at its best in situations where you'd never expect someone to be sarcastic or funny. The other area in which the movie finds its niche is in intense moments broken by humor or setting up a humorous conclusion to the scene.

If you're going to see this movie, you have to see it in 3D, as long as that doesn't make you nauseous. Without the third dimension, I think that some moments in the film would seem run-of-the-mill or even pointless and time-wasting (in terms of pacing). With the third dimension, something as ordinary as blowing on a dandelion (granted, a gigantic dandelion), becomes an almost magical experience. A yo-yo becomes a thrill-machine. And the whole movie, including the parts without explicitly 3D material, feels unusual.

This movie isn't going to make it into my Top 10, Top 20, or perhaps even Top 50 list (if I ever took the time to make that long of a list). But if you want to see a quality, entertaining movie that doesn't require ear-muffs, blindfolds, or stomach pumps, Journey to the Center of the Earth--3D is a solid choice.

Happy Independence Day!!!

As so happens with my knack for great timing and preparation, I have prepared nothing eloquent to post about my country on this, its birthday. But I still wanted to express my adoration for my country, in spite of its faults, because of its merits. Today, I encourage you to ponder the sacrifice of those who paid the price for the freedom which we now enjoy, in some form similar to the way our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ paid our debt so that we could be free, set so by the truth.

Enjoy your freedom today, and if you see a military serviceman or woman, go ahead and thank him/her. While you're at it, thank God for the grace He's shed on this country, and pray for all the more. Not that we deserve it. Not that we expect it. But that we so desperately need it.

Happy 4th!!!!

What's On Your Radio?

I rarely post things just for fun, encouragement, and fellowship, and I think that's a problem. I also don't provide you with good opportunities to interact, besides the chance for some of you to express your disdain for me and some of you to take up arms by my side.

So, today, I want to tell you about a few of my favorite songs at present. Here goes:

Song of Hope
By: Robbie Seay Band

Stay Strong
By: Newsboys

You Are Everything
By: Matthew West

Let It Fade
By: Jeremy Camp

We Need Each Other
By: Sanctus Real

Washed by the Water
By: Needtobreathe


That's a good playlist to invigorate and inspire you to go out as a member of the body of Christ, to get up and dust yourself off, to come out stronger from your trials, to persevere, to leave your old life behind.

Tell me what you're listening to these days!!!!

p.s. To hear thirty-second snippets of these songs and/or to have the opportunity to download them for 94 cents a piece (plus state sales tax), you can visit Walmart Music Downloads.

86 in the House; 9 in the Senate

The number of cosponsors for H.J.RES. 89, calling for a federal marriage amendment, continues to creep upwards. Marilyn Musgrave from Colorado became a cosponsor on Thursday, bringing the total to 86.

In closely related news, Senator Wicker of Mississippi has introduced a similar bill in the Senate. It currently has 9 cosponsors.

For action instructions, please visit Traditional Wedlock.org.

In WWCP news, I've been considering how I might transition this blog from an Election '08 effort to a more general Christian conservative site. My main dilemma is that my URL, "http://christianpresident," makes a simple name change problematic, while changing the URL or creating a whole new blog would cause other issues (such as informing all those who have linked or visited here). Anyways, just wanted to let you know that I've been pondering over such measures.

Clearing the Air

First of all, let me say that it is flattering that, as one commenter on another site (self-described as that of a "godless liberal") put it, my latest poll required "immediate attention." I am not sure why he (and those who followed his lead) felt it was so important, but I found it interesting nonetheless.

Secondly, on the same site, someone mentioned that the lack of comments on the last post meant that I had rejected all of them, due to my guidelines at the conclusion of my last post. Well, to be honest, only two people tried to get comments through, and I posted both of theirs. Honestly, folks, my blog is not all that popular when a post isn't being voted up on Real Clear Politics.

Thirdly, another commenter mentioned that her stand for "individual rights" must be "intellectually dull" to me. No, not at all. I didn't intend to insult anyone's sensibilities who opposes my view. But this is exactly the type of groundless reframing of the debate that I was expressing my distaste for. So, since I'm for traditional marriage, I'm obviously a hateful bigot, and she's obviously a great beacon for freedom and rights. That's not self-evident truth; that's political propaganda.

It's funny; on her blog, she pointed out that she decided not to comment because of the end of my last post. Apparently, she couldn't think of a worthwhile comment that didn't include calling me a bigot or a hater.

She goes on to insinuate that my vision of a "God-fearing democracy" would leave people of all other faiths and beliefs "without representation." What I want to know is, what doesn't she understand about the word democracy? What doesn't she understand about, "All men are created equal, and endowed by their CREATOR with certain inalienable rights." But I digress...

In conclusion, she takes a shot at my analysis of Barack Obama's elitist comments about people "clinging" to guns and religion. Allow me to apologize, I did not mean to suggest that all secular humanists are for big government. But I'm not going to retract the point I made in my post.

Finally, I'd like to point out once again that I think that, if anyone takes a comprehensive and coolheaded approach to what I'm saying on this site, they will find that I have thoughtfully and sincerely considered my positions, and they are not a result of bigotry or hatred.

Federal Marriage Amendment 2008

The push for a federal marriage amendment has begun once again. Since May 22, when H.J.RES. 89 (titled "Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage") was introduced, 66 U.S. Representatives have co-sponsored it.

To bring it to a vote, we will likely need more than that.

A blog has been set up by a member of the F3 Coalition specifically to address this issue. There, you can find information about the bill, who has signed it, links to articles explaining why we need a Federal Marriage Amendment, and other resources.

Visit it here: 2008 Federal Marriage Amendment.

If you've been a reader of my blog, you know how important this issue is to me. At some point in the future, I'd like to explain my position further. For now, all I will say is what you can you do:

1.) Contact your representative: If your representative has already co-sponsored the bill, thank him/her for doing so. If your representative has not co-sponsored the bill as of yet, contact him/her and urge him/her to do so. (Some of the resources on the FMA blog will help you make your case.)

2.) Get others to contact their representatives: You are one voice to a representative. But you can have the impact of numerous voices, if you can get others to contact their representatives.

3.) Blog about it: The mainstream media will probably ignore this for the most part, either because they want it to die or because they simply care more about other news stories--like the presidential election. Grassroots efforts are essential for this bill to gain steam.

4.) Pray: Is an explanation really needed here?

The chances of getting the required 2/3 majority are probably pretty slim. Last time around, in 2006, pro-family advocates came up 47 short of the necessary tally. However, we must try, try again, using the current demonstration in California of our failure as motivation to push this through with urgency.

Please note: No presumptuous comments accusing me of religious bigotry and hatred will be posted. Those are just so boring and intellectually dull.

"Is There a Door That Doesn't Lead to Prison?"

I apologize for the lack of posting in the past, oh, month. It is the result of a substantial increase in busyness (not to mention nice weather), as well as the need for rejuvenation and reclamation of perspective.

Anyways, we have our two main parties' presumptive nominees, and all I can say is, "What a shame!" Honestly, I wouldn't say that this election is like being between a rock and a hard place, since John McCain's proverbial "hardness" is barely comparable to that of Barack Obama's. In reality, the choice before us is more akin to deciding between eating wood or eating poisoned bread (eloquent, likable, attractive poisoned bread, mind you).

That is, unless there is a third option. I'm reminded of the character Ben Gates--played by Nicolas Cage--in the movie National Treasure. While in federal custody, Gates is told by an FBI agent that there are two doors he can walk through, both of which lead to prison, differentiated only by Gates' level of cooperation and ensuing state of his conscience. Gates asks, "Is there a door that doesn't lead to prison?"

Right now, I'm asking myself, Is there a door that doesn't lead to John McCain or Barack Obama being President?

Unfortunately, at this point in time, I can't say, like Ben Gates does later in the movie, "I've found door number three, and I'm taking it." But there's still time, and who knows what could happen? (I know this answer: God.)

My main problem with voting third party is the nearly inevitable futility of such an endeavor, exemplified by one Libertarian candidate who has a 12-year plan to win the White House in 2020!!! Already it seems that most Republicans have reconciled themselves to John McCain. I don't blame them too much for their short memories; I blame Barack Obama. He's just that liberal, and to substitute Obama's name for the common sentiment about Hillary Clinton, McCain can't unify the Republican party nearly as well as Barack Obama can.

If I wish to register my dissent with McCain and the GOP, I will vote third-party or write in a candidate's name. That will likely only happen if McCain slaps me in the face with his VP pick. Keep these names in mind: Giulani, Liebermann, Romney. If he goes in any of those directions, you'll know the direction in which I'll be gravitating. (I'm not making any promises or predictions, just posting probabilities.)

Just in case anyone is wondering, I absolutely will not be voting for Obama in order to kick the Republicans out of office and back into true conservatism. As tempting as that sounds, I couldn't bring myself to vote for a radically anti-life, pro-homosexual, anti-gun, wealth redistributing liberal like Obama, even if I do vote for a third-party candidate (which some might consider "half a vote for Obama.")

In conclusion, I'd like to say once again that we must not forget about the congressional and senatorial battles this fall. For, regardless of who wins the presidency, the agenda of the next four years will largely be determined by who is in control of Congress.

Republican Hoosiers and Tar Heels Echo Pennsylvanians' Sentiments

Originally posted here and here.

Digg this.

Even with many of the pundits auditioning for the role of the “Fat Lady” and Hillary Clinton riling up her supporters by promising to continue the fight after her crushing defeat in North Carolina and narrow victory in Indiana, the loudest clangor in John McCain’s ears is probably the echo reverberating from Pennsylvania throughout Indiana and North Carolina.

Despite being the presumptive nominee for over two months now, the Arizona Senator failed to rack up even three quarters of the vote in North Carolina after having experienced the same letdown in Pennsylvania on April 22. McCain barely scraped up three quarters of the vote in Indiana.

In Indiana, John McCain collected 77% of the vote in form of over 319,000 votes tallied. Mike Huckabee, who suspended his bid for the nomination on March 4, came in second with over 41,000 (10%), while Ron Paul garnered upwards of 31,000 (8%) and Mitt Romney, who’s been out of the race for a month longer than Huckabee, managed 19,000 plus (5%).

In North Carolina, 381,000 and a handful more (74%) pulled the lever for McCain, while over 62,000 (12%) did so for Huckabee and another some 37,000 (7%) for Paul. More than 20,000 (4%) recorded that they had no preference. Romney wasn’t on the ballot, so many of those “no preference” votes are probably his, like those on the Democratic side were for Barack Obama and John Edwards in Michigan, where Hillary Clinton and the ever-competitive Dennis Kucinich were the only names on the ballot.

The point here is this: McCain has spent two months with almost no competition on the Republican side. He’s got less than six months left before the general election, and there are hundreds of thousands of voters who, for one reason or the other, consider it appropriate and necessary to cast their vote for a Republican not named McCain.

Of course, this doesn’t even account for those voters who may be “biting the bullet” and voting for McCain in the primaries for the sake of party unity, yet aren’t too excited about it and don’t plan to fight for him.

McCain has a little time and one monumental decision which will determine whether he can bring all these wandering sheep back into the fold. That momentous choice, of course, is that of his running mate. The question is this: Will any conservative do? Or does it need to be Mike Huckabee? Or does it need to be anyone but the former presidential candidates? Or are these voters gone no matter what?

I don't have the answer to those questions. But it should be noted that few politicians have as strong and as well-known of reputations on issues such as life, marriage, the Second Amendment, and the Fair Tax as Huckabee has, not to mention his appeal to middle-class voters and Christian conservatives.

Tell me what you think.

The Key to the Keystone State in November?

For the last month and a half, Governor Mike Huckabee spent no time with his boots on the ground in Pennsylvania. In fact, I don’t think he campaigned there period. His voice was not heard on radio ads. His visage was not seen in TV spots. The Hucka-bus did not traverse the turnpike. Calls were not made to prospective voters on his behalf. Any grassroots efforts were independent, few, and far between. No debates were held to match the Democrats.

Anyone up on their politics knows that the reason for this inactivity is the fact that Huckabee dropped out of the race after "Super Tuesday 2" on March 4th, when it became unmistakably clear that he would not prevent John McCain from reaching the required 1191 delegates. According to his word, Huckabee threw his support behind the Arizona Senator.

Yet, over 91,000 residents of the Keystone State still pulled the lever, if you will, for the former Arkansas governor yesterday. While the mainstream media—and, by the trickledown effect, the rest of us—are enamored by the fracas on the Democratic side, this is a stat that will, in all likelihood, go largely unnoticed. But it should not.

Some may say that this was merely a collection of protest votes. If that is the case, it’s still a big deal. Combined with Ron Paul’s votes, over a quarter of the voters on the Republican side said “no”—or at least “not yet”—to McCain. This is a stern warning to McCain: He does not have the conservative base locked up; he should not get too cute with his VP pick.

But what if the eleven percent Huckabee garnered is more than a display in Republican “civil disobedience”? After all, Ron Paul reportedly ran radio ads in Pennsylvania, and his supporters are still battling hard with their “Operation Chaos.” Paul actually received almost 128,000 votes, or 16 percent. Certainly, if people wanted to simply register their disdain for McCain, they’d either write in their favorite candidate or vote for a candidate still in the race (albeit feebly), who hasn't endorsed McCain, wouldn’t they? (Unless, of course, there’s that much antipathy towards Ron Paul and his non-interventionism.)

Perhaps the people of Pennsylvania were sending a clear message: We like Huckabee. The Keystone State is critical in November, and McCain’s not going to pick Paul (Would Paul even accept the invitation?). So, obviously, that leads us to Huckabee.

Huckabee is the kind of fella who can connect with those “bitter,” “frustrated,” “clingy” small-town Pennsylvanians whom Barack Obama apparently has no qualms about insulting. For those who "cling to religion," Huckabee is very outspoken and articulate about his faith. He’s a full-blown supporter of the Second Amendment, for those who “cling to guns.” He rejects gay marriage and amnesty, for those with “antipathy” towards those different from them. He even supports a policy of fair trade, as opposed to our broken free trade system, for those who have “anti-trade sentiment.”

Huckabee knows how to reach out to the little guy. He is one himself! People don’t see a lifelong politician, a business mogul, or a big-city elitist when they look at him, because that’s not who he is. Who is he? The type of guy who could help McCain in Pennsylvania this November.

Now, I don’t mean to start a big brouhaha of all the reasons why Huckabee would be a terrible choice. I’ve heard them. I’ve also heard legitimate arguments as to why a Huckabee supporter shouldn’t want McCain to select him. But two points of this post are clear: McCain has a lot of work to do, and he could use someone like Huckabee to help. Pennsylvanians proved that.

Overlooked Implications of Obama's "Bitter" Comments

More than enough pundits and writers with larger audiences than mine have already pointed out that Barack Obama’s “bitter” comments about small-town Pennsylvanians seem tinged with elitism, incomprehension of sincerely religious people, and the idea that something must be “wrong” with those people who refuse to support liberal candidates. But, although those three promulgations are important, I feel that there are other insinuations in his comments that may be the most egregious of all.

Obama later clarified the statements he made at a private San Francisco fundraiser, saying that when politicians don’t do small-town citizens any economic favors, the latter turn to “what they can count on.” Since they haven’t been able to count on the government to handle the economy well recently, they turn to what’s left: their faith. The inference here is that, if Democrats can just use the government to fulfill people’s desires, belief in God will become unnecessary—or, at least, that festering fervent faith in Him, which dictates the way one votes, will.

This sounds like something straight out of a secular humanist strategy book: the deification of government. When government cares for all our needs like a loving, “heavenly” father (or mother—let’s be politically correct), God can be relegated to a small, comfortable, controllable "box."

But another intimation underlies Obama’s words. His statements suggest that money drives the most fundamental aspects of our lives. After all, if the government’s bumbling with the economy is what causes us to “cling” to God (or “religion,” as he puts it), then prosperity would naturally trigger a drift away from God, or at least cause us to relax our grip, right? Now, that right there is a biblical concept. Of course, prosperity spawns temptations and lures us into trusting in ourselves and our wealth rather than God; material things can make us lose perspective, and they can grow into our god. On the other hand, we cry out to the Lord in trials and tribulations, and in such situations we often come to the realization of that which is most important. Somehow, though, I just don’t think that’s the point Obama was trying to make.

His reference to guns, hinting at his anti-gun sentiments, carries similar connotations (obviously, as it came in the same sentence). Never mind the foundational principles of self-defense and constitutional rights. According to Obama’s rationale, you have to pry the firearms out of gunners’ cold dead hands—not because they feel so passionately about the right to keep and bear arms—but because they’ve died from economic hardship.

Obama’s policy seems quite straightforward. Pad their wallets, and maybe they won’t notice if you empty their holsters.

Many secularists and anti-gun activists would like a world where faith and firearms are accents, not cornerstones, of our lives. Although I can’t nail down Obama’s position officially on the faith issue, he does seem to be in the same ballpark, which seems odd, considering that he openly calls himself a Christian. I’m not going to presume to know exactly what’s in the deep recesses of his heart, but we must not forget Obama’s political positions on abortion and homosexuality, along with other issues important to Christians. The more people who “cling” to their faith—specifically, Bible-believing, Christ-centered, all-encompassing faith—the worse it is for Obama’s political ambitions. Like an atheist says in Ben Stein’s new documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, religion will ideally become something that people “do on the weekends” for fun as a social event—something that doesn’t really affect the rest of their lives. Obama’s translation? Something that doesn’t really affect their votes.

VP POLL: Huckabee's Main Man,but by a Plurality

As always, thanks to everyone--all 206 of you--who participated in the latest poll.

Not ignoring the small, unscientific sample size which this site provides, the poll seems to suggest fervent support for Governors Huckabee and Romney, while a plethora of candidates have solid support.

Here's the rundown:

1. Fmr. Gov. Mike Huckabee (R, Arkansas): 73 (35%)

2. Fmr. Gov. Mitt Romney (R, Massachusetts): 51 (24%)

3. Secretary of State Condileeza Rice: 24 (11%)

4. Other: 16 (7%)

5. Sen. Joe Liebermann (D, Connecticut): 14 (6%)

6. Gov. Sarah Palin (R, Alaska): 9 (4%)

7. Gov. Haley Barbour (R, Mississippi): 8 (3%)

8. Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R, Minnesota): 7 (3%)

9. Gov. Charlie Crist (R, Florida): 4 (1%)


Note: I should point out that I did unintentionally leave out some very viable candidates, such as Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, among others. Fortunately, the "Other" option was provided for supporters of those candidates.

Please vote in the next poll, once I get it up and running.

Sitting in the Aisle?

Right now, I’m imagining a church sanctuary, divided right down the middle by a solitary aisle. On the left side sit all the churchgoers who may read the Bible, and even believe the parts that they like--in other words, nominal, moderate, and liberal Christians. On the right side sit all the churchgoers who believe that the Bible is God’s Word and not something to be twisted, taken out of context, or brushed aside--a.k.a., conservative evangelicals.

In my imaginary edifice, which happens to resemble the ecclesiastical incarnation of Congress, I’m trying to figure out, “What side would John McCain sit on?”

I’m starting to think that he would sit in the aisle. On the one hand, he wants the fellowship and support of the "right side" of this church. He desires that identity. But, deep down in his heart, he seems to belong right in the middle, or even on the left side.

I believe this is the case for a few reasons:

First, he called Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson “agents of intolerance.” Now, there are many ways that you could describe these two Christian leaders, including “insensitive” or “lacking discretion” for their post-9/11 sentiments. But McCain utilized terminology that is usually reserved for the “anything goes” liberal left. McCain reportedly reconciled with Falwell, but one has to wonder whether his original statements were sincere, and his latter statements were for political expediency.

Then, McCain said that he doesn’t think homosexuality is a sin, a view that goes right along with his opposition to a federal marriage amendment (although he doesn’t support gay marriage).

Moreover, WORLD Magazine, in the article “Divided We Stand,” described what happened when McCain was asked about his faith at a gathering of the CNP:

McCain launched into the story he has told often about a prison guard in North Vietnam who showed him compassion and once, in the prison yard, drew the sign of the cross in the dirt at McCain's feet, then quickly brushed it away. The story received polite applause. Later Family Research Council head Tony Perkins told WORLD, "He had a golden opportunity to talk about his faith.Instead, he talked about the faith of his guard. It was a great story, but not what we were looking for." Bill Owens, founder and president of the Coalition of African-American Pastors, was more direct: "It was a disaster. It just proves he has no clue what we're about."

McCain is pro-life but he has supported embryonic stem-cell research, causing one to question his convictions on the issue and whether he fully grasps the issue at hand. As James Dobson has said, “You can’t truly be pro-life” if you advocate the killing of babies—even those least developed as embryos. These concerns are further legitimized by the fact that he thinks rape and incest exceptions are appropriate. Apparently, he feels that one sin (rape or incest) justifies another (killing a baby). Beyond that, he would give the “benefit of the doubt” to any abortion seeker alleging rape. In other words, abortion rates might not decline all that much, while "rape rates" would rise, unless some sort of restrictions were put on claiming rape. Not to mention, he would also give the benefit of the doubt to any state which decided to keep abortion legal. He supports the overturning of Roe v. Wade (although he hasn’t always supported such a judicial move), but he does not support a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution.

On a personal level, John McCain’s infidelity may also end up being an issue with conservative Christian voters. Like it or not, McCain needs to address and fully disclose that issue. Can he admit that he sinned, failed, yielded to temptation?
He needs to say more than that he is a “believer in redemption.” He needs to say, “I really need to be redeemed.”

As of now, McCain just doesn’t seem to understand what makes conservative Christians’ clock tick, and time is running short for him to figure that out.

I honestly don’t think McCain can, with much credibility, synchronize his watch to that clock by November. In my opinion, the best way for him to get the gears turning in his favor is the selection of a true conservative Christian as a running mate, someone who can walk the walk and talk the talk, two things seemingly beyond McCain’s capacity.

And why not former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee? Does he have his political downsides? Well, yes. By little fault of his own, he may turn off the Mormon community, along with the “Mitt Romney community” in general. But the substantial and enthusiastic evangelical constituency which he represents may outweigh any negatives that he brings to the table. In any case, McCain must recognize that the evangelical voting bloc is not something to be taken for granted, and that we will not easily be fooled by a little election-year pandering.

McCain's High-Wire Act

**Please comment, telling me who you think should be McCain's VP candidate and why!**

John McCain describes himself as “older than dirt with more scars than Frankenstein.” As he ambles around the stage at a campaign rally or town hall meeting, his movements look more like Ironman at the beginning of the upcoming movie’s trailer than at the end of it. So, naturally, when you think about John McCain, the term “acrobat” is probably not one of the first things that pop into your mind. Yet, McCain finds himself in the midst of the high-wire act better known as his selection of a VP candidate.

The selection of a vice president is incredibly important. If you are unfamiliar with the American political system, you may be confounded by all the hoopla over this "second fiddle." It is true that the vice president is, by definition, not even co-president. But the vice president is vital because he is the "back-up" president. Also, the vice-presidential nominee is a not-so-subleminal message to voters of which direction the presidential nominee plans to traverse.

If McCain makes the right choice, he may just maintain his balance and make it across safely, solidifying the conservative base and collecting enough other demographics to snatch victory from the jaws of the Democrats. However, if he selects the wrong candidate, he’ll plummet to the floor, with the only potential safety nets being another terrorist attack or an extreme blunder by either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

At the very least, McCain wants to maintain the status quo. He cannot afford to take any steps backward, or to be knocked off kilter.

There are so many attributes for which to account. Should he go with a woman to steal the thunder from Hillary Clinton? Should he pick someone of a darker shade to stifle the buzz around Obama? Should he opt to go young to bridge the gap between his and Obama's ages? Should he focus on teaming up with someone from outside of Washington? Should he introduce a fresh face--someone who hasn't been in the public light? Should he attempt to add to his own military experience, magnifying the inexperience of the Democratic Senator from Illinois? Should he try to reach out to more independent voters, or should he endeavor to seal the conservative base?

Conventional political wisdom would probably advise McCain to try to widen his appeal as much as possible. But McCain finds himself in a somewhat unconventional position. He doesn’t appeal to the base of his own party. Should he really use his VP pick to trek into the wilderness of independent-land?

Unfortunately, amidst the hustle and bustle of all these factors, strong social conservatives may get left in the dust. For instance, Secretary of State Condileeza Rice seems like a logical choice; she’s young, black, female, and experienced in foreign policy (though her level of success is questionable). She’s also "mildly" pro-choice. That con virtually nixes the positivism of all of her pros. But, beyond that, she is pretty much a political unknown on a bucketful of presidential issues.

Joe Liebermann, the formerly Democratic but now Independent Senator from Connecticut, would shore up McCain’s “maverick” image, but would sink his conservative one (if he even has such a visage as it is). Liebermann is essentially a pro-war liberal—Al Gore’s running mate in 2000! Not to mention, John and Joe would constitute the dynamic “older-than-dirt” duo.

Charlie Crist, the popular governor of Florida, might sew up that battleground state for the GOP, but, without even looking at Crist’s political positions, the fact that he jumped on McCain’s bandwagon so soon makes one wonder. "On the Issues" calls him a "moderate conservative." Sound familiar?

The safe choice for McCain seems clear: Mitt Romney. Albeit unsavory to McCain personally, Romney would work wonders with conservatives, preserving conservative votes, in the least. Or would he?

Disregarding the disturbing non-sexual love affair—or, more childishly, crush—which seemingly every “conservative” pundit and talk-show host has with (or on) Romney, Mitt would scare away all conservatives (and all Americans, for that matter) who pride themselves on being resistant to snake oil salesmen, and who place morality above money on their list of priorities. Romney is a full conservative in rhetoric, not in record. Even in that context, he is an incomplete conservative--one that only aces the fiscal portion of the litmus test. And when a core constituency of the Republican Party sincerely questions his religious beliefs, he simply belittles such concerns and distorts the Sixth Article of the Constitution for his own purposes.

Sure, Wall Street America may adore Romney. But, right now, McCain needs Main Street USA. McCain needs door-to-door goers, sign-wavers, material distributors, and Sunday-school campaigners--not just check-writers. Romney would probably deliver the cash, perhaps even from his own bank account, but I doubt that he'd inspire a political movement for McCain.

Somehow, someway, Romney supporters think that he would appeal to a wide segment of Americans. He’s supposedly a “fresh, Washington outsider,” but he already comes across as a slick politician. Even his own supporters have admitted that you can forgive a “red guy governing in a blue state” for his liberal record. I sincerely hope that most conservatives aren't so willing to overlook such pandering and spinelessness. Ironically, Romney's liberal history wouldn't help McCain with independents and moderate democrats, because Romney claims to be such a brawny conservative now.

Would he reel in the old "Reagan Democrats" for the GOP? Doubtfully. His way of reaching out to the working-class is putting on a dress shirt and rolling up his sleeves halfway, instead of wearing a suit. Of course, the blue-collar man has a hard time reconciling a “Michigan native”-persona with a candidate who spends $35 million dollars (or more) of his personal wealth trying to capture the presidency.

There are a lot of directions in which McCain can go with the vice presidency. Many of them are wrong. Senator McCain, choose carefully. It’s a long fall to the ground.





**I hope to start examining potential vice-presidential candidates in the near future. In the meantime, comment with your thoughts and vote in the latest poll.**

Another Petition

U.S. Representative John Linder has another Fair Tax petition that you can sign. It is not the same one that Fair Tax.org is initiating.

Linder wants to present Congress with one million "citizen co-sponsors."

Click here to sign it.

POLL: McCain has a tough row-to-hoe

61 people voted in the latest poll.

Question: What will it take for John McCain to gain your support/approval?

An important factor to keep in mind is that this poll began before Huckabee suspended his campaign for the presidency. With that said, the largest percentage of voters said, "As far as I can tell, there is nothing that can make me support him. My mind is made up." 27 voters (44%) chose this option.

Constituting the second-highest total of votes, 24 (39%) said that "McCain needs to lose the nomination to Huckabee. Then I'd like him more."

Coming in a distant third, 8 of you (13%) said that "McCain needs to be a strong conservative during the rest of the campaign."

1 of you (1%) said that "McCain needs to drift more to the middle/left during the general election," and 1 of you (1%) said, "Huckabee and/or Paul just need(s) to drop out. Then I'd support McCain."

Please vote in the new poll, and e-mail me or comment on the blog, explaining why you think your choice should be McCain's choice for VP.

Two Petitions and New Site

Below, you can read my article, "The Republican Party Death Knell?"

Here, I just wanted to encourage you to sign this petition asking Mike Duncan, Chairman of the Republican National Committtee, to invite Mike Huckabee to give the keynote address at the Republican convention. Keynote is aiming high, but aiming too high is better than aiming too low, and Mike Huckabee deserves it anyway.

I also want you to visit the Fair Tax website and sign the petition they have going. They want 100,000 signatures to present to Congress on April 15.

Lastly, there's a new website spawned from Huck's Army called "F3 Coalition." Go there and sign up to be a part.

The Republican Party Death Knell?

In my recent post "A Flood of Thoughts and Feelings," I pointed out that, if McCain picks a true conservative to be his running mate, I'd probably vote for him. But it has come to my attention that there is another factor which may come into play.

A sense of uneasiness is hanging over the world of avid Huckabee supporters, as they wait to see whether the Republican party will invite the Republican nomination's runner-up to speak at the convention in Minnesota six months from now. In my personal opinion, to not do so could be to commit political suicide. I know one thing: the party would be killing its chances to attain my vote.

For all the talk about "reaching out" to social conservatives and evangelicals, this would be a clear indicator that it's all just that: talk. Mike Huckabee regularly racked up a high percentage of the votes of evangelicals and values voters. Through plurality circumstances, he competed very strongly among voters describing themselves as "very conservative," and, when the field thinned to only two candidates, Huckabee repeatedly defeated McCain among this constituency.

Huckabee won the reddest of red states--Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee. He would've won South Carolina and Oklahoma, too, if it hadn't been for a split in the conservative vote between Huckabee and Thompson, and Huckabee and Romney. Missouri would also have gone his way.

Huckabee won his home state of Arkansas, a state that the GOP will struggle to grab if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee. If Obama is the Democratic nominee, most states, including the traditionally red ones, may become a challenge for the Elephant Party, as large turnouts threaten to change the outlook of the nation.

Huckabee won the second-highest number of delegates among Republicans. Following Texas, another deeply red state in which he garnered over half-a-million votes despite the media and the establishment practically refusing to admit he still was in the race, he surpassed Mitt Romney. Some may say that's the only reason Huckabee remained in the race, and, therefore, the delegate count is not legit. But I think it is legit when one candidate spits out some blood and puts his fists back up again, whilst the other candidate throws in the towel. I think it's legit when one candidate continues to run and place well on a shoestring budget, while the other drops out after having spent $35 million of his own fortune and millions more from donors' coffers.

I don't care if the Republican establishment feels that Huckabee stayed in too long. If they use that as an excuse to disinvite him from the convention, they might as well come out and say that the Human Life Amendment is not important enough to keep fighting for until someone actually has the nomination sewn up; the Federal Marriage Amendment should be abandoned at the first sign of a "presumptive" nominee; the First Amendment and Second Amendment should be stocked away in order to honor and "rally around" the frontrunner; a truly revolutionary plan for lower taxes (a.k.a., the Fair Tax) should be forgotten so that we can raise more money for the leading candidate.

The fact is, voters in Kansas and Louisiana wanted Huckabee to keep on keepin' on. Even in states where he lost--like Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin-- voters showed their support for the continuation of his effort (or, at least, took the opportunity to chastise McCain).

Implying that Huckabee somehow disqualified himself from a favored spot at the convention also suggests that voters who egged Huckabee on have disqualified themselves from voting Republican. But holy election, Batman! The Republicans don't want to leave you with that impression!

More than a handful of evangelicals, conservatives, and Huckabee supporters have already vowed not to vote for McCain (Of course, for the latter, that might change if Huckabee was selected VP). Others have barely persuaded themselves to vote for McCain. Some haven't decided what to do yet, while there are those who have hoops which McCain and the GOP have to jump through. A good chunk of citizens will be voting for McCain, but not working for him.

The disregard, disrespect, and even disdain that would be demonstrated toward these Americans would be the equivalent of a wet blanket being thrown over two sticks being rubbed together. Such an act would seal some decisions against McCain, make others, and dampen any enthusiasm some are attempting to stir up within themselves. It could be the death knell for the Republican Party in 2008...and beyond. (Selecting a Joe Liebermann, Rudy Giulani, or Mitt Romney to be Vice President would likely accomplish the same end.)

The question is, how would Mike Huckabee and all these ensuing nomads of voters respond? The former governor of Arkanasas and Baptist minister seems like such a nice guy that he might try to shrug it off for the sake of the party--and his future in it. Then again, every once in a while, you'll see the tiger inside him start to claw its way out as he gets fired up about an issue.

At that point, I think it may be time to make a concerted effort to end the two-party domination. The system has used us for long enough, simply because it's been of some use to us. When the latter no longer remains true, why should the former?

A speaking spot at the convention can serve as a springboard for a future presidential run. One need to look no further than Reagan in '76. He convinced the delegates that they had chosen the wrong man--Ford. He essentially became the 1980 "presumptive" nominee...in 1976! Similarly, the unknown Barack Obama made a name for himself in 2004 at the Democratic convention.

If the Republican party won't give Huckabee this opportunity, I can't help but conclude that they don't want him now...or in the future.

However, let's remember that nothing has been decided yet. I am preemptively addressing this issue. And I recommend that you do the same.

E-mail the GOP (specifically RNC Chairman Mike Duncan), telling them what you think about this situation. Be sure to cover some of the main points in this post. Also, sign this petition asking Mike Duncan, Chairman of the Republican National Committtee, to invite Mike Huckabee to give the keynote address at the Republican convention. Keynote is aiming high, but it's better to aim too high than too low.

EDIT: I originally stated that Huckabee "majoritatively racked up the evangelical vote." Although Huckabee did very well among evangelicals, oftentimes receiving the highest percentage of their vote, according to exit polls, he did not win a true majority.

Concerning WWCP

Since I didn't work this information into my last behemoth of a post, I thought I'd tell you the future of WWCP. Yes, it has one.

I will continue to vet the remaining candidates, turning my focus more towards Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama than I have previously done. I will also be exploring third-party possibilities.

I hope to eventually finish my dissertation on why we need a Christian President.

Eventually, I'd like to transition this site to "We Want Christian Leaders." We need to elect conservative Christians to all political offices, not just the presidency. Now that it looks like the presidency is going to go to someone who is less-than-a-true conservative, we need to work all the harder to assure Congress and other offices don't go in that same direction.

A Flood of Thoughts and Feelings

The dramatic events of last night caused a flood of thoughts and feelings to pour through my mind and heart. My head was spinning like a whirling dervish. I wasn't panicking, although I was emotional; instead, I was wondering, "What now?"

There's so much I want to write, so forgive me if it appears a little disjointed and long-winded.

What to do next?

As a Kentuckian, I still have not had the opportunity of voting in a primary or caucus. I will not be voting for Senator John McCain. Why? Well, for one thing, there's very little reason to do so. He's the presumptive nominee...finally, despite what the media would have you believe.
Secondly, I will take advantage of my voting privilege to continue to send him a message that his policies are not conservative enough for me.
Thirdly, there is some concern with how he got his name on Kentucky's ballot.

Naturally, therefore, I will not "rally behind him" until the convention--if at all. It's important to remember that anything can still happen. I'm not breaking out my McCain voodoo doll or anything, but September is a long ways away. McCain has the delegates, but the delegates have not cast their votes yet.

However, presuming that McCain will be the nominee, what will I do? First, I'll have to pray and ponder long and hard. I recommend that everyone of you do the same thing, regardless of whether you are set in stone against McCain or for voting for the lesser of two evils.

I can understand both perspectives. On the one hand, I think the Republican party needs to be cleansed. The party in power always has a tendency to become corrupt and complacent, and that has certainly happened to the Republican party. It's becoming more moderate, which, basically, means more liberal. If John McCain wins the election, the whole political spectrum will shift to the left. I believe a John McCain presidency would continue the slow, but steady, decline of America.

Could it be that we need four years of "Carter" for eight years of "Reagan"? Would a stinging defeat this November shake the foundations of the Republican party so that it would return to the firm footing of true conservatism and honor? It very well may be.

But I see the other side, too. How much damage could the Democrats do in four years? Universal healthcare, retreat in the war, and higher taxes would be just a few of the liberal things on their agenda. They'd push the "Freedom of Choice Act," which would try to negate pro-life measures; they'd push the "Employee Non-Discrimination Act" and other gay rights legislation; they might even try to get through an assault weapons ban. Not to mention the openings on the Supreme Court bench that may be available.

So, once again in politics, we are left with choosing between the lesser of two evils. But I'm not referring to McCain and the Democratic nominee. That's an easy choice. I'm referencing voting for McCain and not voting for McCain. We must determine what is more likely to have long-term detrimental effects.

History does not occur in blocks of four years, though it seems that way when we analyze presidential administrations. You can't just assume that the conservative base will be in as strong, influential, and authoritative position in 2012, if it anoints McCain this year.

Then again, a tremendous amount of damage can be done in four years' time. Some say that the Carter-Reagan analogy is faulty because Obama or Clinton would cause a lot more destruction in four years than Carter ever did. That's a valid point.

For me, I think this whole dilemma can be resolved quite simply; all John McCain has to do is pick a true, complete, Christian conservative to be his running mate. I would vote for such a ticket. I don't think I could reject a ticket that would have a true conservative one heartbeat away from the Oval Office.

"...but it is not this day." --Aragorn, Lord of the Rings: Return of the King

Having said all that (with a couple truckloads of words), we must reject the tendency to be short-sighted or tunnel-visioned. Much bigger things are at stake than one presidential contest.

A Huckabee supporter said last night that Huckabee "started a movement." That may or may not be exactly true, but I do believe that he inspired, united, cultivated, and mobilized a movement. He created a constituency of Americans who refused to be told what to do by the media, the pundits, the talk show hosts, and the establishmentarians. He spawned a monster that will only grow larger and hungrier with this taste of independent success. I can only really speak for myself, but, for myself, I can say: "Republicans beware; I am not your voting pet needing only to be stroked occasionally."

A candidacy may have temporarily ended, but the issues on which it was fueled most certainly have not. We still must battle for the Human Life Amendment, for lives in their earliest states--including embryos--for the marriage amendment, for the preservation of the First and Second Amendment, for border security, for the faithful execution of our laws, for the maintaining of our nation's sovereignty, for the Fair Tax, and for fair trade. We now must fight all the harder, because, if McCain is elected, we will face opponents in all directions. Thus, we must not be afraid to punch, kick, and fire both left and right.

If the Democrats gain the White House and a larger majority in Congress, we must be prepared to stand our ground--to shun the temptation to retreat or compromise--amidst heavy artillery.

The sad fact is, either way, we won't pass and ratify the HLA, the FMA, or the Fair Tax in the next four years. But, in all honesty, it would have been nearly impossible for Huckabee to have achieved those feats during his first term. He would've used the bully pulpit of the presidency to build a consensus towards that verdict. Now, we must lift our voices as one, so as to accomplish what he could have...if only.

Members of Huck's Army are brainstorming ideas of what our next course of action should be. The ideas range from transforming Huckabee's unofficial grassroots community into a more generic conservative pact, to devising a new publication with social conservatism as its central focus, to retrieving and storing supplies (like signs) for re-use in 2012, to starting savings accounts for 2012, to starting a 527 group. Christian conservatives have caught just a glimpse of the attainable success when some concerted effort is put forth. They do not want to be caught off guard next time around. They are not willing to relinquish the idea of a President Mike Huckabee.

We've lost a battle. But the only way to ensure that we've lost the war is to surrender now.

Why did Huckabee lose?

Awed by Huckabee's concession speech, Fox News' anchor Brit Hume asked Sean Hannity why he thought Huckabee lost the nomination. Hannity replied with something very close to, "Well, I always go back to Super Tuesday. Huckabee and Romney split the conservative vote, and I think, if Huckabee had dropped out, we might have seen something different happen."

So, Huckabee lost because he didn't drop out sooner? Never fear. I have a much more sensible answer than that one.

1. Plurality: In retrospect, many are pointing to South Carolina as the beginning of the end for Huckabee. Fred Thompson, a long-time friend of John McCain and a former presidential candidate, made his "last stand" in South Carolina and rather suspiciously targeted all of his attacks against Mike Huckabee, when Huckabee and McCain were running neck-and-neck in the Palmetto State. McCain edged out Huckabee 33-30, likely due to Thompson's consistent barrage and the fact that he attracted some conservatives.

That loss was a big blow to Huckabee's momentum, both in the voting sense and the fundraising sense. In contrast, McCain was propelled into a victory in Florida. Huckabee finished fourth. Entering South Carolina, the polls in Florida showed a four-way tie for first place. The pieces of that puzzle aren't too difficult to put together.

Then, on Super Tuesday, Romney got in Huckabee's way. Without Romney, Huckabee would likely have won Oklahoma and Missouri, both of which he narrowly lost to McCain. I'm not suggesting Romney should have gotten out of the race. After all, I despised Romney supporters telling Huckabee the same thing. I'm just saying that plurality can hurt, especially since moderates simultaneously united behind John McCain as Rudy Giulani exited the race with a lonely delegate and endorsed the Arizona Senator.

2. Funds: A lot of the pundits seem to think that Romney "really" came in second place, and that he is actually the "heir apparent" to the Republican party. How do they figure? Huckabee competed fiercely against Romney with $10 million while Romney spent upwards of $35 million of his own fortune! That's not counting the treasure of donations that he spent.
Also, John McCain benefited from a $4 million dollar loan and public financing's provisions.

3. Messed-Up System: Right about now, the Democrats are bemoaning their proportional representation system. But the Republican setup has problems of its own. I guess I have to side with states' party rights on this issue, but the arbitrary discrepancy between "winner-take-all" states (several blue states, like New York and New Jersey, and others somewhat purple, like Missouri and Virginia) and others was very damaging to Huckabee's campaign. Then, there was the Louisiana fiasco. Since no one received 50% of the vote, none of the delegates were pledged. Hence, even though Huckabee won the Pelican State's primary, the majority of the delegates made clear that they intended to support McCain. That is the antithesis of democracy and has to change!
McCain heavily benefited from winning blue states that he'll have next-to-no chance of winning in the general election. I don't know if there is anyway for the Republican party to account for this, but it should try.

4. Debate Inequality: This was reaffirmed in a crystal clear manner in the last debate preceding Super Tuesday. CNN deliberately put Romney and McCain next to each other, and closest to the moderators. They placed no time limits on answers, yet they cut Ron Paul off after just a few seconds at one point. Of course, they let McCain and Romney go on and on and back and forth like a couple of schoolboys.

5. Media Bias and Misinformation: Perhaps more than any other entity, the media has the ability to make a falsity appear true. They have different ways of doing this. One way is quite blatant, like when they repeatedly, erroneously, said that it was "mathematically impossible" for Mike to win the nomination. There are more subtle ways, as well, like when they simply stopped covering Huckabee, causing the average person to think that he was out of it, or an afterthought, at most.
Related is the fact that so many Christian leaders listened to the media and the negative propaganda, refusing to openly support Huckabee.

Anyways, those are five things which we have to overcome next time. We need droves of conservative Christians to start saving their money, getting involved politically on the local level, and infiltrating the journalism industry.

Did I Forget Someone?

I almost feel ashamed. I've gone this far in this post with only the implicit mention of God through prayer and the line that "anything can still happen." Well, let me put a stop to that right now.

"And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose." (Romans 8:28)

"In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world." (John 16:33)

"As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive." (Genesis 50:20)

This did not surprise God. It didn't catch him off-guard. It wasn't forced upon Him against His will. God can use this turn of events to turn around America. But even if he does not (Daniel 3:17-18), I will still serve Him, and I know that He will bring about the greatest good for those that love Him. He will never forsake us. Let us never forsake Him. Let us continue to pray. Let us continue to work for the kingdom of God.

Military Men and Women, Don't Be Pigeonholed!

One of the media’s favorite things to do is to “pigeonhole” candidates and their constituencies. For instance, Mike Huckabee is, according to the media, the “evangelical candidate” and evangelicals vote for him. John McCain is the “military hero” and veterans vote for him.

The interesting thing is, for the media, it oftentimes only takes a simple majority—or even a plurality—from exit polls to paint a candidate into a demographical corner.

Well, I’m writing to dispel the myth that you, as a military man or woman, should feel compelled to vote for John McCain. I believe that there are (at least) three reasons why you should consider being part of the “minority” of veterans and military persons supporting Mike Huckabee.

1.) Mike Huckabee’s positions and record on the military and foreign policy.

a.) Huckabee wants to build a stronger military, and he believes in the military strategy of “irresistible force”—NOT a “light footprint,” which likely contributed to our problems in Iraq.

b.) He supports finishing the job in Iraq and opposes a timetable for withdrawal. He was willing to give the surge a shot, although, as any Commander-in-Chief should be, he was concerned about our forces being overextended and overstretched.

c.) He promises to “fight the war on terror with the intensity and single-mindedness that it deserves,” if elected.

d.) He is a strong supporter of Israel.

e.) He advocates a “Veterans’ Bill of Rights.”

As a postnote, it should not be forgotten that Huckabee has ten years of executive experience. For the last twenty some-odd years, John McCain has been a senator. Huckabee would simultaneously come in with executive experience and a fresh perspective, not being a Washington insider.


2.) Fundamental freedoms.

John McCain has failed to stand up for in the Senate what he fought for in the military. He has restricted our First and Second Amendment rights, and he opposes a Human Life Amendment, which would ensure our first unalienable right—life—endowed by our Creator and recorded in our Declaration of Independence. In contrast, Mike Huckabee has been a consistent and complete supporter of these basic liberties.


3.) John McCain’s record on military and veterans' issues.

I honestly don’t know enough about the ins and outs of veterans’ affairs or the history of John McCain to make a definitive judgment on this. But I encourage you to check out his voting record and the rest of his past. --------EDIT 9/04/08: I've decided to take down the link to the Vietnam Vets taking on McCain. I have way too much doubt in the credibility of the attack (and way too little information period), and I do not want to slander John McCain. I'm sorry I put the link up in the first place. However, here is the link to John McCain's voting record on veteran's issues: ---------

http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=53270&type=category&category=66&go.x=25&go.y=16

Now, if the be-all and end-all of your decision-making process revolves around military and foreign policy experience, these three points won't change your mind. But, otherwise, I hope this article makes you realize that John McCain is not your only option.

A Letter to Pro-Second Amendment Ohioans

Here's another slightly edited letter to pro-gunners:

As an Ohioan with an invested interest in the unadulterated preservation of the Second Amendment, you are being told by the media and the Republican establishment that you have two choices. They say that you can either choose the least of three evils by voting for John McCain, or you can cast a worthless, meaningless vote for Mike Huckabee. I beg to differ. A vote for Mike Huckabee still is valuable! In fact, Ohioans have an opportunity to tremendously impact the presidential race!

Mike Huckabee doesn't have to reach 1,191 delegates. He just has to keep John McCain from getting that many officially pledged before the convention. Plus, Ohio is not a winner-take-all state, so the polls that show John McCain well in the lead should not dissuade you from making your voice be heard. Every vote counts!

Even if Mike Huckabee cannot pull off the extreme upset in this election, you have the chance to emphasize to John McCain that moderately defending the Second Amendment is not enough. For, there are substantial differences between Huckabee and McCain on the issue of the right to keep and bear arms.

Senator McCain attempts to portray himself as a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, yet he and his "maverick" mentality have wandered into anti-gun territory multiple times, so much so that the Gun Owners of America gave him an "F" grade in 2004 and 2006. GOA goes on to say that McCain supported "initiatives to severely regulate gun shows and register gun buyers"; he advocated laws that would require you to keep your guns locked up at home; and he introduced a compromise bill of gun show regulations.

Furthermore, the restrictions McCain helped put on political free speech affect Second Amendment activists.

In stark contrast stands Mike Huckabee, a consistent, adamant supporter of your constitutional right to keep and bear arms. He doesn’t have to hide any Second Amendment skeletons in his campaign closet, because he has none. The Gun Owners of America says that Huckabee "has proven himself to be a steadfast friend to gun owners and the Second Amendment."

Who are you going to support? Will you vote for a candidate who talks the talk and walks the walk...today...but hasn’t always in the past? Or will you vote for the candidate who has persistently and consistently been a proponent and a protector of your right to protect yourself? Stand up for principle! Stand up for the Second Amendment!

Thank you for your time.
...
p.s. Here is the documentation for the information in this e-mail:
Mike Huckabee on the Second Amendment: http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=18

Gun Owners of America on Mike Huckabee: http://gunowners.org/pres08/huckabee.htm

Gun Owners of America on John McCain: http://gunowners.org/pres08/mccain.htm

Gun Owners Rating of John McCain and Related Articles: http://www.gunowners.org/mccaintb.htm

Not THIS Conservative

Count me among the conservatives who are not "rallying behind" John McCain in the wake of a New York Times smear job implicating a romantic relationship between McCain and a female lobbyist. Supposedly, the shakily-supported hitpiece has caused conservatives, formerly hostile to McCain, to "run to the defense" of the Arizona senator. Anyways, that's what I'm hearing. Reportedly, the article has actually been an amazingly efficient fundraising tool for the Republican frontrunner and the GOP in general.

While I don't think the New York Times lived up to journalistic standards in this story, I don't think the story is necessarily untrue. McCain has already found greener grass once in his life, and, on top of that, I'm sure it's extremely difficult for anyone who's been in Washington as long as he has to avoid some form or extent of corruption. That's why so much has been made this election season about electing someone from "outside of Washington" or simply not a "Washington insider."

But that's beside the point, for now. In any case, this story doesn't change the fact that I am not supporting McCain, and I certainly am not donating money to him, especially with a campaign financing controversy brewing around him (Link).

So it looks like McCain is being unfairly attacked. That doesn't change McCain-Feingold. So it looks like the New York Times, a nemesis of conservatism, is back to bashing Republicans, after recentlye endorsing McCain for the Republican nomination. That doesn't change McCain-Kennedy. It doesn't change McCain's opposition to the marriage amendment or the human life amendment. It doesn't change his record on embryonic stem-cell research or the Second Amendment. It doesn't change the fact that, as far as I can tell, he wants to maintain the same old broken system of income and corporate taxation (even if lessened) and unfair "free" trade.

Fortunately, I'm just a little too sharp-witted to blindly allow McCain and the GOP establishment to exploit this NYT article--to use it as a ploy to make a formerly resistant sheep willingly fall into the fold. I'm hoping there are many other conservatives like me.

This race isn't over, unless conservatives allow the mainstream media and the establishmentarians, who we so regularly distrust, tell us it is.

POLL RESULTS: Your Course of Action, if Huckabee Fails to Win Nomination

Thank you for the record participation in WWCP's latest poll. 134 votes!!!

The question is one weighing on many conservative minds right about now: If Mike Huckabee doesn't win the Republican nomination, what will you do?

You didn't have to be a Huckabee supporter to vote in the poll. The point was, IF McCain gets the nomination, what will your course of action be?

The vote was extremely split, which is bad news for John McCain.

"Vote for McCain" was still the most popular answer, but it only garnered 29% (39 votes).

27% (37 votes) are still undecided, but they aren't happy with their options. "I don't know which; in any case, I'd feel terrible."

19% (26 votes) will go with Obama or Clinton. This is extremely bad news for McCain, unless these voters were Democrats to begin with.

14% (19 votes) will simply sit out this election.

9% (13 votes) will vote third-party.

If McCain wins the nomination, he's going to have to work himself to death trying to get the votes (and support) of the undecided, the sitters-out, the third-party voters, and those about to cross-over to the Democrats.

A new poll will be up shortly.

POLL RESULTS: Faith and the Presidential Campaign

I've been too busy lately to post the results of the last poll, so now I have two polls to cover. This post covers the first.

Question: When you hear presidential candidates say they are Christians or speak of Judeo-Christian principles, what do you do?

Total Votes: 73

In a victory through a plurality of votes, 32 (43%) of you said, "If they have consistently acted and spoken in such a way, I believe them. Otherwise, I don't."

In second place, 27 (36%) of you chose a somewhat similar answer, saying, "I listen carefully to see whether or not it sounds like they know what they are talking about."

Coming in at a distant third, 9 (12%) of you said that faith shouldn't have a part in the presidential campaign. "I don't like it: candidates shouldn't be talking about faith and religion."

A few (4%) of you find it amusing, saying, "I usually burst out laughing. I just can't take most of them seriously."

Finally, a couple (2%) of you feel cynical about politicians trying to come off as religious. "I usually shrug it off with some or a lot cynicism/skepticism."

Open Letter to Sen. McCain: Explain How You're BETTER

I don't know if it's worth my while to actually send this to McCain, but I decided to write it in an "open letter" style anyway. The gist of the letter is that the biggest thing going for McCain is that he has the delegate lead--not that he is the best candidate.

Dear Senator McCain,

It seems to me that you expect all conservatives to unite behind you simply because you are the so-called “presumptive nominee” and because the establishmentarians of the Republican Party are telling us to do so. Well, I am writing to let you know that that’s not going to cut it for this conservative. Before you can capture my vote—and, more importantly, my active support—you have to explain to me why you’re a better candidate than Governor Mike Huckabee.

How are your position and record on life better? You don’t support a Human Life Amendment, and you have wavered on embryonic stem-cell research.

How are your position and record on marriage better? You oppose a federal marriage amendment.

How are your position and record on the Second Amendment better? You have fought for regulations on gun shows, mandatory trigger locks, and other anti-gun measures.

How are your position and record on the First Amendment better? Through your campaign finance reform, you have hampered the grassroots efforts of pro-life, pro-family, and pro-Second Amendment groups, restricting one of our most fundamental rights—that of free speech.

How are your position and record on immigration better? You wanted to give instant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, and, when your bill was brutally defeated by a massive uprising of the American people, you simply decided to tell yourself that it’s because Americans don’t trust the government. You don’t understand that Americans—conservative ones, at least—will not accept what is, in reality, amnesty, regardless of how you try to parse definitions.

How are your position and record on the economy better? You opposed the Bush tax cuts, though you now say you want to make them permanent; you want to impose burdensome environmental regulations; and you want to keep, for the most part, the same old broken system of income taxes, corporate taxes, and unfair trade.

Saying that you’re the “presumptive nominee” is not a case-proof for your candidacy’s superiority. Leading the pack does not automatically make one more suitable to be president, unless you want to concede that George W. Bush was a better candidate than you in 2000. You know as well as I that you won South Carolina by the assistance of Fred Thompson; Florida because of momentum coming out of South Carolina; Oklahoma and Missouri due to the conservative split between Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney; and California, Illinois, and the northeastern states partially because of Rudy Giulani’s political demise and partly because you’re not as conservative as you want people to believe. Since then, you’ve won primaries and caucuses largely on the basis of media imbalance and the presumption that the nomination is already yours.

I’m tired of you pointing to endless endorsements by those considered conservative, for two reasons. First of all, the door swings both ways. If you want to tout conservative endorsements as proving that you are a conservative, then what are we to think when you are backed by moderates and liberals like Arnold Schwarzenegger, Rudy Giulani, and Joe Liebermann? Secondly, although endorsements do mean something, other factors come into play, and to rely on endorsers for the affirmation of your credentials is to rely on a common logical fallacy. We are living in the age of the Internet, talk radio, and 24/7 cable news channels. An endorsee can no longer hide behind the reputation of his endorsers.

You could just point out the fact that you think, in your own mind, that your positions are better. I’m sure that such a proclamation would be honest. But I know you're too savvy to try to persuade the conservative base of the Republican Party that it’s been wrong all along.

Instead, you’ve been emphasizing your military expertise throughout the entire campaign season. I respect your service, but no great military leader says, “Keep your heads up, boys. We’re only going to be here for 100 more years.” And, as noble as it sounds when you say, “I’d rather lose an election than a war,” the fact is, if you lose to the Democrats, you will effectively lose the war. Sometimes, you have to temper your rhetoric a bit for the sake of the long-term, greater good. You are not going to be victorious in November with the platform that the vast majority of newborn babies will not see the end of our military presence in Iraq before they die.

Senator McCain, I understand that you are more conservative than Senator Obama. But who isn’t? I’m not interested in picking the lesser of two evils at this point. In fact, I may never be, but that’s beside the point. There’s still a “good” in this race: Mike Huckabee. I’m voting for him.

If you want to convince me to act otherwise, perhaps you should demand a debate with Governor Huckabee. Then, you can explain why you're better.