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.