"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.

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.**

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.

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.

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.

Fundamental Reasons to Vote for Huckabee over McCain

I believe that the reasons to vote for Mike Huckabeee over John McCain come down to fundamental, foundational, traditional, classic values.

Our First Unalienable Right: Life

McCain thinks the states should decide for themselves. Huckabee thinks God has already decided.

Our Third Unalienable Right: The Pursuit of Happiness

Our tax system tries pretty hard to hinder people in their pursuit of happiness. Not that happiness is all about money, but your money should not be plundered from you by the government. Huckabee wants to make it so that you decide the taxes you pay. With the Fair Tax, you only get taxed when you consume, not when you produce. The Fair Tax would also eliminate other unfair ways which the government pilfers its people. McCain says he wants lower taxes, but he also voted against the Bush tax cuts. And, regardless of how much he wants to lower taxes, he still wants to keep the same old broken, unjust system for the most part.

The First Amendment

Through veiled "campaign finance reform," McCain thinks that the government should have the authority to tell you how you are allowed to say something, when you are allowed to say it, and what you have to do before you can say it. Huckabee believes in free speech and the Constitution.

The Second Amendment

Huckabee understands that the Second Amendment isn't something to be toyed with. He knows that our right to keep and bear arms is a check on tyranny. Any regulation or restriction on that right is extremely risky. McCain obviously doesn't realize that, and he's not afraid to hamper Second Amendment activist efforts through his "campaign finance reform."

The Cornerstone of the Family

McCain believes that marriage is between a man and a woman, but he opposes a marriage amendment. Huckabee knows marriage is between a man and a woman, and he's willing to fight for it.

The Rule of Law

Apparently, John McCain does not understand that, in America, we are not in the business of rewarding lawbreakers. We do not assist people in achieving profitable ends by bad means.

It's not just about getting a secure border first, although McCain botched that principle when he teamed up with one of the most liberal senators in the history of the United States--Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts--to design comprehensive immigration "reform," or, more accurately, "deform" or "ill-informed."

It's not just about being a heavy-handed law-enforcer, either. It's about fairness, and it's about people starting their lives in America with their heads held high.

Those are not the only reasons why I am voting for Huckabee over McCain. Huckabee is a fresh face. Unlike McCain, he is not a Washington insider. Huckabee has over ten years of executive experience. McCain has none. Huckabee is compassionate and coolheaded. McCain is known to be hotheaded with a foul tongue.

Finally, in my humble opinion, McCain doesn't have much of a chance at winning in a general election. He probably can't inspire conservatives; he probably can't rally evangelicals; he can't attract the youth vote; and he's not a great, articulate debater. Huckabee is much younger than McCain; he's a spectacular communicator. He can inspire conservatives, and many evangelicals have rallied around him.

McCain Might Only Get Worse; or, The Case for Huckabee to Stay in the Race

Conservatives are not happy with John McCain. That’s become pretty clear. In state after state, they’ve demonstrated that they will not obediently fall in line behind the Arizona senator, even though many establishment conservatives have reconciled themselves to his nomination and endorsed him. For conservatives, the “Straight Talk Express” veers to the middle—and sometimes to the left—of the political spectrum too often to overlook. But here’s one thing I don’t even think most conservatives have realized yet: McCain might only get worse.

Usually, the trend during a general election is that both parties’ candidates drift toward the center of the public policy gamut, trying to widen their appeal as much as possible without losing their identities. Rhetoric softens, platforms become less ideological, and rallies are made to be more expansive and inclusive than hostile and polarizing.

Although such political strategy can seem like insincere pandering, it is generally overlooked and accepted as a necessary component to victory. But there’s a difference this year, and that difference is embodied in John McCain.

What do you have when a moderate conservative jockeys for the yellow-dotted line, rather than the left lane or the right? That’s the question about John McCain to which I want to know the answer. We’ve already seen that he is more than willing to crossover—not just “reach across”—the aisle on a plethora of issues. Will he actually lean more liberal than conservative in the months leading up to November?

What’s more, John McCain is totally indebted to moderates and independents for his success, and he knows it. Wouldn’t one logically suspect that he will pander to his dear middle? Not only that, but one of Barack Obama’s core constituencies is the independent demographic. Thus, if he becomes the democratic nominee, he and McCain will likely engage in a fierce battle over who is more “moderate” and "non-partisan." With Obama holding the massive advantage of not being the most hawkish advocate of the Iraq War known to man, that’d be a losing battle for McCain.

These are the reasons why it is so important that Mike Huckabee remains in the race, and that people continue to vote for him. McCain must be reminded—in a heavy-handed, incessant manner—that he is going nowhere without the conservative base. He must be told that he needs the conservative base fired up about, not just resigned to, him, in order for him to be victorious. He must be warned that, if he drifts toward the middle anymore, he’ll lose the lifeboat of the conservative voting bloc. He must be cautioned that, if he deems it unnecessary to select a staunch conservative as his VP, he will be defeated. But most importantly, he must be reminded that the race for the nomination is not over.

Note: I should add, anything could happen at any time to shake up this race. That is why it is so important for Huckabee to keep running at least until McCain has 1,191 (a majority of) delegates.

Social Conservatism Still Holds Precedence

Here's yet another letter I wrote to a Florida newspaper. If you think I should send it to another newspaper, in any state, let me know.

Length: 243 words

Subject: Social Conservatism Still Holds Precedence

This letter is to affirm that social conservatism still holds a great deal of precedence with at least one voter. Apparently, most of the contenders for the Republican nomination don’t realize that people like me exist. Romney is trying to magnify the importance of the economy, which goes well with his business acumen. McCain is trying to spin everything to foreign policy and defense, which goes well with his military and defense background. Giulani tries to tie a lot of things back to 9/11 and his leadership experience from it.

This trend of emphasizing one issue is understandable, since each candidate has his own particular strength. But don’t forget that all these candidates are also hiding conservative weaknesses in the social realm.

Giulani is in favor of choice, civil unions, and locally-determined gun restrictions. Romney has shoddy track records on abortion and gun control. McCain does not support a Human Life Amendment or a Marriage Amendment, and his maverick nature has brought him on the anti-gun side of the fence more than once.

Mike Huckabee is the only one who has been a constant, complete conservative on all of these issues. He supports a Human Life Amendment, a Marriage Amendment, and the Second Amendment. Nothing in his record contradicts his stances on these issues. He is the only one who appears to have consistently believed in what I do as passionately as I do. Therefore, he is the only one I will support.

Lost in the Shuffle...the Second Amendment

This is another letter I sent to a Florida newspaper. It is about the Republican candidates' records on gun control. If you know of a newspaper, in any state, that you think I should send this to, let me know, by comment or e-mail.

Length: 242 words

Lost in the campaign shuffle of the economy, the war in Iraq, and the war on terror, we find an issue most fundamental: the right to keep and bear arms. All the candidates on the Republican side pay lip service to the Second Amendment, but, as the saying goes, actions speak louder than words. Furthermore, past statements speak louder than election year rhetoric. Alas, most of the candidates in the Republican field don’t have a consistent pattern to trust.

Giulani supports locally-determined gun restrictions, as if some citizens don’t deserve the same constitutional liberties that others do. Apparently a utilitarian, he defends his actions in New York City, claiming that they reduced crime. But many, especially conservatives, would reject the logic of such a cause-effect argument and its use as an excuse to restrict a constitutional right.

Romney’s record shows that he used to support the Brady law and a ban on at least some semi-automatic weapons. Furthermore, he promised not to “chip away” at Massachusetts’ strict gun laws when he was running for governor. McCain’s maverick mentality led him into anti-gun territory—and not just once.

In contrast to those three, Mike Huckabee is the only candidate who has unfailingly and adamantly protected our right to defend ourselves in a free and unhindered manner.

I beseech all conservatives, while all the candidates promise to protect the country and your wallets, remember who has also consistently protected your right to protect yourself.

Straight Talk About John McCain on Immigration

I wrote this letter to "The Ledger," a Florida newspaper. Do NOT copy this letter to them. If you know of another newspaper, in any state, that would be a good place to send this, comment on this post or e-mail me with the newspaper's name/website/e-mail address. THANKS!

John McCain dubs his campaign the “Straight Talk Express.” So, I thought I’d take some time to give my own straight talk about John McCain on immigration.

McCain says that his immigration bill failed because people do not trust the government. Here’s some straight talk: his immigration bill failed because, in the eyes of us conservatives, it was a terrible plan; it was amnesty, no matter how McCain tries to parse definitions. McCain says he learned that Americans want the border secured first. Here's more straight talk: yes, we do want the borders secured, but that’s not the only problem we had with his plan. We don’t want amnesty, and he is still promising us that. He says that, in his plan where most illegals get to stay in America from day one, "they'd have to get at the back of the line" for citizenship. Here's some straight talk: when you're already in the Chocolate Factory, who cares about the Golden Ticket? McCain says that he would deport the two million criminal illegals immediately. Here's some straight talk: those two million criminals would be amazingly difficult to round up. A terrorist, drug dealer, murderer, or rapist is not going to come forward, ask for a card, and say, “By the way, I’m one of the bad ones.” McCain says he wouldn’t deport the wife, here illegally, of a soldier in Iraq. Here’s some straight talk: rather than exploiting that situation to justify compromising the law, why not ask how they managed to get married in the first place?

As a conservative, I must say that, for a straight talker, McCain sure thinks and speaks crookedly on this issue. Mike Huckabee has proposed a 9-point Secure the Border Plan, endorsed by Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minuteman; he has signed a “No Amnesty Pledge”; he’s been endorsed by immigration hawk and former presidential candidate Duncan Hunter; and he has my support.

Ranking Their "Positions": Personal Commitments and Morality

Some may claim that we shouldn't get into presidential candidates' lives, that by doing so we are getting too personal, or using too fine a microscope. And I would concede that a candidate's personal moral history should not be a deciding factor. After all, everyone has the propensity to make mistakes--to fall into sin--and, sometimes, those slip-ups can lead to something as drastic and destructive as divorce. Besides that, when dealing with a public figure trying to retain some privacy in his or her life, we can have a difficult time figuring how much each spouse is at fault in a separation.

On top of that, if a person appears genuinely repentant, we, as Christians, have to consider forgiving and forgetting.

Having laid that groundwork, I do still feel that a candidate's personal life can be a contributing factor to the selection process. What can we learn from a presidential aspirant's past, and why does it matter? I feel like we can potentially gain some insight, though not concretely, into the following areas:

a) Commitment: What does it mean to him when he says, "I do; I will; for better, for worse; for richer, for poorer; 'til death do us part"?

b.) Selflessness/Desire to Do the Will of God: When a person spurns his wife, scoffs at God, and renigs on a lifetime contract, narcissism is much more likely prevalent in that person's life than selflessness and dedication to God.

c) Fear of God: What does it mean to him when he hears "In the sight of God" and "holy matrimony"?

d) Honesty: Someone who lies in order to carry on an affair (if that is indeed the case) will, in all likelihood, lie in order to accomplish other forms of personal gratification, whatever they may be.

e) Responsibility as a Public Figure: How seriously does an adulterating/fornicating politician take his/her role as a role model, a representative of the people, a prominent image of his constituents to the nation and to the world. Can he be trusted with the closely scrutinized position of the presidency?

As a final thought, before we begin to look at how the presidential candidates match up, remember that, just because we should forgive someone, doesn't mean we have to trust them with one of--if not--the most powerful and influential jobs in the world.

1. Ron Paul: (Wikipedia)

I am bequeathing the honorary Number One position upon Ron Paul in honor of the fact that he has been married to his one and only wife Carol for almost 51 years. Together, they have five children and seventeen grandchildren! (Interestingly enough, Wikipedia reports that they have eighteen grandchildren and one great grandchild, but the article it references as support confirms the statistics on Paul's campaign site.)

Paul is a solid supporter of traditional marriage, but he opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment because of his constitutional interpretation of federal jurisdiction.

2(t). Mike Huckabee: (Wikipedia)

Huckabee, a former Baptist minister, has lived up to his responsibility as a role model, at least when it comes to the duration and amount of marriages of which he has been a part. That is, he's been married once, for 33 years, to woman named Janet. They have three (now full-grown) children.

He helped institute "Covenant Marriages" in Arkansas, renewing his vows to his wife, and he is and always has been a strong supporter of traditional marriage, promising to push a federal marriage amendment as President.

On a side note, he had a great soundbite in one of the recent debates, when he said that marriage is not about each partner giving fifty percent, but about each partner giving one hundred percent.

2(t). Duncan Hunter: (*No longer running: dropped out 1/19/08; endorsed Huckabee)

Duncan Hunter, one of the forgotten men in this year's presidential race, has been a much better example in marriage than several of his colleagues who are far ahead of him in the polls. He has only been married once, is still married, and has been married to his wife Lynne for over 33 years. They have two sons, two daughters-in-law, and three grandchildren.

Hunter is a staunch advocate of traditional marriage, and, like Huckabee, would attempt to pass a marriage amendment as President.

2(t). Mitt Romney: (Wikipedia)

Married for over 38 years, Romney and his only wife Ann have had five sons together, who have in turn given them eleven grandchildren.
All appears fine on that front, with his children campaigning with him, but we must remember that Romney is a Mormon. His wife Ann converted to Mormonism before they married, and they no doubt raised their children in a Mormon tradition, which means that Romney is responsible for leading (or at least trying to lead) a woman and five children down the wrong path. However, I have decided not to downgrade Mitt Romney in this particular post for that reason.

2(t). Alan Keyes: (Wikipedia)

Keyes, a stalwart when it comes to the defense of traditional marriage and strong families, defines himself as a "dedicated family man." He and his wife Jocelyn have three children.

One of his daughters, Maya, has come out as a Lesbian. There were reports that, when Alan found out about this, he "threw her out of the house, stopped talking to her, and refused to pay for her college." According to Wikipedia, Maya confirmed these reports, but Alan denied them. "He asserted that he never cut her off and never would because it would be 'wrong in the eyes of God.' He also said he would not be coerced into 'approving of that which destroys the soul' of his daughter. He contended that he must 'stand for the truth [Jesus Christ] represents' even if it breaks his heart."

I'm not sure what to make of all that. If his defense is true, he's right. But the conflicting reports are disturbing. As for raising a child that turns out to be a lesbian, I don't know if you can blame Keyes. I certainly wouldn't be so bold as to shamelessly blame my parents if I were to fall into sin. However, this situation begs us to look more closely at Keyes devout Catholicism. Does he have a true relationship with Jesus Christ, which he could therefore pass on to his children, rather than some type of legalism or ritualism? But, again, this could happen to devout Protestant Christians' children, too.

***After originally ranking Keyes 5th, I have decided to move him up with the others. There is simply no justification for downgrading him.

6. Fred Thompson: (Wikipedia) (No longer running; dropped out 1/22/08)

Fred Thompson has been divorced once and married twice. He married his first wife when he was only seventeen years old, proceeding to have three children (two surviving) with her. After remaining married for over twenty-five years, they divorced. Thereafter, Thompson was romantically linked to several women, eventually marrying his current wife, Jeri, in 2002. They have two very young children.

7. John McCain: (Wikipedia)

Divorced once and married twice, just like Thompson, McCain is placed under Thompson because of the way his marital relationships transpired. Initially, John married a girl named Carol in 1965. She had already been married, but she divorced. McCain adopted her two children, and they had a child of their own.

In 1979, while still married to Carol, McCain fell in love with a new, much younger (17 years) girl. He acted accordingly, filing for and attaining a divorce. He's now been married to Cindy for over 27 years, having three children.

According to Wikipedia, McCain's children would not attend his second wedding, understandably, although they have since reconciled with him and Cindy. McCain has four grandchildren.

8. Rudy Giulani: (Wikipedia)

Giulani has been divorced twice and married three times. He originally married his second cousin. Within ten years, he and his wife agreed to a trial separation, their marriage struggling. Seven years later, Giulani met someone new and thereafter filed for a legal separation. He began living with his second wife-to-be, attained a civil divorce, and received an annulment from the Catholic church on the basis of the fact that Giulani supposedly thought his first wife was his third cousin, not his second. When he (and the Catholic church) "discovered" the truth, the marriage was deemed to be illegitimate.

A while later, Giulani married his live-in. The marriage became strained, however, and in 1997, word started leaking out that Giulani was having an affair, which was indeed the case.

But that affair was not the one in which his current wife, Judith, was a participant. That came soon after, as Giulani carried on a secret relationship with her, while he was still married. The relationship became less and less secretive over time, as Giulani was seen publicly with Judith, stopped wearing his wedding ring, and had police and security details take him to have secret rendezvouses with his partner in adultery. Judith had also been divorced twice.

When Giulani announced his intentions to separate from his second wife, his wife did not about his plans before he made them public. Heavy criticism and a nasty divorce settlement ensued.

Eventually, however, he did divorce his second wife and marry his third.

Rudy has two children by his second wife, and one stepchild with Judy. It has been reported within the last year that Giulani is estranged from his two biological children.


Rankings (after five issues)[with Hunter]:
Hunter: 1.8
Keyes: 1.8
Huckabee: 2.2
Paul: 3.6
Romney: 4.2
Thompson: 4.2
McCain: 6.4
Giulani: 7.6


Rankings (after five issues)[without Hunter]:
Keyes: 1.8
Huckabee: 2
Paul: 3
Thompson: 3.4
Romney: 3.6
McCain: 5.4
Giulani: 6.6

WWCP Dis-endorses John McCain (for Primary Season)

Everytime I decide to dis-endorse a candidate, it pains me greatly. It bothers me not only because I may like the candidate personally, but also because I realize the potential implications of being against a candidate when others are even worse. Both of those factors are sources of discomfort in this decision. However, I cannot sit idly by and watch John continue to surge in the polls.

On the first five issues I have examined--sanctity of marriage, sanctity of marriage, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Obscenity/Pornography, and Personal Commitment/Morality (soon to be posted)--John McCain has ranked 6.4 collectively, behind Duncan Hunter, Mike Huckabee, Alan Keyes, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney (also dis-endorsed), and Fred Thompson, respectively. That poor of a ranking doesn't even reflect his position on immigration and the fiasco of McCain-Feingold.

By this dis-endorsement, I am not claiming that McCain is not a true Christian, although one is made to wonder; rather, I am simply saying that he does not appear to be one of the better options as a true Christian President.

If he turns out to be the Republican nominee, I may be able to support him, unlike Rudy Giulani and Mitt Romney. However, for the foreseeable future of the primary season, I am dis-endorsing John McCain.

Post-Primary Postulations

New Hampshire Republican Primary Results:

John McCain: 37%
Mitt Romney: 32 %
Mike Huckabee: 11%
Rudy Giulani: 9%
Ron Paul: 8%
Fred Thompson: 1%
Duncan Hunter: <1%
Alan Keyes: <1%

~No major miracle (a total victory) or minor miracle (second place) occurred for Huckabee last night. Yet, his third-place finish, ahead of Rudy Giulani, was still a solid one. He now has moved onto campaigning in Michigan and South Carolina, possessing a good shot at winning both of those states.

~Ironically, Huckabee's third-place finish will likely be viewed more positively than Romney's second-place performance. If he's not careful, Romney will be characterized as the "rich bridesmaid," who just can't buy a husband despite all her riches. Unless, of course, you want to classify Wyoming as a suitable "husband." It's not suitably sufficient for a legitimate presidential candidate--I'll tell you that much.

~The predictions I made after the Iowa Caucus are largely contingent upon the boost McCain gets as he rockets out of New Hampshire. He's currently polling third in Michigan behind Romney and Huckabee, a distant second in South Carolina to Huckabee, and fourth in Florida.

~Thompson came close to flat-lining. Today, as per my request (sort of), he said that he's "making his stand" in South Carolina. According to the Real Clear Politics Average, Fred is a whopping 23.3 points behind Huckabee, 10.7 behind McCain, and 7 behind Romney. Thompson is tied with Giulani at 9 percentage points.
It doesn't seem like such a wise decision for Thompson to pull a General Custer against such overwhelming odds. But, even with South Carolina appearing to be the equivalent of a 2-3 offsuit hand (to use a Texas Hold'Em analogy), it's his best opportunity to seriously compete in a state before February 5th (Super Tuesday). Although he's not in much worse shape in Michigan, Nevada, or Florida, Thompson's southern, folksy appeal is less advantageous in those states than it is in South Carolina, and the media will probably cover the latter more heavily anyway.

~In the most Libertarian state in Union, with a boatload of "Free Staters" and the motto "Live Free or Die," Ron Paul pulled off a rather ordinary performance. If he can't score better than fifth here, then where?

~In my aforementioned predictions, I failed to account for Nevada. There hasn't been any polling there since early December, so it's hard to tell what's happening there.

As John Edwards would say, there's two down. Forty-eight to go.

Pre-Primary Ponderings

The "first-in-the-nation" primaries are about to begin in New Hampshire, and here's what I'm thinking about:

~Multiple analysts have suggested that Mike Huckabee might--just might--pass Mitt Romney for second place in New Hampshire (behind a soaring John McCain), even though the polls don't even hint at such a possibility. One suggested that, since Huckabee is bringing out the young vote, the pollsters might not be reaching them.
If that scenario did transpire, it would dramatically increase Huckabee's already significant momentum, and it might just end--in all practicality--Mitt Romney's hopes at the nomination.

~It's more likely, however, that Huckabee will place a solid third, ahead of a stumbling Rudy Giulani. Although this type of finish wouldn't provide the boost that a silver or gold would, I think it would retain Huckabee's current momentum.

~It looks like Fred Thompson is going to place sixth. He's already admitted that they didn't really try in New Hampshire, basically professing contentment and resignation in the wake of a decisive defeat. Where's his campaign going? I personally like the guy--and most of his positions--but I want to see him put up a fight somewhere, or throw in the towel. Don't prolong the inevitable.

~Ron Paul will probably rank fifth. That's not too bad, by his standards, but, with New Hampshire being such an independent, libertarian state, the Libertarian Republican candidate has to be hoping for a better performance than the polls project. Otherwise, where does he plan to do better?

Please keep praying.

Pre-Caucus Thoughts

We've just about made it to the Iowa caucuses. The following is a collection of some campaign news sprinkled with my opining.

~The most recent Des Moines Register poll has Mike Huckabee leading Mitt Romney by six percentage points in Iowa, 32% to 26%. However, this poll was taken before what some consider Huckabee's "debacle," when he filmed a negative ad, then decided not to run it, but showed it to the media and thereby garnered it a lot of free air time. Some consider the move devious, while others consider it stupid.
Furthermore, the Real Clear Politics poll average suggests that the race is a dead heat, well within the margin of error, and Fox News correspondent Karl Cameron reported that some within the campaigns think that the race will be decided by less than a percentage point.

~Outspending Huckabee in Iowa 20-1, Romney, who is reportedly a great businessman, has to admit that Huckabee's campaign has been far more productive and efficient than his own. Or, Romney has to concede that boatloads of money can only buy so many votes. Maybe it's a little of both. He has spent over $6 million in Iowa.

~According to the latest Des Moines Register poll, Fred Thompson is dangerously close to losing fourth place to Ron Paul. Yes, I speak of the same Ron Paul who everybody either loves or wants to have committed. (Okay, so there are some who fall in between--like me.) If this unthinkable does occur, Thompson's bid for the presidency could be just about over. Even if he holds onto fourth place, he will be in bad shape. He just doesn't seem to have an "identity" to develop a voting bloc, and a fourth-place finish or worse can't be spun positively to supporters.
However, a third-place finish, ahead of a surging John McCain, would be a boost, and that is not entirely out out of the question.

~If Romney loses Iowa, that defeat would likely propel him to two more defeats: one in New Hampshire at the hands of John McCain and another in South Carolina. Those two losses would likely make him lose Michigan. Clearly, Iowa is exceedingly important for Romney, although much the same applies to Huckabee, who would likely lose the steam to win South Carolina and Michigan following a loss in Iowa.

It's time to be praying, people.

Ranking Their Positions: The Right to Keep and Bear Arms

This is the third post in a series examining the presidential candidates' positions on key issues for conservative Christians.

This post will examine the candidates' platforms on the Second Amendment: the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Some may not see this issue as one with which Christians should concern themselves. What do guns have to do with loving one's neighbor? The Golden Rule? Turning the other cheek?

Well, while I do believe that Christians should avoid violence if at all possible (Romans 12:18), I also believe that everyone has a fundamental right to defend themselves, their families, their property, and their freedoms. This is a right that no government has the jurisdiction to revoke.
Still, though, some Christians may be bothered by the fact that someone like me would be so passionate about preserving the right of self-defense. To read a more complete reply to this concern, follow this link. But I'd like to point out some things that the aforementioned article doesn't:

As "biblical" evidence for a non-resistance philosophy, some may point to Jesus' condemnation of Peter for using his sword at the time of Jesus' arrest (John 18). But we must take that condemnation in context. First of all, Jesus was on earth for a specific purpose. He was meant to be arrested (Matthew 26:54). Peter was trying to "play God," so to speak, in that he wanted to take Jesus down a path that was not God's will. Did Peter really have so little faith in God and in Jesus that he didn't think Christ could survive or escape on His own? Jesus had already done that several times. He reminded Peter of his power, saying, "...do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels?" (Matthew 26:53)

Secondly, when Jesus warned against "living by the sword," (Matthew 26:52) I can't imagine he was condemning self-defense. He couldn't have been prohibiting the use of the sword universally and eternally, because he told his disciples to purchase swords just a bit earlier (Luke 22:36). Jesus was being arrested. Peter didn't know why, or what would happen, but there didn't appear to be any immediate lethal danger. Yet, in a moment of intense stress, Peter's knee-jerk reaction was to take the only decisive action he could think of--attack! He was usurping the civil government's power by trying to prevent Jesus' seizure forcefully. His actions are understandable, but, if he would have killed the high-priest's servant, his actions would have also been murderous.


A second thing Christian pacifists might point to is that we don't see the example of self-defense from the apostles. But I think it is a grave mistake to take their "example" as definitive in this instance.We have to give Paul and the other apostles some credit for using a little common sense. When you are being taken captive by a mob, you don't fight back--you will end up dead. When you are being arrested by Roman soldiers, you don't fight back--you will end up dead. Even if you end up killing some of them, you will never be able to talk your way out of the consequences of your actions later. Besides, they may not have been trying to kill you in the first place.

Situations such as those in which the apostles found themselves are entirely different than those which we'd traditionally think of as calling for self-defense.

Thirdly, I'd also like to point out that the New Testament certainly isn't anti-soldier or anti-governmental force. But civil and military officers are no more or no less than self-defenders on a societal and unit level.

One more thing: the argument can be made that, amidst certain circumstances, complete non-resistance could be construed as a form of suicidal behavior, which is certainly not condoned by Scripture. Plus, we must recognize that self-defense often involves protecting others than yourself, such as the elderly, the young, the weak, the vulnerable, and so on. Would God have us stand by and do nothing? I think not.

In conclusion, if you feel that complete pacificism for Christ is a calling upon your life, that is a choice you are permitted to make, and I respect you if you make it. But it is not one which you can rightfully impose upon others--whether they be non-Christians or Christians who simply disagree with you.

Now, we can debate and deliberate about some reasonable gun restrictions. For instance, should guns be allowed in establishments where alcohol is served? Should those with a serious mental health record be allowed to purchase guns? Do criminals guilty of violent acts voluntarily relinquish their Second Amendment rights? Should gun sales be monitored (with background checks) so as to prevent hostile criminals, the mentally ill, and even illegal aliens from attaining firearms? Should a person be allowed to own guns if he/she generally poses a greater threat to society (and even himself/herself) than society (with all its criminals and psychopaths) poses to him/her?

These (and others) are valid questions worthy of discussion, and they are part of the reason which made this such a difficult issue on which to analyze and rank the candidates' positions. (The other reason is that some of the candidates have had sketchy track-records.) However, since government control usually leads to more government control, and since it is often more trouble than its worth, I opted to rank the candidates highest who call for the least amount of restrictions.

T1. Mike Huckabee

In reference to the Second Amendment, Huckabee repeats his claim of track-record supremacy that he also asserts concerning abortion and marriage. He says on his site, "No candidate has a stronger, more consistent record on Second Amendment rights than I do." On a personal level, the former governor of Arkansas touts being "the first Governor in the country to have a concealed handgun license." On matters of public policy, he opposed (and opposes) assault weapon bans, the Brady Bill, and frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers.

Huckabee appears to comprehensively understand what's at stake with the Second Amendment debate. He also understands the very essence of the rights, saying that "Second Amendment rights belong to individuals, not cities or states. I oppose gun control based on geography." This is a clear dig at rival candidate Rudy Giulani, who has stated that he thinks differing measures of gun control are appropriate in different areas, as if citizens of some regions don't deserve the same constitutional rights as those of others.

The Gun Owners of America's website says that "Mike Huckabee has been in the heat of battle over gun rights and has proven himself to be a steadfast friend to gun owners and the Second Amendment."

Key Quote: "Zealously protecting your Second Amendment rights is another way that I will lift all law-abiding Americans up, by consistently championing your right to defend yourself."

T1. Duncan Hunter (*No longer running: dropped out 1/19/08; endorsed Mike Huckabee)

Although he "thoroughly" enjoys hunting, Hunter (pun unavoidable) doubtlessly understands the essence of the Second Amendment. He states on his site that the Second Amendment "is not about hunting. It is about the right of you and me to be secure in our homes. We must vigorously defend against all attempts to chip away at the Second Amendment. You know as well as I do that there is one thing criminals prefer over any other: unarmed victims." Receiving an A from the Gun Owners of America and an A+ from the National Rifle Association, Hunter clearly practices what he preaches.

Key Quote: "It seems every election year, some liberal politician dons an NRA cap and grabs a shotgun for a hunting photo-op, as if that means they support our right as Americans to keep and bear arms. I, myself, thoroughly enjoy hunting, having just recently spent a great weekend hunting elk in Arizona. But, the Second Amendment is not about hunting."

T1. Alan Keyes

Keyes nearly plagiarizes the Declaration of the Independence when he explains on his site why he is a "strong supporter" of the Second Amendment. Following so closely that document's line of thinking, he believes that a "strong case can be made...that it is a fundamental DUTY of the free citizen to keep and bear arms"--not just a right.

With a logical train of thought, he deduces that the "gun control agenda is...an implicit denial of the human capacity for self-government and is tyrannical in principle."

Key Quote: "The gun control agenda is based on the view that ordinary citizens cannot be trusted to use the physical power of arms responsibly. But a people that cannot be trusted with guns cannot be trusted with the much more dangerous powers of self-government. The gun control agenda is thus an implicit denial of the human capacity for self-government and is tyrannical in principle."

T1. Ron Paul

As a stalwart upholder of the Constitution, one would expect nothing less from Ron Paul than complete and utter support for the Second Amendment. He delivers nothing less, saying that he has "always supported the Second Amendment." Fully comprehending the importance of the amendment, Paul has introduced several pieces of legislation to protect the right to keep and bear arms. Saying that "You have the right to protect your life, liberty, and property," Paul promises to "continue to guard the liberties stated in the Second Amendment."

The Gun Owners of America call Paul "a leader in the fight to defend and restore the Second Amendment."

Key Quote: "I share our Founders’ belief that in a free society each citizen must have the right to keep and bear arms. They ratified the Second Amendment knowing that this right is the guardian of every other right, and they all would be horrified by the proliferation of unconstitutional legislation that prevents law-abiding Americans from exercising this right."

5. Tom Tancredo (*No longer running: Ended candidacy on 12/20/07, supporting Mitt Romney)

Evidenced by the fact that the National Rifle Association gives him an "A" grade, Tancredo "fully and completely" supports the Second Amendment. He considers it hypocritical that the ACLU does not defend this right, and that the federal government does not make it binding upon the states.

According to the Gun Owners of America, Tancredo wavered in his Second Amendment shoes immediately after the Columbine shooting. But, since then, he has been devoutly pro-gun.

6. Fred Thompson (No longer running: dropped out 1/22/08)

Fred Thompson also understands the point of the Second Amendment, "strongly" supporting it. He harshly criticizes gun control measures, saying, "Disarming law-abiding citizens does not prevent crime. The answer to violent crime is smart, effective, and aggressive law enforcement. The real effect of these gun-control measures is to place onerous restrictions on law-abiding citizens who use firearms for such legal activities as self-defense, sport-shooting, hunting, and collecting." As President, he vows to strictly enforce the law and protect the right to keep and bear arms.

Despite this tough talk, the Gun Owners of America researched that, while in the Senate, Thompson voted pro-gun only 20 of 33 times. The NRA-ILA rated him a C-. However, one should keep in mind that an "anti-gun vote" isn't always as blatant as it sounds. For instance, one of these votes was a vote for an "anti-gun Clinton judge appointment." Furthermore, just about any gun control vote is constituted as an "anti-gun" vote.

T7. John McCain

McCain believes we have "sacred duty to protect" our Second Amendment rights. He believes gun control is a crime-fighting failure, and that "Law abiding citizens should not be asked to give up their rights because of criminals - criminals who ignore gun control laws anyway."

All sounds good, right? Well, the GOA organization gave him an "F" grade for 2004 and 2006. They say that "he is seeking to "come home" to the pro-gun community, but the wounds are deep and memories long." Go to their site to read what he's been involved with in the past.

Key Quote: "We have a responsibility to ensure that criminals who violate the law are prosecuted to the fullest, rather than restricting the rights of law abiding citizens."

T7. Mitt Romney

Romney sounds like a Second Amendment stalwart. He wants to support it and strengthen it. The Gun Owners of America take a humorous angle on Mitt Romney's position on firearms, saying that he "sounds like the modern-day incarnation of John Wayne." However, that statement is not the compliment that it sounds like. Rather, it is a set-up sentence, as the GOA's analysis goes on to show Romney's past to be somewhat wishy-washy on the topic of gun control. The GOA assert that Romney "likes to frequent both sides of the legislative aisle." They want to know, "Will the real Mitt Romney please stand up?"

Key Quote: "I believe the Second Amendment is about more than just self-defense or sport; it's about the basic freedom of lawful citizens to live their lives – to engage in the normal pursuits of society without the interference of the heavy hand of government."

9. Rudy Giulani

Giulani is a great example of why you can't always accept the way people define themselves at face value. Rudy considers himself a "strong supporter" of the Second Amendment, but he also believes that individual states and cities possess the legitimate authority to impose an indefinite number and degree of restrictions on guns in order to deal with crime, as needed. He postulates that New York may need different measures than, say, Ruralopolis, USA.

The GOA's analysis astutely points out, "Apparently, in Giuliani's America law-abiding citizens in large cities would not enjoy the same constitutional liberties as the rest of the country. Why? Are city dwellers not as trustworthy as country folks? Are metro-Americans not deserving of the right to self-protection?

"Disarming citizens because they live in a high crime area is taking away the most effective means of self-defense from the people who need it most. Creating mandatory victims is no way to fight a crime problem."

But that's not all! The article goes on to show that Giulani has supported national gun-control measures in the past. "If Giuliani's gun control agenda was really limited 'only' to big cities, that would be disturbing enough. But the record shows that the Mayor continually tried to export his gun control agenda to the rest of the nation."

Key Quote: "Rudy Giuliani is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. He understands that every law-abiding American has an individual right to keep and bear arms that is guaranteed by the Constitution."

Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico is considered by some to be the "best" gun candidate on the Democratic side, but even he, as a congressman, has voted anti-gun more than a couple of times.

Rankings (after three issues):

Huckabee: 1

Hunter: 2

Keyes: 2

Paul: 4.3

Tancredo: 4.7

Thompson: 5.3

Romney: 7

McCain: 7.3

Giulani: 9

Special thanks to the Gun Owners of America. Without their resources, this article would never have been sufficient.