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.

Dear Mitt Romney Supporters,

I had deep, serious, and irreconcilable concerns with Governor Romney which prevented me from supporting him. However, I believe that you sincerely felt that he was the best candidate and the strongest conservative. Therefore, I respectfully admonish you to now rally around Mike Huckabee!

Life:

Mitt Romney had promised to cultivate a "culture of life" as president. You supported him for that. Mike Huckabee has received the endorsements of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, and Tennessee pro-life and right-to-life groups. Although the National Right to Life PAC did not officially endorse a specific candidate, it sent out a statement saying "that Governor Huckabee has taken the strongest pro-life position on all of the life issues of any of the remaining candidates for president."

Governor Huckabee has been a complete, consistent, passionate advocate of the pro-life cause. He is the only remaining candidate who supports a constitutional Human Life Amendment, and he passed pro-life legislation while governor of Arkansas.

Marriage:

Mitt Romney has said that he believes marriage is between one man and one woman. You supported him in that belief. Mike Huckabee has been a constant and fervent supporter of marriage. He is the only remaining candidate who supports a federal marriage amendment.

Second Amendment:

Mitt Romney vowed to defend your right to keep and bear arms. You supported that vow. Mike Huckabee has shown, by his words and actions, that he will adamantly and relentlessly protect your Second Amendment rights. The Gun Owners of America's analysis states that Huckabee "has proven himself to be a steadfast friend to gun owners and the Second Amendment."

Immigration:

Mitt Romney promised no amnesty and a secure border. You liked that promise. Huckabee has signed a "No Amnesty Pledge." He received the personal endorsement of Jim Gilchrist, the founder of the Minutemen, and he proposed a 9-Point Border Security Plan. He thinks the border can be secured within eighteen months.

Military/War:

Mitt Romney said that he supported a strong military, the surge in Iraq, and finishing the job in Iraq. You agreed with all those stands. Huckabee holds the same stands. He wants to build up the military; he supported the surge, although he didn't like where the extra soldiers came from; and he wants to finish the job.

Executive Experience:

You appreciated Mitt Romney's experience as both a governor and entrepreneur. Governor Huckabee also has executive experience. He was governor of Arkansas for over ten years, being named one of the top five governors in the country and voted by his colleagues to be the chairman of the National Governors' Association.

Taxes/Economy:

Mitt Romney supported lower taxes. So does Mike Huckabee. "Both Huckabee and Romney signed the Americans for Tax Reform Taxpayer Protection Pledge. John McCain has not signed the pledge (atr.org)." (Link)

In fact, Huckabee wants to eliminate income and corporate taxes altogether through the revolutionary Fair Tax.


Mike Huckabee still has a legitimate shot at this nomination, regardless of what the (frequently wrong) pundits and McCain spin-doctors will try to convince you. He has a good shot in several states coming up, including Kansas, Louisiana, Washington, Virginia, Maryland, and Wisconsin. If he can win the majority of those, he will be propelled into the gargantuan contests of Ohio and Texas.

He could really use your support. Will you join the conservative left in this race?

**For more information on the positions of Huckabee and McCain, see my "Ranking Their Positions" series.

Another Tempered Triumph...

Mitt Romney dropped out of the race today. His poor performance on Super Tuesday, coupled with the massive amounts of money he had already poured into the campaign, led him to "suspend" his campaign (a technical difference from "end" relevant to a brokered convention), saying, essentially, that he didn't want to hurt the Republican party's chances in November by remaining in the race.

Mitt Romney and Rudy Giulani were the two main reasons that I started this blog back in early November. But their defeats are only soberly satisfying. John McCain is far from being a spectacular Christian conservative candidate. I also have doubts about his ability to beat other unsavory candidates: namely, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

That is why I continue, with renewed vigor, my efforts to nominate and elect Governor Mike Huckabee President of the United States.

Join with me!

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.

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

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: Obscenity/Pornography

This is the fourth post in a series examining the presidential candidates' positions on key issues for conservative Christians. The content of this series mainly consists of the platforms presented on the candidates' official sites, but, occasionally, other resources are utilized when necessary.

In my opinion, conservative Christian activists and politicians should speak about pornography (and obscenity in general) much more than they presently do.

Pornography exploits the women involved in its production, making them nothing more than sexual objects—veritable visual prostitutes. It endangers all women by objectifying them in the site of some men—usually those already predisposed to be dangerous. It ends marriages, shatters families, harms children, robs their innocence, chains men’s minds through addiction, and creates unrealistic expectations in young men.

And for what? All this destruction and depravity serves only to pad the wallets of a few perverted entrepreneurs and feed the animal lusts of some sex-crazed and/or addicted consumers.

Is this what America stands for? Is this what we pride ourselves in? I sincerely hope not.

Now, I do not intend to sound like I am against the First Amendment. Those foundational freedoms found therein have allowed me to freely believe what I believe, to freely speak about it, and to freely write about it. But you can’t blow yourself up in the name of Allah. You can’t, technically, libel or slander someone. You can’t yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater. There are limitations on our rights, and the Supreme Court, in 1957, ruled in Roth v. United States that obscenity (which encompasses pornography) is not protected under the First Amendment. The problem is that the Court went on to define “obscenity” so narrowly that it practically rendered the ruling void, and actually overturned many obscenity laws. The burgeoning pornography movement found its genesis in this major event.

The dilemma that faced the “Warren Court” (named after Chief Justice Earl Warren, who served from 1953-1969) still festers today. How should “obscenity” and “pornography” be defined, who should get to define it, and how far should restrictions and punishments go? I won’t begin to pretend that I know the answers to those questions, but I do know that we need to be discussing them.

We must very cautiously hammer out this issue. Expanded government jurisdiction is not something to be granted flippantly. But free reign for the most perverse in our society to produce their fruits is not exactly hunky-dory, either. Think about a harsh, impartial weed-killer: it can kill your flowers, if you are not careful, but, if you don't use it, the weeds will take over the garden.

Realize that any number of things can be used for evil, as well as for good. Someone, somewhere, will undoubtedly find or design a way to corrupt just about anything. But notice that pornography lacks a "good" function. At its core, pornography is nothing more than a tool for lust and sexual fantasies: thought-adultery (Matthew 5). There is no redeeming value. It has not been corrupted: it's corrupt. Thus, it is part of an intrinsic cause-effect relationship. Its byproducts are really main products. We are simply reaping what we've sown.

To this point, I have avoided the topic of profanity and violence in entertainment. I have done so because these areas of "obscenity" are much more "gray," if you will, though I hate to use such a morally relativistic term. Nevertheless, where pornography does not have redeeming value, an expression of violence can in certain circumstances. But can it for young children? That's a different question. And though I see little to no redemptive elements in profanity, it seems that it would be just as (if not more) difficult to define as pornography, with less severe repercussions.

Because of these complications, I have deduced that, concerning the latter two segments of obscenity, the government should primarily endeavor to empower parents.

Getting back to the presidential race, I should point out that only a few of the presidential candidates address the topic as a part of their platforms. The ones that do focus on the child-aspect of the problem. But we must recognize that child porn (and pornographers drawing children into pornographic sites) is only the next logical step in a sequential moral descent. Yes, such child exploitation is an even greater depravity. But it results from lowering the bar and blurring the line of what’s acceptable according to our culture’s morality. Once we begin to move the benchmark, the standard-bearer, someone else will continue to push it and push it to detestable places. Eventually, it disappears altogether.

Case in point: in a “free love” society, who’s to say that the “North American Man-Boy Love Association” is despicable?

We must be careful not to behave “holier-than-thou” about child pornography, if we are not willing to condemn adult porn also. We must avoid rebuking those who try to attract children to pornography, if we will not condemn producers of pornography in general. After all, whose standard are we using? God’s, or our own?

I’m not claiming that God views adult porn and child porn with equal indignation, or that punishments for the two misdeeds should be the same. What I am saying is that they are both reprehensible, even if not equally so. The mistake in condemning one and not the other is that a faulty standard of measure is being used--our own. Although, admittedly, this mistake very well may be one of omission, not of conscious decision.

Having said that, when we recognize the major obstacles of eliminating pornography in general--defining it, controlling it, and convincing the morally weak American people to prohibit it--and also realize that obscenity is multifaceted and thereby even more complex, providing ways to protect children from being exposed to porn and exploited through it is probably the best course of action to take at this time, especially since it is readily doable and likely most urgent.

In closing, let me leave you with this thought: Remember that in every public policy battle we encounter—be it about abortion, marriage, the Second Amendment, the First Amendment, or pornography—it is more important to change hearts and minds than to change laws. In fact, it is necessary to change hearts and minds before changing laws. We must cultivate a respect for language, life, and proper sexuality. That is our first and main priority.

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

Concerned "with the questionable material our children continue to have through the Internet and other entertainment products," Hunter believes that "those distributing harmful material to young people should be held responsible." Also, he drafted the Parent's Empowerment Act and voted for the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005. The Parent's Empowerment Act "will allow parents to sue any person who knowingly sells or distributes a product that contains material that is harmful to minors, empowering parents to protect their children from the predatory practices of pornographic distributors."

T1. Alan Keyes

Keyes addresses pornography very intelligently and relates it to the whole crisis of the family and wrongheaded theories of sexuality. He cautions against too much fervor in censorship, but declares that "Society is...entitled to establish clear standards and define the kinds of behavior or things permitted in a public place, so that we won't need to fear that our children will be polluted in a such an environment. We proceed to set up barriers in public libraries, on the Internet, in bookstores, and in movie houses and segregate the things that we don't want to give our children access to." He explains that this doesn't restrain free expression, but "simply requires society's delegated representatives to organize the distribution of the results of that expression, so that we can keep public places free of what are regarded as offensive influences or materials. This kind of approach doesn't, itself, involve censorship and abuse — it simply involves maintaining basic standards of public decency, so that we are able to act and work and live in such a way as to avoid those things we believe to be offensive, and can also act on the assumption that our children will, by and large, likewise be able to avoid them. That's what responsible parents and citizens have a right to ask for, at least at the state and local level. Such legislation of public standards is less a federal responsibility, except regarding such broad influences as the Internet."

T1. Mitt Romney

Romney wants to make sure all new computers have optional "Software Filters To Guard Children From Online Pornography." Furthermore, he wants to "promote and increase awareness of available parental controls filtering products for existing computers."

Along with that, "Romney will require the Department of Justice to enforce our existing federal obscenity laws."

Key Quote: "I'd like to see us clean up the water in which our kids are swimming. I'd like to keep pornography from coming up on their computers. I'd like to keep drugs off the streets. I'd like to see less violence and sex on TV and in video games and in movies. And if we get serious about this, we can actually do a great deal to clean up the water in which our kids and our grandkids are swimming."

T1. Fred Thompson (No longer running: dropped out 1/22/08)

Thompson says that he is "committed to...Combating the spread of obscenity over TV and other media by making sure parents can better exercise their responsibilities." He explains, "While censorship is dangerous, obscenity is not legally protected, and laws against it should be vigorously enforced. Parents need to be empowered to protect their children from inappropriate matter, whether on TV, in video games, or on the computer. And we must do all we can to fight the explosion of child pornography over the Internet."

>>Hillary Clinton

Not that this is going to convince you to vote for her (punch me if it does), but Hillary does seem to warrant a mention, saying that she would prioritize "Protecting children against violence and sexual content in the media and studying the impact of electronic media on children's cognitive, social, and physical development."

>>Mike Gravel

You may be wondering, "How on earth could Mike Gravel be worth mentioning?" Well, it's not because he qualifies. Rather, it's to illustrate that there are those militantly on the other side. Gravel believes in "Net Neutrality," supporting "a free and open Internet with unlimited access to all sites regardless of content. He will do this by supporting legislation and regulation that keeps you in control of your internet usage and promotes free speech."

Here are the updated rankings, without Tom Tancredo, after four issues. Any candidate who did not mention obscenity/pornography as part of their platforms is considered to be ranked sixth in this category, which, by the way, is the best thing to happen so far for Rudy Giulani in this series:

Hunter: 1.75
Keyes: 1.75
Huckabee: 2.25
Thompson: 3.75
Paul: 4.25
Romney: 4.75
McCain: 6.25
Giulani: 7.5

Tancredo Drops Out, Endorses Romney

Read Yahoo Article.

Tom Tancredo has finally made official what long seemed imminent. The fiery representative from Colorado ended his bid at the Republican nomination for President, opting to endorse rival Mitt Romney.

Tancredo used his platform as a candidate to magnify the issue of illegal immigration, making the other candidates "toughen up" their positions on the subject. However, Tancredo banged the illegal immigration drum so loudly, so often, and so exclusively that he insured himself no chance in the race. Recently, it was becoming clearer and clearer that he was using his candidacy as a "bully pulpit" and nothing more.

His endorsement of Mitt Romney is only moderately surprising. Duncan Hunter would have been the most logical choice, in a strict ideological sense, but Tancredo clearly wanted to get behind someone with a "chance at winning," so to speak. Fred Thompson would have been another potential choice, but he's also been down in the polls lately.

So, Tancredo backed Mitt Romney, violating the principles of this blog in favor of supporting, as he said, "the best hope for our cause." It's hard to tell just what, if any, effect his endorsement will have on the race. Will his relatively few supporters follow him onto the Romney bandwagon? Perhaps some will, but any Christian conservatives who might have been supporting him may not.

There is now one less "potentially supportable Christian candidate" in the field, though Tancredo never looked likely to be a legitimate option.

With the next edition of "Ranking Their Positions," I will provide the updated average rankings.

A More Divisive Question, Perhaps?

Thanks to all the participants in the most recent WWCP poll.

There were only 19 votes in this "election." I credit that fact to the blog's recent inactivity, the lack of publicity the blog has gotten in the past few weeks, and the poor placement in the sidebar. Hopefully, none of those issues will influence future polls on this site.

Even with the relatively few number of votes, the results of this poll were quite interesting. Unlike the last poll, which had a clear consensus, this poll split the votes. The question was simple: "What do you dislike the most?"

7 of you (36%) answered that you disliked "Flip-Flopping" the most, perhaps residue from John Kerry or a present rebuke of Mitt Romney.

6 of you (31%) said that you disliked "Lying about or obscuring one's track-record (or current political views)" the most. I should've clarified this, but it refers both to one's own record/views and one's opponents'. I don't know whether that clarification would've garnered this answer more support or not.

There was a two-way tie for third, with 3 people each (15%) saying that they most dislike "Attack Ads" and "Perpetuating the idea that only certain candidates can win in the general election." I'd be interested to see what just Huckabee supporters would have to say if these two choices were the only options, since he's been the victim of both ploys. Although, the "Attack Ads" against him have still been somewhat tame so far.

What do I take out of this poll? Well, I think it's probable that all of you dislike all of those things, and you simply had to pick one based upon your strongest feelings.

Please vote in the next polls (notice the plural).

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.

Ranking Their Positions: The Sanctity of Marriage

This is the second part in a series of posts focusing on the Republican presidential candidates' positions on key issues for conservative Christian citizens. The series could be nicknamed "Straight from the Horses' Mouths," because my primary resources are the candidates' official sites.
This post is dedicated to the sanctity of marriage.

1. Mike Huckabee:

Huckabee says that he is--and always has been--a proponent of a federal constitutional marriage amendment defining marriage as being between one man and one woman. Huckabee proclaims that no "other candidate has supported traditional marriage more consistently and steadfastly than I have." This proclamation goes right along with his claim to be the most pro-life candidate in the field.
Huckabee fervently declares his belief that "nothing in our society matters more" than marriage, since, as he puts it, our "true strength" comes from our families. He points out that the "growing number of children born out of wedlock and the rise in no-fault divorce have been a disaster for our society."
A proud husband of 33 years, Mike had success in the area of marriage as governor of Arkansas, signing a state constitutional amendment and helping Arkansas become "only the third to adopt 'covenant marriage.'"

Key Quote: "Our true strength doesn't come from our military or our gross national product, it comes from our families. What's the point of keeping the terrorists at bay in the Middle East if we can't keep decline and decadence at bay here at home?"

2. Alan Keyes:

Keyes picks the ultimate basis for defending traditional marriage: God's decree. "Marriage is the God-ordained covenant between one woman and one man that provides the essential societal support for families." He states that "God's plan" was for marriage to induce "procreation." Keyes rightfully declares that sex is not merely pleasure "for pleasure's sake," and that marriage is not self-serving, but sacrificial according to "God's will."
Although all that Keyes says is true, he fails to point out that marriage is still sacred and can still be God-honoring without the bearing and/or rearing of children.

Key Quote: "And I think that's what's involved in our debate right now — people trying to substitute an understanding of human sexuality that is really incompatible with the moral foundations of marriage life."

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

Like Mike Huckabee, Hunter believes that Congress should pass a constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage. In fact, he cosponsored and voted for a bill which proposes such an amendment "declaring that marriage in the United States shall consist solely of the union of a man and a woman."

Key Quote: "I firmly believe that marriage is one of the most important social institutions we have and that it is central to promoting family values and raising children in a healthy environment... I firmly believe that children need the unique influence offered by both a father and a mother."

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

As President, Fred Thompson promises that he would endeavor to "strengthen the institution of marriage" as a union between one man and one woman. He supported the Defense of Marriage Act while he was a senator, and he supports the passage of a constitutional amendment "to prevent activist judges from misreading the Constitution to force same-sex marriage on any state and on our society." Whether this means he just wants the amendment to keep activist judges out of the states' hair, or whether he wants the amendment to define marriage for all the states, I do not know.

Key Quote: "Fred Thompson believes marriage is the union of one man and one woman, and that this institution is the foundation of society."

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

"Gay marriage" is the second-to-last thing listed on Tancredo's page of "Stands," listed after such things as Social Security and Agriculture and only before a short blurb about "Political Correctness." This apparently demonstrates the lack of priority status which Tancredo denotes to the sanctity of marriage.
However, Tancredo is solidly against gay marriage. He says that a federal constitutional amendment should be the last choice, but adds that, because of activist judges--and even mayors--we've reached that point.
Tom takes a different approach in his argument against gay marriage. Rather than pointing to the importance of strong, traditional, healthy family structure, Tancredo argues that the state's interest in marriage is procreation, and that is why it should support heterosexual marriage.

Key Quote: "Population is power. Society needs a young generation to defend the country in battle, to support its programs with taxes and to carry on its culture and traditions. The mere fact that two people are in a loving relationship does not matter to the state. Society supports traditional marriage because it is the only union which, in the ordinary course, leads to children, without the intervention of a third party."

6. Mitt Romney:

Romney follows in the footsteps of Tancredo, listing "American Culture and Values" as the next-to-last issue of his platform. He does, however, support a Federal Marriage Amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Reportedly, he has fought hard for marriage, saying, "I enforced the law that banned out-of-state same-sex couples from coming to Massachusetts to get married. I went to the court again and again. I testified here before Congress for the Federal Marriage Amendment. And I championed our successful petition drive that collected a record 170,000 signatures for a citizen ballot initiative to protect marriage."
However, Romney used to be softer and more moderate on the issue of gay "rights." In a 1994 interview, he said that the "gay and lesbian community needs more support from the Republican party." He criticized "extremists" and said that "People of integrity don't force their beliefs on others, they make sure that others can live by different beliefs they may have..." He was still against gay marriage back then, but he said, on gay rights, he was considered a "centrist and a moderate." Not good.
Furthermore, some claim that Romney actually helped to implement gay marriage when judicial activism forced it upon the people of Massachusetts just recently.
Of course, I'm not denying that a politician can change or strengthen his positions. But, again, we're faced with the fact that he is not only a politician (trying to garner the conservative Christian voting block), but also a Mormon. I cannot put any trust in his steadfastness.

Key Quote(s): "Last year the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court struck a blow against the family, as I'm sure you know. The court forgot that [traditional] marriage is first and foremost about nurturing and developing children. Its ruling meant that our society is supposed to be indifferent about whether children have a mother and a father...
"America cannot continue to lead the family of nations around the world if we suffer the collapse of the family here at home."

7. Ron Paul:

I sort of chastised Tom Tancredo and Mitt Romney for putting the gay marriage issue, essentially, at the bottom of their lists of priorities. Then I checked out Ron Paul's website. He does not have anything about marriage on his list of issues. So I googled the topic. I came across an article written by him entitled "The Federal Marriage Amendment is a Very Bad Idea." Although he uses some good logic and makes some good points in the article, he comes to a bad, illogical conclusion--that we should not pass a federal constitutional marriage amendment.
Paul opposes gay marriage, of course, but, as in most cases, he is against the increased power of the federal government. I can't disagree with him there, but if the federal government wasn't supposed to have some power, then why does it exist? In my opinion, the power to enforce God's, tradition's, and nature's definition of marriage is legitimate and necessary.
Paul does support the Defense of Marriage Act, which keeps one state from having to recognize the marriage license of another state. Also, he supports the Marriage Protection Act, which serves to strengthen the DMA by protecting it from federal court challenges.
Paul says he is "sympathetic" to those who desire a constitutional amendment protecting marriage, but he says that he "respectully" disagrees with such people. Rightfully expressing that marriage is not defined by government (though that is beside the point), Paul fears that a federal marriage amendment would come back to haunt conservatives, saying, "Ironically, liberal social engineers who wish to use federal government power to redefine marriage will be able to point to the constitutional marriage amendment as proof that the definition of marriage is indeed a federal matter!"

Key Quote: "Because of the dangers to liberty and traditional values posed by the unexpected consequences of amending the Constitution to strip power from the states and the people and further empower Washington, I cannot in good conscience support the marriage amendment to the United States Constitution. Instead, I plan to continue working to enact the Marriage Protection Act and protect each state’s right not to be forced to recognize a same sex marriage."

8. John McCain:

In the same mold as Ron Paul, McCain apparently doesn't feel that the sanctity of marriage warrants a significant segment of his platform. Instead, he forced me to go googling again. With the assistance of that search engine, I discovered that McCain thinks a same-sex marriage ban is "unnecessary--and un-Republican." Again like Ron Paul, McCain feels that it is an issue which should be left up to the states and only addressed nationally in measures such as the Defense of Marriage Act. I can understand such reasoning, but I believe that marriage--like abortion--is the wrong issue on which to exert one's vehement states' rights' philosophy.
Moreover, my head is spinning from trying to figure out whether McCain is for or against civil unions. If it's difficult to figure out where a person stands, I am very wary of supporting them.

Key Quote: "What evidence do we have that states are incapable of further exercising an authority they have exercised successfully for over 200 years?"

9. Rudy Giulani

Rudy Giulani's valuation of the marriage issue is not quite as bad as Ron Paul and John McCain's, but slightly worse than Tom Tancredo and Mitt Romney's. Giulani's site lists marriage as the last of his "12 Commitments."According to his site, Giulani "has not--and never has--supported gay marriage. But he believes in equal rights under law for all Americans." In other words, he believes in devaluing marriage by giving the exclusive benefits of marriage to homosexual couples under the aliases of "domestic partnerships" and "civil unions." All I can say is, a skunk by any other name still stinks. And civil unions and domestic partnerships analogically stink. America should not be in the business of rewarding immoral and unhealthy lifestyles by providing pseudo-equal status to the honorable institution of matrimony.
Rudy has reportedly conservatized his positions somewhat recently, but , even if that type of pandering were worth anything, Giulani hasn't shifted his positions drastically enough. Besides, I'm not sure Rudy Giulani even knows what marriage is about. He's been divorced twice and married thrice, notoriously participating in an adulterous affair while still married and still mayor. Is that what we want in the White House? An unfaithful husband?

Key Quotes: "...he supports domestic partnerships that provide stability for committed partners in important legal and personal matters, while preserving the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman."

At least in appearance, the three leading Democratic candidates hold similar positions to Rudy Giulani (and even, perhaps, John McCain and maybe somewhat like Ron Paul), only more liberal. John Edwards, especially, is pandering hard to the Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender community.

Average Rankings (after two issues) [***with Tancredo***]:

Huckabee: 1
Hunter: 2.5
Keyes: 2.5
Tancredo: 4.5
Thompson: 5
Paul: 6
Romney: 7
McCain: 7.5
Giulani: 9

**Notes: Keyes opposes civil unions, as do Huckabee and Hunter, although the latter two do not mention civil unions on their websites. Thompson considers civil unions "not a good idea," but would allow the states to make that decision. Tom Tancredo appears to oppose domestic partnership benefits. Ron Paul's position on civil unions is, in all likelihood, similar to his position on marriage--i.e., leave it to the states.

Ranking Their Positions: Abortion

This is the beginning of a new, massive undertaking I am starting that will summarize, analyze, and rank all the major candidates' positions on key issues. My analyses and summaries will be based almost entirely on the content found on the candidates' official sites.

First up is the topic of abortion. Articles following this one will address the sanctity of marriage, faith, illegal immigration, and any other issues which I feel can be hashed out from a solidly biblical foundation. Candidates who do not rank well will be demoted in or even removed from the "currently supported" and "potentially supportable" link sections. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Rudy Giulani, and Mitt Romney are already excluded from those sections, but Giulani and Romney will be included in this series for confirmation of my (and others') convictions against them.

1. Mike Huckabee

Huckabee claims to be the strongest pro-life candidate in the field, saying, "No candidate has a stronger record on the sanctity of life than I do." He advocates a constitutional amendment to protect life, and vows to fight for that amendment, if elected.Believing in the sanctity of life from conception, he touts a consistently pro-life track-record. Having first gotten politically involved because of the abortion issue, the former governor pushed for and got pro-life legislation through a Democratic Congress in Arkansas. He favors the overturning of Roe v. Wade, and he opposes embryonic stem-cell research. Saying that "there is a lot more that a pro-life President can do than wait for a Supreme Court vacancy," Huckabee promises an active pro-life presidency, if the people elect him.

Key Quote: "The many pro-life laws I got through my Democrat legislature are the accomplishments that give me the most pride and personal satisfaction. I banned partial birth abortion, I required parental notification, I required that a woman give informed consent before having an abortion, I required that a woman be told her baby will experience pain and be given the option of anesthesia for her baby, I allowed a woman to have her baby and leave the child safely at a hospital, and I made it a crime for an unborn child to be injured or murdered during an attack on his mother."

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

Hunter speaks out boldly--if a little bit arrogantly. He doesn't say he'd try to pass a right-to-life amendment as President. He declares that he simply would amend the Constitution. He himself has introduced an act that would defined personhood as starting at the moment of conception. This act, if passed, would provide the same practical applications of a constitutional amendment. However, it would likely come with less pains than the ratification process.Hunter vows that he would only appoint Supreme Court Justices who have "a heart for the least of us, including the unborn."Although Hunter has a consistently pro-life voting record, including the cosponsorship of several pieces of pro-life legislation, he lacks the accomplishments of Mike Huckabee.

Key Quote: "I would amend the U.S. Constitution and provide blanket protection to all unborn children from the moment of conception by prohibiting any state or federal law that denies the personhood of the unborn."

3. Alan Keyes

Keyes is staunchly pro-life, and he is probably the most eloquent presidential candidate currently running. For that reason, I will allow him to speak for himself on the topic of abortion: "The Declaration states plainly that we are all created equal, endowed by our Creator with our basic human rights. But if human beings can decide who is human and who is not, the doctrine of God-given rights is utterly corrupted....Some people talk about "viability" as a test to determine which human offspring have rights that we must respect, and which do not. But "might does not make right." So the mere fact that the person in the womb is wholly in its mother's physical power and completely dependent upon her for sustenance gives her no right whatsoever with respect to its life — since the mere possession of physical power can never confer such a right. Therefore, medical procedures resulting in the death of the unborn child, except as an unintended consequence of efforts to save the mother's physical life, are impermissible." Keyes supports the overturning of Roe v. Wade and the passage of a Human Life Amendment.
Concerning embryonic stem-cell research, he is just as eloquently defiant. "No — we do not have the right to take human life merely because it is unconscious, or because it is undeveloped or damaged, or for any other reason that tempts us to deny the equal dignity of all human persons.When we start making such invidious distinctions, we destroy the principle of equal rights. We can't claim rights for ourselves if we deny those rights to babes at any stage in their development."
Keyes considers himself a pro-life leader, and he does not shy away from making abortion the central issue of his campaign. In his "Pledge for America's Revival," he states that the next President must "appreciate that the single most immoral and catastrophic policy in our nation is tax-funded, legalized abortion — a policy that utterly disqualifies us from God's protection as a people." It doesn't get much more staunch than that.

Key Quote: "I think, in open debate, I could prove it to anyone — that Roe v. Wade was the most obscenely illogical and shoddily-written Supreme Court decision perhaps in the whole history of our country."

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

Tancredo can't seem to stop talking about illegal immigration long enough to talk about abortion, yet he is strongly pro-life. He states plainly that "innocent unborn enjoy a God given right to life." He plans to protect this right as President by "appointing strict constructionists as judges, reining in the power of the judiciary, and supporting constitutional amendmentsthat respect life."
Unfortunately, Tancredo points to no past accomplishments--or even attempts--in the pro-life arena. However, he did receive an "A" from both the National Right to Life Committee and the Family Research Council. His site says that he has a reputation as a "solid pro-life...Republican."

Key Quote: "As a devout Christian, father, and grandfather, I am a strong believer in the right to life for the unborn child."

5. Ron Paul

Paul defines himself as the pro-life politician of action, stating, "Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken direct action to restore protection for the unborn." As a doctor who's practiced for 40 years and delivered over 4,000 babies (without ever considering performing an abortion), Ron Paul believes he has become "an unshakable foe of abortion" from his experience. He has authored and sponsored pro-life legislation.

Key Quote: "...there cannot be liberty in a society unless the rights of all innocents are protected. Much can be understood about the civility of a society in observing its regard for the dignity of human life."

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

Thompson is pro-life, but he is not the pro-lifer's ideal candidate, despite what the NRLC's endorsement of him may lead you to believe. He is somewhat vague on what actions he'd take concerning abortion, stating that he would use the presidency to "promote a culture of life." He supports the overturning of Roe v. Wade, but he does not support a constitutional amendment. He believes that abortion laws should be made individually by the states. That is a belief--held by several "pro-life candidates"--I cannot reconcile with myself. Murder is not a states' rights issue. Infanticide is not a states' rights issue. Just as slavery should not be a states' rights issue, neither should abortion.
Thompson does claim a pro-life Senate record. Furthermore, he opposes embryonic stem-cell research and human cloning. However, he once lobbied for a pro-abortion group, and he recently made an insulting comment that implied that pro-lifers want to "criminalize" young women.

Key Quote: "Fred Thompson is pro-life. He believes in the sanctity of human life and that every life is worthy of respect."

7. John McCain

During this campaign season, McCain has tried to appeal to conservative voters by magnifying his pro-life status. He is for the overturning of Roe v. Wade, calling it a "flawed decision" (not nearly as strong of language as Alan Keyes), but he is vague on what he would do after Roe v. Wade is overturned. Like Thompson, McCain is apparently not in favor of a constitutional amendment to protect life. His website states that "Constitutional balance would be restored by the reversal of Roe v. Wade, returning the abortion question to the individual states."
He appears to be against embryonic stem-cell research, saying that "the compassion to relieve suffering and to cure deadly disease cannot erode moral and ethical principles." He voted to ban "fetal farming" and made other moves against ethically-questionable modern technology and research, but World Magazine points out that he is still for some level of embryonic stem-cell research.

Key Quote: "At its core, abortion is a human tragedy."

8. Mitt Romney

Romney takes a pragmatic view towards abortion. He wishes Americans were united enough to nationally outlaw abortion, but he knows we are not. So, he would attempt to return the lawmaking authority to the states in the meantime, by overturning Roe v. Wade.Although Romney advertises himself as staunchly pro-life, he believes that abortion can be the right choice in cases of incest and rape, and in the situation where the mother's life is at stake (an almost nonexistent scenario; take it from Ron Paul). Furthermore, he's only been pro-life for about 2 1/2 years. There's not much track-record there. In 1994, he ran to be Senator of the Massachusetts, claiming in a debate, "I do not take the position of a pro-life candidate." Since he is a Mormon, and since his transformation happened conspicuously close to this election cycle, I cannot place trust in his conversion on this issue.

Key Quote: "What became clear during the cloning debate is how the harsh logic of an absolute right to abortion had cheapened the value of human life to the point that rational people saw a human embryo as nothing more than mere research material to be used, andthen destroyed."

9. Rudy Giulani

Giulani "personally opposes" abortion, but he believes the decision should be left up to the individual pregnant women, and he has said that he would not sign a bill that bans abortion. Giulani's site states that "Rudy understands that this [abortion] is a deeply personal moral dilemma, and people of good conscience can disagree respectfully." Sorry, Rudy, but I can't disagree with you respectfully and vote for you, when you are so off-base on this issue. Giulani believes in "reasonable" restrictions on abortion. Again, Rudy, sorry, but the only "reasonable" restriction on abortion is a complete ban. He makes a very deceptive statement that he will "protect the quality of life for our children." He won't protect their lives in the womb, mind you--he will just protect the "quality" of their lives if their mothers are willing to have them in the first place.
Furthermore, he makes no mention of embryonic stem-cell research, cloning, or euthanasia.

Key Quote: "I will increase adoptions, decrease abortions, and protect the quality of life for our children."