Clearing the Air

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Federal Marriage Amendment 2008

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

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

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

Visit it here: 2008 Federal Marriage Amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overlooked Implications of Obama's "Bitter" Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

McCain's High-Wire Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





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

Another Petition

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

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

Click here to sign it.

Two Petitions and New Site

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

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

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

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

The Republican Party Death Knell?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concerning WWCP

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

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

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

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

A Flood of Thoughts and Feelings

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

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

What to do next?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why did Huckabee lose?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did I Forget Someone?

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

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

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

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

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

Military Men and Women, Don't Be Pigeonholed!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

d.) He is a strong supporter of Israel.

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

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


2.) Fundamental freedoms.

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


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

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

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

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

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.

Obama Concerned with the Prospects of Protecting BORN Children, Too

For those of you who may be considering voting for Obama as a protest against the Republican party, or just because you like the guy, read this article:

Obama is the Most Pro-Abortion Candidate Ever

Please, research Barack before you fall under his weird trance.

Not Over Yet...

Kansas Republican Caucus Results:

Huckabee: 60%
McCain: 24%
Paul: 11%
Romney: 3%

Louisiana Republican Primary Results:

Huckabee: 43%
McCain: 42%
Romney: 7% (No longer running; name was still on ballot)
Paul: 5%

Washington Republican Caucus Results: (87% Reporting)

McCain: 26%
Huckabee: 24% (Difference of 200 votes)
Paul: 21%
Romney: 16%
Uncommitted: 13%


Well, what all the pundits learned yesterday, to their surprise, was that this race is not over yet. Huckabee won resoundingly in Kansas, adding to the list of red, southern states that McCain can't win. Just imagine how big the margin might also have been in Georgia, Alabama, and Tennessee had Romney and Huckabee not been splitting support. In such a scenario, Huckabee probably would've come out on top in Oklahoma and Missouri, the latter of which McCain carried on the backs of the metropolitan areas. If Thompson hadn't made his last stand a virtual exercise in tearing down Huckabee in South Carolina, Mike would've been victorious there as well .

This is an indisputable trend. McCain regularly does well in cities and states that aren't in step with the core of the Republican party. Yet, when he does enter red territory, he's greeted rudely with defeats everywhere he turns or close victories caused by other circumstances. Especially when the precincts of rural counties report, it looks like McCain is treated more like an outsider than a fellow conservative.

Coupled with that is the fact that some people may be voting for Huckabee as a protest vote (although, clearly, some Romney supporters weren't afraid to still vote for him). Let me tell you: I'll take all of those I can get. You may have to hold your nose to vote for Huckabee, or you may have resigned yourself to a McCain nomination, but, if you can't vote for Huckabee on his own merits, tell McCain with your ballot that you are not going to blindly follow him lockstep through his maverick expeditions into liberal territory. The saying goes that "Republicans fall in line." Well, I'm not that kind of a Republican, and I don't think you are either.

The results in Kansas could have been much more easily marginalized if the results from Louisiana hadn't strengthened them. Huckabee's narrow victory there demonstrated that he's not a one-state post-Romney wonder. However, the jubilation over the Pelican State is tempered, because of weird state party rules. If no candidate receives greater than fifty percent of the vote, then all the state's delegates go to the convention unpledged. It's a nonsensical format, but one thing is positive: McCain does not have those delegates added to his total automatically.

Washington state is an interesting story. The turnout was extremely low for the Evergreen State's caucus on the Republican side, and the state has a primary on the 19th. Yet, for a purple state, Huckabee sure gave McCain a run for his money there. But, I should add, it's not over. Thirteen percent of the precincts have yet to report in Washington; McCain and Huckabee are only separated by 200 votes. The final result could be much closer--or even totally different--even though McCain has been declared the winner. Keep an eye out there.

The battle for Huckabee doesn't get any easier. In fact, since he gained no delegates from Louisiana, the events of yesterday served mostly as a prolonging of and a momentum boost for the campaign. Now, our eyes turn to Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. Those aren't exactly Alabama or Georgia, but we'll see what happens. Virginia is winner-take-all, which makes it a virtual must-win for Huckabee, as almost every contest is from here on out. If the District of Columbia went Huckabee's way, it would be a stinging reprimand of McCain and his insider status.

If you live in any of those states, get out and vote! Make your voice be heard!

Updated Letter to Pro-Gunners

I had to do a little adjusting to my mass e-mail to pro-gun citizens. If you want to join the effort, just sign up as a member of Huck's Army and go to the post "Second Amendment E-Mail Campaign."

As someone with an invested interest in the unadulterated preservation of the Second Amendment, you are being told by the media that you have only one choice--John McCain--for President now that Mitt Romney has suspended his campaign. I respectfully beg to differ. Mike Huckabee is still in this race, and the differences between his record on the Second Amendment and John McCain's are quite substantial.

John McCain attempts to portray himself as a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, yet he and his "maverick" mentality have wandered into anti-gun territory multiple times, so much so that the Gun Owners of America gave him an "F" grade in 2004 and 2006 and called his record "Abysmal, wretched, and pathetic." GOA goes on to say that McCain supported "initiatives to severely regulate gun shows and register gun buyers"; he advocated laws that would require you to keep your guns locked up at home; and he introduced a compromise bill of gun show regulations. Furthermore, the restrictions McCain helped put on political free speech affect Second Amendment activists. In stark contrast stands Mike Huckabee, a consistent, adamant supporter of your constitutional right to keep and bear arms. He doesn’t have to hide any Second Amendment skeletons in his campaign closet, because he has none. The Gun Owners of America says that Huckabee "has proven himself to be a steadfast friend to gun owners and the Second Amendment."Who are you going to support? Will you vote for a candidate who talks the talk and walks the walk...today...but hasn’t always in the past? Or will you vote for the candidate who has persistently and consistently been a proponent and a protector of your right to protect yourself?

We could be headed to a brokered convention. Huckabee is suited well to the upcoming states holding primaries and caucuses, and, if he wins the majority, he will be propelled into the gargantuan contests of Ohio and Texas.

Don't settle for less than a true proponent of the Second Amendment!

[Kingdom Advancer]

p.s. Here is the documentation for the information in this e-mail:

Mike Huckabee on the Second Amendment: http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=18

Gun Owners of America on Mike Huckabee: http://gunowners.org/pres08/huckabee.htm
Gun Owners of America on John McCain: http://gunowners.org/pres08/mccain.htm
Gun Owners Rating of John McCain: http://www.gunowners.org/mccaintb.htm
Gun Owners: "Abysmal, wretched, and pathetic" comment: http://www.gunowners.org/mccaintb.htm

Maryland Right to Life Endorses Huckabee

Boy, my letters work fast! ; )

See it here.

Letter to Maryland Right to Life

Huckabee needs to maintain his momentum, and more endorsements from pro-life groups could help him do just that. I am sending this letter to Maryland and Virginia for now, although I may also send it to Washington and Louisiana.

Maryland Right to Life: info@mdrtl.org
Virginia Society for Human Life: vshl67@comcast.net

Now that Mitt Romney has suspended his presidential candidacy, there is one fewer pro-life advocate with a chance of becoming President of the United States. Of those remaining, Mike Huckabee stands head and shoulders above the rest.

Huckabee is and always has been completely, consistently, and passionately pro-life. The issue of abortion is what originally got him involved in politics, and he passed pro-life legislation while governor of Arkansas. In this presidential campaign, he has clearly placed the pro-life cause at the forefront, and he is the only candidate who supports a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution.

John McCain does not support such an amendment, believing that we should allow the states to decide for themselves by overturning Roe v. Wade. Although I do believe that is an appropriate first step, I believe it is only that--a first step. For me at least, the pro-life movement isn't about just returning power to the states: it's about protecting all life. In addition, McCain has been wishy-washy on the topic of embryonic stem-cell research, and it is obvious that he has not made the pro-life effort a prioritized part of his platform, mentioning it only in an attempt to confirm his "conservatism."

The pundits are leaving Huckabee's campaign for dead. But the pundits are routinely mistaken. Consider Super Tuesday: none of the "analysts" or "experts" expected Huckabee to do so well. You can help prove them wrong again! You can show that, for many, the issue of life is still paramount! You can make a stand for life! Endorse Mike Huckabee for President!

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Missouri, New Jersey, and Tennessee right-to-life groups have already endorsed Huckabee. Kansans for Life added to the growing momentum with their endorsement announcement today! Will you be next?

Thank you for your time.

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!