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

You Need Not Sit Idly By As You Sit In Front of Your Computer

If you are interested in getting involved in the effort to elect Mike Huckabee, check out some of the things I have been doing lately:

*Enlisted in Huck's Army, made my first posts on the forum, and am planning on contacting my state's grassroots director.

**Signed up to be one of the Huckabeez, posted an endorsement on that site, and got my blog linked from it.

***Became a Huckabee Ranger, set my fundraising goal at the $100 minimum, placed a widget on this site, and left my endorsement on the site.

Other sites that you might be interested in checking out are Huckabee Momentum and I Would Vote for Huckabee. I haven't taken part in those efforts yet, but you might want to.

Support Huckabee Through WWCP

Supporter

My Goal:

$100.00

.................................................................................................................................................

Although the field of Christian candidates with legitimate potentiality is thinning, I'm still not willing to make the monumental declaration that Mike Huckabee is the only one. However, if I were to try to be the best financial steward in the process of contributing to a campaign, I would donate to Mike Huckabee. That is why I am asking you this: If this site has helped to increase your support for Mike Huckabee, and if you want to contribute to his campaign, please use the widget above. (You can also find it in the sidebar.) By doing that, you will affirm the impact of this site.

Again, I repeat, I am still not claiming that Huckabee is the only option. But, as you know, I think he is the best option, as of now.

Time to Get Back in the Saddle

South Carolina Republican Primary Results

McCain: 33%
Huckabee: 30%
Thompson: 16%
Romney: 15%
Paul: 4%
Giulani: 2%
Hunter: <1%

~I'm not going to patronize you by denying that last night's results were crushing. I really thought Huckabee would win; and, more importantly, he really needed to win. However, we must recognize that this is not "game over," but "game on." Any cowboy will tell you that, when you fall out of the saddle, the best thing to do is to jump right back in it. It may seem easiest just to stay on the ground, but, in the long run, it's the worst thing you can do.
The Florida Republican primary is a deadheat right now. Giulani has been there, and Romney and McCain storm into the Sunshine State with some victorious momentum. Because of this, they should be sparring with each other for the next week. Hopefully, Huckabee can sneak up and pull off the biggest upset/comeback yet of this campaign season.

~If you are a Floridian for Huckabee, you can pick up the blog banner positioned at the top of this post here.

~Even after focusing all his attention on the Palmetto State, Fred Thompson simply could not ascend in the polls enough to accomplish a very improbable South Carolina triumph. His campaign could soon be drawing to a close.
On a side note , though, he did slow the mo' of Mitt Romney.

~Could Giulani really have expected that his strategy would leave him with such measly support in the early primary states? We'll soon see if his strategy works, and thereby if anyone will every try it again.

Nevada Republican Caucus Results:

Mitt Romney: 51%
Ron Paul: 13%
John McCain: 13%
Mike Huckabee: 8%
Fred Thompson: 8%
Rudy Giulani: 4%
Duncan Hunter: 2%

~Mitt Romney was the only big-name candidate who put significant time (and a good chunk of his seemingly endless supply of money) into Nevada. Along with that, Nevada has a substantial Mormon population. This huge win for him means little more than delegates, although, admittedly, those are starting to look more and more important.

~Ron Paul finally found a state where he could place (1st, 2nd, or 3rd). That may encourage him to run as a third-party candidate, assuming, of course, that he doesn't get the nod as the Republican nominee.

~Duncan Hunter dropped out after two more poor showings in Nevada and South Carolina. I wrote a post about him that you can read by clicking here.

~Ditto same comment about Giulani as above.

All these results call for are more prayer and more action. Please join with me in this effort.

Duncan Hunter Drops Out; Thompson Next?

The field of solidly Christian candidates for President continues to thin and could thin even more before the Florida primaries on January 29th.


Duncan Hunter dropped out of the race after posting a lackluster 2% in the Nevada caucuses yesterday. Percentage-wise, that was the best Hunter had done in any of the early states (Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, Nevada, South Carolina), save for Wyoming, where one delegate vote equaled 8%. But that best wasn't nearly good enough, especially considering how much time and effort Hunter concentrated into that state. Obviously, his strategy wasn't nearly as effective as Ron Paul's; Paul finished second in the Silver State.


Hunter faced an uphill battle from the start. Like every other so-called "second-tier" candidate, he suffered from a lack of name-recognition. A Rudy, Fred, or Mitt, he is not. However, unlike Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul, Hunter failed to climb the ladder of publicity and ignite significant excitement about his candidacy. Huckabee has energized conservative Christians and social conservatives in general. Paul has energized...well, somebody. I'm not quite sure what his demographic is, but he's inspired it nonetheless.


Found wanting in the area of popularity, Hunter could have benefited from a notch of executive experience in his belt. Although he has worked in the realms of defense and foreign policy, Hunter has only ever been a U.S. Representative. He can't tout "running a government," being a governor or mayor, like Giulani, Huckabee, and Romney can.


The longer the campaign season went, the less likely it appeared Hunter would have a shot. Television debates stopped inviting him and journalists rarely uttered his name. This lowered visibility perhaps made him lesser known today than he was two or three months ago. On top of that, all the voters which would have gravitated towards him began to coalesce around other candidates with better perceived chances of winning.

Potentially the most completely, consistently, and fervently conservative candidate in the race, Hunter would shore up weaknesses on just about any Republican ticket. By choosing not to endorse a candidate, Hunter has left the door open to be anyone's vice presidential candidate.


With Hunter out, this site is down to only one currently supportable candidate. Temporarily, I've decided to leave it this way. However, I am considering Fred Thompson as a back-up plan.

That, however, may be short-lived. Thompson put all his eggs in South Carolina's basket, and South Carolina only gave him a bronze medal. He could be pulling out soon, as well.

So, conservative Christians experienced a triple whammy yesterday: Duncan Hunter ending his campaign, Fred Thompson perhaps having his campaign ended for him (practically speaking), and Mike Huckabee being handed a painful defeat in South Carolina to John McCain.

But we must not stay down on ourselves. We must get up to fight another day.

**Click here to read Duncan Hunter's official statement.

***I'll have updated rankings in my next "Ranking Their Positions" post.

Idealists, You Are!

Wow, thank you to all who participated in the latest WWCP poll. With 65 votes, it topped the previous high of 49 votes, which were cast in this site's very first poll. Clearly, WWCP is going in the right direction, popularity-wise.

I mistakenly thought I had chosen a very polarizing, divisive question in this poll: "In a President, what type of conservatism is most important to you?"

I figured that we'd either see a split between economic, foreign policy, and social conservatives, or see a general gravitation to social conservatism, since many of my blog readers may feel most strongly about that area. Instead, by a wide margin, you chose the utopian idea of a totally conservative President.

67% (44 votes) of you said that "A President has to have ALL for me to support him." That's a higher percentage than the 65% which said Hillary Clinton would make the worst President.

Next in line was "Defense Conservatism (Foreign Policy/Immigration)" at a distant second place. It brought in 12% (8 votes) of the votes.

After that, a pack of options runs together, each choice carrying only a few votes. 6% (4 votes) voted for "Social Conservatism," and another 6% voted for "Theological Conservatism." 3% (2 votes) cast their ballot with "Economic Conservatism (free markets)", while another 3% (2 votes) wasn't conservative ("I'm NOT a conservative, so none!")

Rounding out the poll was "Fiscal Conservatism" with one lonely percentile (1 vote).

A few notes:

1.) I ambiguously worded the most popular answer choice: "A President has to have ALL for me to support him." "Support" is a relative term. Wholehearted support, or support period?

2.) A lot of types of conservatism can be defined relatively, as well. There are degrees of conservatism.

3.) I can see that I can't give you all a cop-out if I want to see your feelings when forced to make a decision.

Please vote in the new poll.

WWCP Dis-endorses John McCain (for Primary Season)

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

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

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

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

Screeching to a Halt in the Motor City State...

Republican Michigan Primary Results:

Mitt Romney: 39%
John McCain: 30%
Mike Huckabee: 16%
Ron Paul: 6%
Fred Thompson: 4%
Rudy Giulani: 3%
Duncan Hunter: <1%


~Needless to say, the results in Michigan were not what Hucka-supporters were hoping for. However, his performance is nothing to scoff at, when you consider that he received more votes than Paul, Thompson, Giuliani, and Hunter combined. Facing two candidates with deep roots in Michigan and one with deep pockets, Huckabee managed to pull off a solid third-place finish.

~Out of nowhere, South Carolina has become the primary for Joe Namath moments. Reacting to both of their significant defeats, Mike Huckabee and John McCain are promising/vowing/predicting/guaranteeing their own victories on Saturday. Both of them desperately need a triumph in the Palmetto State to propel them into Florida and Super Tuesday.

~Ron Paul continues to embarrass, for lack of a better word, Fred Thompson and Rudy Giulani. Paul beat Giulani in Iowa and trailed Thompson by only three points. He beat Thompson in New Hampshire, and trailed Giulani by only one point. He won't defeat Thompson in South Carolina, but he has a chance at taking down Giulani there.
I'm not going to accept the idea that Paul's only competing with Giulani because Giulani isn't spending time in the early primary states. Voters aren't mindless. They don't just vote because of the quantity of time that they've seen a candidate; in fact, people tire of candidates sometimes. They care more about quality--message--than quantity. And the simple fact is that Giulani's message on a littany of issues doesn't sit well with most conservatives.
Admittedly, Paul's foreign policy may be misguided, but his positions on social issues and limited government are much closer to conservative norms than Rudy's.

~Why is Duncan Hunter still in the race? Consider this: if the Republican party ends up with a brokered convention, they can pick anybody. Hunter is perhaps the most complete, consistent conservative in the race. Could they select him? Certainly, electability/name recognition could be a problem, but you never know.

~A surprising number of people voted "Uncommitted" on the Republican side. Understandably, many Democrats voted "Uncommitted" since Hillary Clinton was the only big-name candidate on the ballot, due to Obama and Edwards pulling their names off the ballot after a delegate conflict. In this case, a vote "Uncommitted" was like a vote for Obama or Edwards.
But it makes no sense for Republicans to vote "Uncommitted," unless all those voters were Alan Keyes supporters. Keyes was apparently not on the ballot.

Pre-Ignition in Mich'gan

The proverbial key is soon to turn in the Motor City, and here's my pre-race analysis:

~ The polls aren't looking that good for Mike Huckabee in Michigan. It appears that McCain is receiving a momentous boost in support resulting from New Hampshire, and that, coupled with Mitt Romney's Michigan roots and stacks of money, looks like it could culminate in a disappointing third-place showing for Huckabee.

~It's hard to say now who Huckabee supporters should be rooting to win the Wolverine State, besides Huckabee himself, of course. Practically speaking, a loss for Romney could hammer the final nail in the coffin of his presidential hopes. However, the resultant McCain victory would likely launch McCain into a big win in South Carolina and, thereafter, another one in Florida. Although McCain isn't officially "not supported" on this site, I would not want to see him win the nomination (Read my "Ranking Their Positions" series on abortion, the sanctity of marriage, and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms; also, research his other positions)

~That being said, we saw in New Hampshire, on the Democratic side, that polls can't be trusted. Although there are numerous explanations for how the polls could have predicted so wrongly, one possibility is that the polls somehow reflected a false "momentum" that Obama supposedly carried out of Iowa. If that is true, and the polls have overblown McCain's momentum out of New Hampshire, Huckabee could still have a shot.

~By some quirk of the election process, Hillary Clinton is the only candidate on the Democratic Michigan ballot, and, in Michigan, Democrats, as well as independents, can choose to vote in the Republican primary. It's difficult to determine how that will affect the race. Huckabee's "populist" message may appeal to Democrats, and his social conservatism may appeal to some Michigan Catholics who may vote Democratically based upon their economic philosophies (I don't know with certainty that any of those exist, but I suppose that they do.). On the other hand, social moderates and liberals who are for a strong defense may lean towards Rudy Giulani or John McCain. In addition, with no competition from Barack Obama, John McCain has a clear shot at most of Michigan's independents.
So, the summation of that paragraph is that we will just have to wait and see.

~As I pointed out in a previous post, Fred Thompson has stated that he is "making his stand" in South Carolina. After a debate performance that was perceived by some (not me) as brilliant, Thompson looks like he is in decent shape. However, Michigan polls suggest that he will bring up the rear of all the candidates still invited to debates (Giulani, Huckabee, McCain, Paul, Romney, Thompson). Whereas McCain, Romney, or Huckabee could get a monumental kick in the pants coming into South Carolina after Michigan, Thompson won't.

~ Rudy Giulani will once again be an "also-ran," set to only come in ahead of Thompson. His performance in South Carolina could be even worse. I've got to give Rudy credit: for his own good or ill, he's making presidential electoral history with this strategy of putting all his eggs in the basket of Florida and some of the socially moderate Super Tuesday states.

~ Giulani's strategy has proven the lunacy of early national polls. Just days ago, he was maintaining his status as the Republican "national frontrunner." Now, he's down to third, even though the results so far were all accounted for in his plans.

Please pray, as always, for God's will to be done tomorrow in Michigan.

Article VI of the Constitution

...The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, Shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States...
--from Article VI of the Constitution of the United States of America



During this election cycle, I've heard and seen some people invoke Article VI of the Constitution, as if by doing so they are striking down people like myself with a fatal condemnation. But I would propose that Article VI is just one more reason why we need to elect a Christian President.

What do I mean by that? Well, it's quite simple, really. If we do not elect a Christian President, the Constitution is not going to fix our error. The law will not save us from our mistake. If we choose a non-Christian, we will get our just desserts. The Constitution is designed so that no candidate will be prevented, by a precept of law (literally a "Test"), from attaining political office, presumably after he or she has already been elected by the people. The only test to be given is by the people, when they cast their ballots.

The reality is, the Constitution doesn't begin to decree to the citizenry on what bases we are permitted to embrace or shun a candidate. In fact, it would be a violation of the First Amendment for it to do so. If my faith tells me to cast my vote a certain way, I am allowed to act accordingly.

Consider what the naysayers, claiming constitutional superiority, really are implying when they proclaim that we can't "discriminate" against Romney because of his Mormonism. They are, in effect, saying, "You can vote against Romney because you dislike his ideology, record, wealth, speaking style, hair, fashion, campaign theme song, or the weird feeling you get when you see him, but you can't vote against him because of his religion." That's nonsense! Religion is the foundation upon which all else is built! If nothing else, one's religion installs oneself as god, or the State as god.

In all legality, I could vote against Barack Obama (which I will) merely because of the color of his skin (which, fortunately, happens to not be one of my reasons). That rationale would be despicable, deplorable, disgusting, diabolical, and just about any other negative adjective starting with "d," but that does not make it unlawful. Anyone can freely attempt to take that same tact about the rationality of considering faith in selecting a candidate to support, but no one can honestly make the argument that it is a case of constitutionality.