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.

A Letter to Pro-Second Amendment Ohioans

Here's another slightly edited letter to pro-gunners:

As an Ohioan with an invested interest in the unadulterated preservation of the Second Amendment, you are being told by the media and the Republican establishment that you have two choices. They say that you can either choose the least of three evils by voting for John McCain, or you can cast a worthless, meaningless vote for Mike Huckabee. I beg to differ. A vote for Mike Huckabee still is valuable! In fact, Ohioans have an opportunity to tremendously impact the presidential race!

Mike Huckabee doesn't have to reach 1,191 delegates. He just has to keep John McCain from getting that many officially pledged before the convention. Plus, Ohio is not a winner-take-all state, so the polls that show John McCain well in the lead should not dissuade you from making your voice be heard. Every vote counts!

Even if Mike Huckabee cannot pull off the extreme upset in this election, you have the chance to emphasize to John McCain that moderately defending the Second Amendment is not enough. For, there are substantial differences between Huckabee and McCain on the issue of the right to keep and bear arms.

Senator 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. 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? Stand up for principle! Stand up for the Second Amendment!

Thank you for your time.
...
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 and Related Articles: http://www.gunowners.org/mccaintb.htm

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.

POLL RESULTS: Your Course of Action, if Huckabee Fails to Win Nomination

Thank you for the record participation in WWCP's latest poll. 134 votes!!!

The question is one weighing on many conservative minds right about now: If Mike Huckabee doesn't win the Republican nomination, what will you do?

You didn't have to be a Huckabee supporter to vote in the poll. The point was, IF McCain gets the nomination, what will your course of action be?

The vote was extremely split, which is bad news for John McCain.

"Vote for McCain" was still the most popular answer, but it only garnered 29% (39 votes).

27% (37 votes) are still undecided, but they aren't happy with their options. "I don't know which; in any case, I'd feel terrible."

19% (26 votes) will go with Obama or Clinton. This is extremely bad news for McCain, unless these voters were Democrats to begin with.

14% (19 votes) will simply sit out this election.

9% (13 votes) will vote third-party.

If McCain wins the nomination, he's going to have to work himself to death trying to get the votes (and support) of the undecided, the sitters-out, the third-party voters, and those about to cross-over to the Democrats.

A new poll will be up shortly.

POLL RESULTS: Faith and the Presidential Campaign

I've been too busy lately to post the results of the last poll, so now I have two polls to cover. This post covers the first.

Question: When you hear presidential candidates say they are Christians or speak of Judeo-Christian principles, what do you do?

Total Votes: 73

In a victory through a plurality of votes, 32 (43%) of you said, "If they have consistently acted and spoken in such a way, I believe them. Otherwise, I don't."

In second place, 27 (36%) of you chose a somewhat similar answer, saying, "I listen carefully to see whether or not it sounds like they know what they are talking about."

Coming in at a distant third, 9 (12%) of you said that faith shouldn't have a part in the presidential campaign. "I don't like it: candidates shouldn't be talking about faith and religion."

A few (4%) of you find it amusing, saying, "I usually burst out laughing. I just can't take most of them seriously."

Finally, a couple (2%) of you feel cynical about politicians trying to come off as religious. "I usually shrug it off with some or a lot cynicism/skepticism."

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.