Post-Caucus Thoughts

Iowa Republican Caucus Results:

Mike Huckabee: 34%
Mitt Romney: 25%
Fred Thompson: 13%
John McCain: 13%
Ron Paul: 10%
Rudy Giulani: 4%
Duncan Hunter: 1%
Alan Keyes: <1%

Now that Mike Huckabee has handily won the Iowa caucus, I can tell you why I think Iowa was so important.

My predictions:

The momentum from this victory will likely catapult Mike Huckabee ahead of Rudy Giulani into 3rd place in New Hampshire's primary, which takes place January 8th. The Real Clear Politics Average places Giulani just half a point ahead of Huckabee, 10% to 9.5%.

John McCain will likely pull away from Mitt Romney for first place. Then...

Romney, reeling from two debilitating blows in Iowa and New Hampshire, will waver in Michigan, where the primary takes place in 11 days. Currently, Romney leads Huckabee there by only 1 point.

With increasing momentum from three impressive performances, Huckabee will benefit from strong evangelical support in South Carolina (January 19). As of now, he leads Romney there by an average of 6.5%.

Then, with three wins and a victory over Giulani in New Hampshire, Huckabee will overtake Giulani in Florida (1/29), where Mike currently trails by only 2 percentage points, according to Real Clear Politics.

By this point, both Romney and Giulani will be in a bad way, with no momentum, heading into Super-Duper Tuesday.

Admittedly, I'm no psychic, prophet, or political forecaster. After all, I projected 6 months ago that the general election would come down to Mike Gravel and Hugh Cort (JUST KIDDING!). But I feel that these are sincere, logical projections, although I may be overestimating the momentum factor, and I most certainly am not accounting for any unforeseen setbacks for Huckabee.

More thoughts:

~Fred Thompson essentially lengthened his campaign by the skin of his teeth, beating out John McCain for third place by the slimmest of margins. They both had approximately 13% of the vote. The question remains, though, where can Thompson win? His campaign seems to be riding on the hopes of a Huc-collapse. He's set to finish far in back of the rest of the pack (including Paul) in New Hampshire. Several polls have him at a feeble 2% in that state. South Carolina is where he is doing best in the pre-Super-Tuesday states, but, even there, he's presently slated to finish in fourth.

~John McCain's fourth-place finish could temper his recent surge, but Romney's second-place finish in Iowa should help McCain in New Hampshire.

~A fifth-place finish with 10% of the vote would not be good for most serious candidates, but it's good enough for Ron Paul. Considered a non-viable candidate by some because of his stance on foreign policy, Paul proved last night that he can get significant chunks of the voting public to join his so-called "Revolution." In all likelihood, that won't translate into the Republican nomination, but it's worth noting.

~On the Democratic side, Chris Dodd (<1%) and Joe Biden (1%) immediately withdrew themselves from the race when the results came in. On the Republican side, I don't know how much longer Duncan Hunter (1%) can hold out for a miracle. It will be a shame if and when he has to drop out.

~Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, and Alan Keyes might stay in the race just for the fun of it. Bill Richardson, newly established as the only viable "second-tier" candidate on the democratic side, still has something to play for.

~Although you wouldn't know it by watching the media coverage, Wyoming, the least-populated state in the Union, finishes up its Republican caucus process tomorrow. With no public polling done there and little attention from the candidates, no one knows who will win there. Will it even matter? We shall see.

We've only just begun, people. If you haven't yet, go ahead and buckle your seatbelts now. And don't stop praying!

Deep, Independent Thinkers, You Are!

Thanks to everyone for participating in the third WWCP poll--a double edition.

Both parts of the poll pertained to celebrity and high-profile endorsements. The first asked, simply, how do they affect you?

As I suspected, they don't really affect you at all. Out of 30 total votes cast, a whopping 69% (21 votes) said that endorsements have absolutely no impact on them, with 46% (14 votes) saying, "They never affect me. I study the candidates independently and couldn't care less what 'big-name' people think." The other 23% (7 votes) clarified that endorsements don't affect who they support, but they "appreciate them because they can help my [their] candidate[s]."

29% (9 votes) said that endorsements do affect them. 3% (1 vote) pointed out that it depends on the endorser, and 13% (4 votes) further defined that position by stating that only "endorsers with credibility and credentials"--not celebrities--impact them. The remaining 13% (4 votes) noted that some endorsements make them less likely to support a candidate. Not one person said that endorsements "almost always affect" them--that they "put a lot of stock in a celebrity and high-profile endorsements.

The second part of the poll was very intriguing. In this part, I wanted to know people's specific reactions to particular endorsements. Here are the results:

10 people were less likely to support Obama because of Oprah's endorsement. 2 were more likely.

4 people were more likely to support Huckabee because of Chuck Norris' endorsement. 5 were less likely.

3 were more likely to support Mitt Romney after the National Review's endorsement. 8 were less likely.

1 was more likely to support Mike Huckabee after Jim Gilchrist's endorsement. 5 were less likely.

There were a total of 25 votes cast in the second part, yet the most reactions to any endorsement was twelve. How can this be? Well, 13 said that none of the endorsements they didn't check influence them one way or another. That still doesn't seem to be proportionate to the percentage which said, in the poll's first part, that endorsements has no impact on them. However, that seeming contradiction can be explained in two ways:

1) Different people voted in the different parts of the poll.
2) In the second part, you were recording your reactions--whether positive or negative--to an endorsement, rather than how they actually influence you.

Please vote in the new poll.

My "Lemonade Stands"

I just opened two "Lemonade Stands," which I have nicknamed "For on the Campaign Trail 1" and "For on the Campaign Trail 2" , respectively. They are located in the sidebar for quick reference.

Stand 1 contains books and periodicals of interest. I do not, and cannot, recommend or endorse all the content found therein, but I did try to select products which you may very well find useful.

Stand 2 contains some of my favorite movies, including family, Christian, and action-adventure films. It also has some of my favorite music, ranging from contemporary Christian to epic soundtracks to Andrea Bocelli.

By purchasing products directly through the Lemonade links on this site, you thereby support this blog. Please take just a couple of minutes to scroll through my inventory of items. Don't shy away from clicking on an item for more information. Thank you in advance for any purchases you may make.

You can also make your own Lemonade stand.

Pre-Caucus Thoughts

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

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

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

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

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

It's time to be praying, people.

WWCP Linked from Duncan Hunter's Website

Check it out here.

In other news, WWCP now has an official e-mail contact address: WeWantaChristianPresident@gmail.com

If you have questions or comments about any of my posts, please comment on the relevant one(s). But if you have more generic inquiries or would like to correspond privately by e-mail, feel free to e-mail me.

Guidance of the Spirit

This is the third excerpt from a yet-to-be-posted article revealing the thought-processes behind this effort.

This is probably the most abstract and intangible point of all, but a substantial one nonetheless.

Jesus said that He would send a "Helper" (John 14:16)--the "Spirit of truth" (John 14:17)--who would "teach [us] all things" (John 14:26) and "guide [us] into all the truth." (John 16:13) What an amazing promise that is! Note that Jesus does not say that the Holy Spirit would guide us into some of the truth, or that He'd teach us some things. He won't just teach us "religous" things or guide us into "spiritual" truths. No! He'll teach us all things and guide us into all the truth.

Does this mean that every Christian should eventually know everything? Does it mean that all Christians should eventually know everything collectively? I don't think so--at least not on this side of eternity. But we should be climbing the mountain of truth and knowledge. It's not about reaching the pinnacle today, tomorrow, or in our lifetimes: it's about gaining altitude day-by-day. The Holy Spirit is our guide, and the Bible is our handbook. With our Bible in one hand, the Holy Spirit leads us by the other. The Spirit is the builder on the foundation of the Bible. He is the navigator with the map of God's Word.

I don't want to trespass upon my upcoming "Godly Wisdom" post, but I should allude to one of its key verses here. Paul states that in Christ "...are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." (Colossians 2:3) The Holy Spirit is the Key to Christ's treasure chest. He is the Treasure Hunter who can lead us to where "x marks the spot."

On a different note, I'm also reminded of times in the New Testament when Paul was "blocked" by the Holy Spirit from going to a certain area. Admittedly, we don't know exactly how the Holy Spirit accomplished that, but what I deduce from those instances is that the Holy Spirit can simply tell someone--who is in touch with Him--to do something or to not do something. He can even tell us what we ought to say (Luke 12:11-12).

Even so, I'm not going to deny that we don't want our President regularly relying on divine barriers and nudges. They don't always come, and they are sometimes confused with other things (indigestion) and even the other side (demonic influence/oppression). Having the Spirit "on your side" is definitely not an excuse to slack off in the areas of counsel, research, and analysis.

Nevertheless, when it comes down to discernment, intuition, a gut-feeling, a judgment call, a knee-jerk reaction, a split-second decision, a virtual coinflip, or a seemingly lose-lose situation, I'll take the President who's in fellowship with the Spirit over the one who's not every day of the week.

However, we must realize that the Holy Spirit doesn't guide only in this indefinable sense. He also guides through the Fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-24), which could be referred to as the "tools" of the Spirit. These virtues--love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control--are present in those "walking by the Spirit." (Galatians 5:25) They don't serve to function so much like the type of guidance which commands, "Go in this direction," but more like the type which instructs, "Take this approach."

Now, I must admit that I rarely live up to all of the unadulterated ideals of Paul's grocery list of spiritual produce. But we would not err to assume that the Christian should generally live up more fully to more of the fruits than a non-Christian. After all, the flesh has its own laundry list: "...immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these..." (Galatians 5:19-21) Not only that, the Christian should be progressively ascending to godliness, albeit with some stumbles here and there. "For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus." (Philippians 1:6) "And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect." (Romans 12:2) "Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance. And let endurance have its perfect result, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing." (James 1:2-4)

The fruits of the Spirit have very real applications in the life of the President. The following dissertation is as much a prayer for our President, whoever that may be, as it is a discourse on the effects of the Spirit. There is some overlap between the traits.

Goodness:
*That he'd strive to overcome evil with good, and not to return evil for evil (Romans 12:17, 21)
**That he'd fight the good fight (2 Timothy 4:7) with the proper motivation, doing all things heartily for the glory of God (1 Corinthians 10:31; Colossians 3:23)
***That, for this reason, he'd be immune to corruption.

Faithfulness:
*Following the same train of thought, that he'd follow through with his commitments and stay true to his beliefs (Ephesians 4:14; Colossians 2:8) with the faithfulness of God
**That his word would be reliably sufficient (Matthew 5:37; James 5:12).

Kindness:
*That he'd extend his hand to our opponents at home and enemies abroad so as to convey that our steadfast convictions are founded upon common sense, morality, justice, and security--not spite, hatred, prejudice, vengeance, or selfishness....or partisanship
**That he'd truly fulfill the duties of his office by regarding others as more important than himself and accepting that he is a public servant (Philippians 2:3-4; 1 Corinthians 10:24)

Joy:
*That, though without naivety, he'd see the positive, working towards it rather than conceding the negative
**That he'd recognize God's sovereignty and omnipotence, remembering that Jesus has overcome the world (John 16:33) and that God works all things together for the good of those who love Him (Romans 8:28)
***That the joy of the Lord would be his strength (

Patience, Peace, and Self-Control:
*That he'd not make rash decisions from flights of panic or anger (Matthew 10:28; James 1:20), and that he'd not concern himself with saving his own skin (Philippians 2:3-4; 1 Corinthians 10:24),but that, with the peace that surpasses all understanding (Philippians 4:7), he would make cool-headed decisions with the proper perspective, setting his mind "on the things above" (Colossians 3:2) and dwelling on "whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute..." (Philippians 4:8)
**That he'd control his tongue, understanding the great power, for good or ill, which it possesses (James 3), especially when placed within the context of the President's bully pulpit

Gentleness and Love:
*That he'd speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15), using gracious words seasoned with salt (Colossians 4:6) and exhibiting a gentle spirit (Philippians 4:5)
**Knowing that a gentle answer turns away wrath (Proverbs 15:1), that he'd stand firm but not be standoffish;
***That his decisions would be based upon his love for God, his neighbors, and his enemies: not that he'd be soft or wimpy, but that he'd neither be bloodthirsty nor heartless
****That he'd be driven by a genuine love--a love that is both compassionate and tough, understanding that both are necessary
*****That he'd put himself in their shoes so as to better understand how to defeat their ideologies.

Although it's practically impossible to decipher just how tender a public figure like a political candidate is to the leading of the Spirit, and equally difficult to calculate the precise results of such leading, we cannot underestimate its importance. Therefore, we must attempt to eliminate all the obvious tares, so that we are more likely to choose a grain of wheat.

Christmas Message from WWCP

The fact is, I might post something relevant to the election in the next two days. But another fact is that I probably will not. So I have decided to leave you with this non-political Christmas message. So, don't expect me to put universal healthcare or "bringing the troops home" under the tree for you (a la Hillary Clinton). In fact, I won't even be including any "floating crosses" (a la Mike Huckabee, allegedly).

During these days of presents and pie, family time and turkey time, freezing coldness and hot cocoa, sugary sweets and powdery snow, sappy songs and slap-happy songs, and all the other stuff that goes along with the "most wonderful time of the year," let us endeavor to glorify and praise God, just as Mary, Zacharias, the angels, the shepherds, and the Wise Men did, respectively:

“And Mary said: ‘My soul exalts the Lord…holy is His name…’” (Luke 1:46-55)

“And at once his mouth was opened and his tongue loosed, and he began to speak in praise of God.” (Luke 1:64)

“And suddenly there appeared with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying, ‘Glory to God in the highest…’” (Luke 2:13-14)

“The shepherds went back, glorifying and praising God for all that they had heard and seen, just as had been told them.” (Luke 2:20)

“After coming into the house they [the Wise Men] saw the Child with Mary His mother; and they fell to the ground and worshiped Him.” (Matthew 2:11)


To reflect upon what God has done and is going to do:

“And behold, even your relative Elizabeth has also conceived a son in her old age; and she who was called barren is now in her sixth month. For nothing will be impossible with God.” (Luke 1:36-37)

“…Mary treasured all these things, pondering them in her heart.” (Luke 2:19)


To rededicate and re-submit ourselves to God:

“And Mary said, ‘Behold, the bondslave of the Lord; may it be done to me according to your word.’” (Luke 1:38)

“And he [Zacharias] asked for a tablet and wrote as follows, ‘His name is John.’” (Luke 1:63)


To give ourselves more fully to Christ and to remember that, by giving to the least among us, we give to Him.

“After coming into the house they saw the Child with Mary His mother; and they fell to the ground and worshiped Him. Then, opening their treasures, they presented to Him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh." (Matthew 2:11)

"Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to me." (Matthew 26:40)


To find joy and peace in the meaning of the season:

“When they saw the star, they rejoiced exceedingly with great joy.” (Matthew 2:10)

“But the angel said to them, ‘Do not be afraid; for behold, I bring you good news of great joy which will be for all the people…” (Luke 2:10)

“…on earth peace among men with whom He is pleased.” (Luke 2:14)


To realize how blessed we are:

“And coming in, he said to her, ‘Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you.’” (Luke 1:28)

“The angel said to her, ‘…you have found favor with God.” (Luke 1:30)

I realize that Mary was a special woman, but note what Jesus states later in His life.

“While Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, ‘Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breast at which You nursed.’
“But He said, ‘On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.’” (Luke 11:27-28)


To let not our hearts be troubled, for Emmanuel, God is with Us:

“But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, ‘Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife…” (Matthew 1:20)

“‘Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,’ which translated means, ‘God with Us.’” (Matthew 1:23)

“But the angel said to him, ‘Do not be afraid, Zacharias, for your petition has been heard…’” (Luke 1:13)

“The angel said to her, ‘Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.’” (Luke 1:30)

“But the angel said to them, ‘Do not be afraid; for behold, I bring you good news of great joy which will be for all people…” (Luke 2:10)

Note that the angel always had a reason not to be afraid, and so do we.

And lastly, to get ready to go tell it on the mountain!

“When they had seen this, they [the shepherds] made known the statement which had been told them about this Child. And all who heard it wondered at the things which were told them about this child.” (Luke 2:17-18)

Merry Christmas!!!!!!!!!!

Ranking Their Positions: Obscenity/Pornography

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

T1. Alan Keyes

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

T1. Mitt Romney

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

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

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

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

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

>>Hillary Clinton

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

>>Mike Gravel

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

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

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

Did You Know...

...that there is a state called Wyoming? Okay, so you've probably heard something about the Cowboy State before. Maybe you learned in school what its border states are or that its capital is Cheyenne. But, in reference to presidential politics, this state has seemed to have fallen off the map.

That may not be all that surprising when you look at it in the grand scheme of things. After all, it boasts the smallest population of any state in the U.S., with less than 500,000 people, as of 2000. As a matter of fact, that's fewer people than Washington, D.C. Furthermore, Wyoming voted strongly Republican (69%) for George W. Bush in 2004, meaning that any Republican candidate will probably win the state.

But here's the catch: the big thrust of its caucus happens on January 5th, two days after the Iowa caucuses and three days before the New Hampshire primary; and the caucus process has already begun. Yet no Republican candidate, save Ron Paul, is courting, or has courted, support there. Apparently, a victory in Wyoming is not considered a momentum-builder.

Wyoming Republicans actually risked some of their delegates at the national convention by moving up their caucus date. In 2004, they held their caucus on May 8th. Reportedly, they were willing to take this risk in hopes of getting some attention, which they really have not.

If the other candidates don't start paying attention in the next two weeks, they could be giving away a state to Ron Paul.

Tancredo Drops Out, Endorses Romney

Read Yahoo Article.

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

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

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

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

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

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