Wednesday, March 12, 2008

McCain's High-Wire Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





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

29 comments:

Jesus Is Coming Soon said...

I have known the living saviour Jesus Christ since 1976. I believe Mike Huckabee knows him too. we speak the same language of the spirit and heart.He approves of God and His Word the Bible, that approves Mike to me.
I believe both to be true..Mike is energetic to defend the innocent unborn children from Abortion with Law. Not just opinion.The same of Marriage no doubt where he Stands.
I Believe Mike Huckabee would make
one of our very greatest Presidents
These Values do also make him a reliable Defender of our familys and nation.With Good solid Judgement.

Anonymous said...

I believe Huckabee would be the best choice for McCain's VP. The reasons are twofold. First, there are a lot of people who will simply refuse to vote for McCain unless he has Huckabee on-board. Second, I believe Huckabee is the only VP that would give McCain a fighting chance against the Democrats. This is because of his ability to articulate the stands he has taken on the issues.

On a related note, I am not sure if I want Huckabee to take the VP slot, if it is offered. I suppose I am looking forward to 2012 and the damage Huckabee might incur, if a McCain/Huckabee ticket were to loose to the Democrats.

Anonymous said...

Panama John

Senator John McCain is not a natural born Citizen of the United States as he was not born "in the United States".

In a number of posts I have presented various parts of the evidence. These sources included the U.S. Constitution which is the supreme law of the land, The Naturalization Act of 1790, The Naturalization Act of 1795, and the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty ratified for the construction and operation of the Panama Canal Zone.

John McCain was born on the sovereign territory of the Republic of Panama to U.S. citizen parents. McCain is a United States citizen due to parentage, not by reason of birth.

The ineligibility of John McCain to serve as president may not prevent his run for the office. However, he cannot hold the office. If he were elected president, legal challenges would be inevitable.

Without an amendment to the Constitution, it is unlikely the Supreme Court of the United States could rule in his favor unless legislating from the bench. The more conservative Republican party has represented the case for separation of powers with a louder voice than the more liberal Democrat party. The sidestepping of this critical issue in the media and by the parties is alarming and may lead to a national crisis in the event of a McCain win in the general election.

The Act in 1790 that changed the definition for natural born citizen to include parentage was reversed in 1795. Since then, it has not been again defined to expand the scope of this constitutional requirement.

http://idacres.com/politics/mccain/natural_born_Citizen04.html

Anonymous said...

Wow. Good to know that your questioning of a political candidate's religious beliefs is "sincere" (whatever that means).

Non-evangelicals are concerned with a political candidate's political beliefs. I know, shocking concept. What do I care if the candidate is Catholic, Jew or LDS? You folks have no idea how ridiculous you look to the rest of the country. Between pastors Hagee insulting the Catholics and Huckabee insulting the Mormons that takes care of the 1st and 4th largest faiths in America! Pray tell us what other faiths should disqualify a candidate from public office?

Radiant Times said...

I'm agreeing with Larry. I will NOT consider giving my vote to McCain unless Huckabee is the VP.

That being said, I thing Huckabee should avoid the fray and let McCain flounder as the best Democrat in the race, tolerate four years of Obama to remind us how bad things can get, and then overwhelmingly vote for Huckabee in 2012.

Anonymous said...

I personally think that your take on Romney should be taken with a grain of salt. He has difficulty with one specific subset of the Republican party (one which I get the feeling you represent). That aside he brings a huge amount of positives to the table.

Huckabee on the other hand appeals to that one subset and is disliked by the others (in some cases very distinctly). Back during the Missouri primaries, I had a chat with a good friend of mine who happens to be protestant. When I asked her who she was going to vote for, she said:
1. Romney was the only candidate that she wanted to vote for.
2. McCain she would definiely have to hold her nose and even then she'd have trouble doing it.
3. She would do anything she could to prevent Huckabee from getting into a political position that would effect her in even the smallest of ways."
She even went so far as to call him dangerous.
As much as his followers like Huckabee, other people just can't stand him. Just look at a recent article on Politico. The co-founder of the FairTax which Huckabee championed so fiercely (and foolishly in my opinion) donated absolutely nothing to Huckabee's campaign. He maxed his donations out to Romney's campaign and also donated some money to Thompson and Giuliani.

On a sidenote, can Huckabee really be considered to have finished second? Although the current delegate count shows him ahead of Romney:
1. This was only after Romney asked his delegates to vote for McCain so and to end the nomination process quickly (which in my opinion is a good thing). McCain hasn't disappeared from the public eye and all of the press that the Dems are getting is pretty negative.
Before that Romney was still way ahead.
2. Huckabee had almost a month of caucuses and primaries after Romney left. In politics, that's ages. With all of that time, he still didn't gain any traction.

I can't think of anyone who really thinks McCain is conservative (I believe his most recent rating as a senator was around 65%). Huckabee is widely considered by the conservative base, to be barely more conservative than McCain. How is that going to rally the conservative base for the upcoming election? It won't.

Kingdom Advancer said...

Anonymous, what political positions of Romney's would that be? His yesterday, today, or tomorrow?

I agree with parts of what Larry and BigMeanUglyOgre said. I do think Huckabee would gather a lot of voters (and a lot of enthusiasm) that only he can. At the same time, the establishment, media elites, and Wall Street types don't take a liking to Huckabee.

BigMeanUglyOgre, I pointed out that Romney attracts Wall Street America and the radio talkshow hosts. But I don't know if that outweighs the people he repels.

Huckabee is in second, keeping Romney's delegates with him. Furthermore, I've always thought that the delegate rankings have to be looked at in context. Consider how much money Romney spent. (For instance, did Rudy Giulani really do all that "better," delegate-speaking, compared to Tom Tancredo?)

Anonymous said...

If Obama is the candidate.......The only person McCain should considered is Huckabee ...He is the only one that could help with the votes...The people in the South are not going to pay much attention to a carpetbagger from the North when they vote...Obama puts a different spin on the southern vote....

Anonymous said...

I think Huckabee is unquestionably the best choice for McCain. My support for Huckabee as VP is not based on his religious beliefs (which I do not share) but on his sincerity and authenticity in holding fast to those beliefs, without regard to political calculations. I recognize that Huckabee's faith may be an impediment to some voters, but it is equally an incentive to many, many others, and, in particular, that bloc of voters which McCain will desperately need in November. Further, when most people actually take a look at Huckabee (rather than read about him in the paper, etc.), they like what they find. This includes plenty of non-religious secular voters like myself. I think McCain will do surprisingly well with Blue State voters, but may fall short in normal Republican strongholds (especially if there is an Obama-Clinton or Clinton-Obama ticket). With Huckabee on the ticket, McCain would be reaching out to the evangelical BORN-AGAIN conservatives who rejected him in 2000 in a huge way, and he would be richly rewarded.

As far as experience, Huckabee had a sterling record as the governor of Arkansas. He was a model of fiscal responsibility, and greatly improved the lives of the people in his state.

Additionally, Huckabee also appeals to Blue-State Reagan democrats who vote right on social and economic issues. With Huckabee as his VP selection, I think McCain could achieve a Reagan-like sweep in November.

Finally, I agree with Larry's observation that Huckabee would be very adept at articulating the positions of a McCain-Huckabee campaign and administration. This will be invaluable, especially in any contest against Obama, and any future Washington debates with the Democrat opposition (e.g., Supreme Court nominations, etc.)

As for Romney? NO. He is a fraudulent hack willing to do and say anything. He is the Democrat's dream choice - a stereotypical corporate republican, devoted to money and power. who proudly governed as a pro-homosexual, pro-abortion liberal for a decade, and then did a COMPLETE flip-flop in 2004-2006 as he readied himself for his run. In light of his record, Romney was soundly rejected by real conservatives (as opposed to media talking heads) and so would be a definite negative for McCain.

Finally, Romney is a Mormon. Tough if you can't accept this truth, but that makes him unelectable. Again, however, the Democrats would love Romney because they would then be able to run their "Christian" candidates, Clinton and/or Obama, against the lukewarmly religious McCain and "cult member" Romney. Most likely, any real examination and discussion of Obama's spiritual mentor (FOR TWENTY YEARS) will be off-limits if Romney is on the ticket.

The Republicans need to win in November. Don't screw it up, Mr. McCain.

Anonymous said...

I don't much care for McCain, but putting Romney on the bottom of the Republica ticket is as good as effectively telling the 74 million Evangelicals in the US to 1) stay home 2) vote Democrat or 3) Go 3rd party.

Someone earlier has been misinformed that social conservatives, like Evangelicals are a small subset of the Republican party. The reality of it is that we make up the largest segment of the party and one of the largest segments of the population (albeit a minority view).

A McCain/Romney ticket is a rejection of social conservatism, and such a rejection, as much as it pains us, needs to result in the Republicans losing in November.

Oh, and while I like Huckabee, I'm not one who thinks that McCain needs Huck at the bottom of his ticket. There are quite a few acceptable social conservatives that would be fine by me (and more than a few of them should have enough appeal to get the Wall Street crowd on board.)

Anonymous said...

Finally! I couldn't agree more strongly that Romney should not be on any Republican ticket - aywhere!

Forget that his political convictions change on a regular poll based basis. Just look at the buisness practices that the Bain Capital group helped to make industry standard. Buying and selling companies just to strip the assests, though legal, seems slightly sleazy. But when you add in Bain's innovative practice of charging huge management fees to these companies, thus more quickly depleting their assests, it no longer seems slightly sleazy, it seems downright immoral. What a field day the Democrats would have with him.

Kingdom Advancer said...

First anonymous commenter,

What I meant by "sincere," is that my reasons for questioning Romney's faith did not arise from some blind hatred of Mormonism. I wasn't questioning his faith just for kicks, just for the fun of discrimination. And I wasn't bickering about some minor denominational disagreement.

I questioned his faith because I feel it is extremely important, and because I feel that there are irreconcilable differences between Mormons and Christians.

Anonymous said...

It really is a time for the Republican party to end. Without BOTH economic and social conservatism there is no majority.

Evangelicals who support Huckabee, my parents did not and they are evangelical, need to take over the Democrat Party, the party of "the working guy" and "regular joe" and "Mainstreat American" and then elect a Christian Socialist to beat the "elites" and "establisment" into submission. A "cultural revolution" if you will, guided by the Holy Spirit, of course.

Who cares what policies the candidate actually pursues? So what if their ex-pastor occasionally slips into the language of "class warfare" that would shame John Edwards?

The Bible does not really call envy a sin, anymore?

Who really reads those comments about, say, school vouchers anyway? You know, the one's where the devout Christian candidate sounds like he is reading from Hillary's "It takes a village"?

Please, can anyone explain why the number one Christian in the country "mentions" "clean air and water" and "education" and a slew of other goodies that all children "should" have on his website under "Right to Life"? You support him for this position even though he confuses the right to not be murdered in the womb with the worst sort of socialist utopianism? Because so many OPPOSE clean air? Those little hitlers on Wall Street?

Anonymous said...

Evangelicals are the biggest portion for the Republican party! And as such they should be consulted and their opinions should count. However, Gov. Huckabee is not the man for VP. He may help with the base in the south but he has absolutely no clout anywhere else. He will not help deliver a single state that isn't already red. He will also single handedly put several red/purple states into play for the Democrats. Mormons may make up a small percentage of the Republican base but they do represent a significant portion of the voters in many states and their extreme dislike for Gov. Huckabee will hurt the ticket in states that should be solidly Republican and some purple states. If Sen. McCain chooses Gov. Huckabee Utah, Idaho, Colorado, Nevada and possibly Arizona. The party cannot afford to even campaign in most of these states least of all have them competetive.

And while evangelicals make think that Mormons are cultists a large portion of the population are turned off by evangelical.

Sen. McCain needs someone besides Romney and Huckabee

Anonymous said...

Hello, it's me again.

There have been some strong words in regards to Romney since I last posted. I find it hard for people to actually believe these things. But they are being said, so they deserve some measure of a response.

1. Romney is not a say anything to get elected kind of guy. If this were the case, everytime McCain came at him attacking the fact that Romney had been a leader to make profit while McCain had done it to serve his country; Romney would have then turned around and said, "Ummm, last time I checked I worked for the Olympics/Governorship for free (donated his wages or didn't make any). In fact he was the only candidate to sign an agreement declaring he wouldn't take wages for his time serving as President.

That or he would have talked about all the different forms of service he's done. The only one to come from him was the advertisement discussing how he saved a business partner's life. One story out of many used purely to highlight his leadership skills.

2. The MSM, Democrats, and certain of Romney's opponents very successfully managed to label him with the title of Flip/Flopping. When actually looking at his record, this occurred just once, on abortion. This was early in his term as governor when he was first faced with the question of abortion and he landed on the side of pro life. Heaven forbid.

I've seen many people try and argue that there were more flops on the matter. The most frequent that I've seen is the 50 dollar co-pay provided with the healthcare system in Massachussets. Most don't know that that was a ruling brought in by the judicial system and the only way to stop it from happening would have been to scrap the entire system. Those who do know, mutter about how 'convenient' he has an excuse to get out of it. Why is his excuse less acceptable to Huckabee fans when they so willingly accept Huckabee's excuses for why he had to raise taxes (federal or court mandated rises in education, etc.)?

Here we come to the crux of the question, and to be honest I think it comes directly from this blog. I went back and read all of the entries that had anything to do with Romney. During the entries in which the candidates stances were compared it was interesting to read what was said about Romney. After about half of his entries, the closing words were, "But he's mormon so how can I believe/trust him." Those who want to find something to take issue with will invariably find something whether it be real or not.

--Romney definitely hasn't lied more than Huckabee.
--Nor has he 'attacked' him or the other candidates more than they did him.
--Romney did make money, which many could view as a cardinal sin (generally this would be democrats). But in doing so, he was a. successful, so much so that the stories of companies that weren't successful are very few b. created many jobs c. honest. This should hardly be a minus for him but all too often I see it used as an attack.


Without continuing further, let me ask. What has Huckabee got?

--Working successfully in a government/state which is renowned for it's corruption. This doesn't mean that he was BUT the many times he butted heads with the Ethics board lead one to think that at the very least he had a distinct sense of entitlement. I am aware that not all of those cases were entirely valid. More than 2 and less than 5 were.
--A stance on abortion that is longer held than Romney but not McCain. He does admittedly have the honour of standing strong on all of the different minutiae of Stem Cell Research. This is however now a moot point in today's world as Stem Cell's are now able to be grown from skin cells.
--His stance on the family is definitely stronger than McCain's. I would argue that it is pretty much the same with Romney's although many will argue that he enforced same sex marriages in Massachussetts. This is of course after he crusaded against them on a hundred different avenues until the State courts layed down the law and told him that he had to enforce them.
Others will argue that he was pro gay. He did in fact say that when running against Ted Kennedy. But the closer you look, it had nothing to do with the sanctity of marriage and everything to do with respecting the rights of indiviual citizen's who had made a decision about their life style. As much as you or I may not agree with that lifestyle, we CANNOT force someone to change to suit our wishes. Discrimination in the currently accepted definition is wrong.
I won't even go into making a comparison between the two individual's respective families.
--How about Amnesty. Where he was a johnny come lately who won the endorsement of Gilchrist. The same founder of the Minutemen who was plagued by scandal and is currently shunned by the same Minutemen he founded.
--Or how about the FairTax. I know many like him because he tells them that he wants to tear down the IRS. While the likelyhood of him getting this through Congress is less than zero I'll even grant you that somehow he'd be able to accomplish it.
Economists differ on how much the sales tax would be. Some say 20ish others up towards 35% (not including sales tax). Remember that this would be on everything (homes, etc.).
I personally have spent the last 6 years living in the UK where they attempted something like this. Their sales tax is 17.5%. Rather than accelerating their economy it slowed it down. It was also found to be insufficient to fund the government, so Income Tax was retained at the same levels as the US pays. This resulted in a huge net tax increase on the populace.

With all of the economists arguing the question of it's viability are you willing to take the risk that the UK took? Are you willing to take the hit that they took? For my part, I'd prefer a simplification of the tax law with loopholes removed.

I find that I've nattered on long enough. I apologize if I may have some letters missing. My keyboard tends to skip on occasion. I try to catch them but sometimes they slip through.

Anonymous said...

I support Mike Huckabee. Mike is the conservative choice. I support the sanctity of life, the protection of our nation, the sacred institute of marriage, and a strong defense, with victory over the Islamo-fascists.

I have supported the GOP since Ronald Reagan in 1980 (I was 13 years old) The party can survive if it maintains what its foundations are.

I support a McCain - Huckabee ticket.

Anonymous said...

Government is not about religion, although governance may incorporate it. the Evangelicals who want to establish Christian - and only fundamentalist Christian - government are not real conservatives. The soultion to big government of the Left is NOT to impose big government of the Right. Both the Bible and the Constitution provide for man's freedom of choice and the right to be wrong. TRUE conservatives will minimize government, including removing the sense of entitlement that people have that says that the gpvernment should subsidize their choices or protect them form theconsequences of their actions. The Constitution delineates specific - and rather limited - duties of the federal government. Conservatives are those who embrace the limited role envisioned in the Constitution. McCain should select a conservative vice president wothout regard to religious belief.

Anonymous said...

I submit the name of Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal. Socially conservative, young and non-white, as well as from the south. That combo could be good for McCain.

Anonymous said...

I came upon your blog via its posting on Real Clear Politics, and would like to contribute to your poll of who would be a good VP for McCain. There is the name of someone who isnt often mentioned in the list of possible VPs, but who I think may fit the bill quite well. That person is: Elizabeth Dole.

Condsider the following:

(1) E.D. was listed as being among the top 10 most conservative senators, based on American Conservative Union ratings. She has an ACU rating for 1996 of 96%, and an ACU lifetime rating of 91%. See this article:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20254

(2) E.D. has been strongly and reliably pro-life.

(3) E.D. has had a remarkable amount of executive and legilastive experience: Served in the cabinets of Reagan and Bush 41, served as president of the American Red Cross during the '90s, briefly ran for president in 2000, and has been in the U.S. Senate since 2003.

(4) As secretary of transportation under Reagan, E.D. was even in charge of one of the branches of the the U.S. military (the US Coast Guard, which was under that department at that time).

(5) E.D. showed how she could be appealing as a public speaker when she supported her husband's bid for president in 1996.

and

(6) As a woman, she would possibly be able to attact certain voters who would otherwise not be attracted to a McCain candidacy. For example, if Obama is the nominee of the Democrats, having Dole on the ticket may attract some of the female voters that otherwise may have gone for Hillary.

There is one down side: Dole is the same age as McCain, which could be an issue. But I think with some good humor, this could be dealt with. (Remember Reagan dismissing the age issue with a light hearted response back in '84.)

Anonymous said...

The most likely and best choice for McCain's VP right now is Condi Rice. Assuming the Democrats don't go w/ the "dream ticket" option, here's what Condi brings to the table:

Substantial foreign policy experience which will be great against Obama and good against Hillary.
Double minority status which could help pick up voters from whichever Democratic side is left disenchanted.
A possible softening of McCain's neocon military image. She's connected to Bush but she was a realist international relations thinker and women are generally assumed to be less likely/willing to use military force.
A youth perception which wouldn't do much against Hillary but could help a lot against Obama.
And, for the Repubs in general, let's be honest: Rice is the Republican Party's best hope (besides possibly McCain) for an 8 yr. president. Giving her even more experience is always a good thing.

john marzan said...

Here's why romney should be mccain's vp.

T. Brents said...

Dear Mike Huckabee Blogger,

Brett Passmore and Tommy Brents, formerly of HucksArmy, have begun an effort to bring together values voters accross America. Please take a moment to review the general welcome message from the main page of our site:

*******************************************************************************************

Welcome to the F3 coalition. We’re an organization founded by true conservatives. We support candidates, legislation and education that promote our three principal values.

We believe that our mission is to inspire, educate, motivate and empower individuals to become values-voters so that they can become active in the political process.

Our vision is to have an ever increasing group of values voters who are active in promoting conservative principles in local, state, and federal governments (specifically the “f3″ values).

The F3 values mentioned above are faith, family and freedom.

* Faith - We believe faith is essential to conservatism. Only through a close personal relationship with Jesus Christ can true compassion and conservative values be understood.

* Family - We believe that the traditional family is the only means by which to enact change in a corrupt society and to bring meaningful structure to a diseased culture.

* Freedom - We believe that every living person is the legitimate creation of God and that all persons should have the freedom to worship and live without the burden of an oppressive national or world government.

If you believe in this cause and the values we espouse, then we invite you to join our fight. Hundreds of conservatives just like you have already joined our ranks and with your help we can help change the direction of American politics.

********************************************************************************************

We have already taken the Liberty of adding your blog to our blogroll at f3coalition.org, and I invite you to promote our organization on your blog using one of the banners available on our promotion page here: http://www.f3coalition.org/promote/

If for some reason you'd like to be removed from our blogroll please reply to this email or send a message to tommy@f3coalition.org. Thank you for your time and consideration of our organization.

Regards,
Tommy Brents

Faith Family Freedom
http://www.f3coalition.org/

Anonymous said...

Time to write again KA :)

maidensong.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Kingdom Advancer said...

Yes, it is, Tina.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Hmmm, I would like Huckabee but my cousins and I really like Condi. Rice. But I think I would go with Huckabee, I'm not sure in this time (looking towards the middle east for one) If a woman would be able to get the same respect as a man in a diplomatic sense.

Kingdom Advancer said...

Anonymous,

Thanks for demonstrating to me a person who makes comment moderation a necessary blogging tool.

Anonymous said...

Yes KA, I saw that earlier when I was posting my comment. What a wonderful thing (and kind of sad in a way) comment moderation truly is.

Keep writing!