Wednesday, May 30, 2007

Huckabee On Health Video Link.

Below is a link to a video at a diabetic life web site, of Mike Huckabee’s work to improve health for himself and for Arkansas as its governor. Note 2 things:

1) His actions as governor were neither to invest in unnecessarily costly programs, NOR to coerce people’s behavior. Rather, they presented people with better information and options. “Junk food” was not eliminated from public schools. Healthy options were made available and emphasized.

2) As Huckabee says relative to the topic, we need to focus more on health relative to health care. Good health drastically lowers our vulnerability to costly chronic disease, not to mention increasing the quality of a probably longer life. Health is increased and health care costs reduced by this focus.


Huckabee Comment At Red State Blog

Today, Governor Huckabee has a guest blog post on Red State. Follow this link to his blog post on the Fairtax:

Tuesday, May 29, 2007

Christopher Hitchens On Iraq, Islam & Religion

I started on Sunday night, and spent most of Memorial Day looking at media and articles of Christopher Hitchens. There's plenty available on the web: his own page, and other articles and appearances. Hitchens is a fascinating individual to watch. He is a Brit who has become an American citizen, taking up a great affinity and appreciation for Thomas Jefferson and the unique American experiment in what he calls “secular government” (Yes, it is religiously impartial, though I think not necessarily indifferent). He started out as a refugee from what he describes as a conservative Tory family, and became a fervent Trotskyite socialist.

Today, he is the most informed and devastating critic of the vulgar heckling anti-Iraq War radicals. After one of Bill Maher’s flip “dumb-Bush” suggestions, he called Bill Maher’s yowling anti-Bush audience who would “laugh at anything,” “frivolous.” He said those cheap sort of remarks are so ubiquitous and easy that anyone can do them, and “this is now the joke that even stupid people laugh at.” Maher was stunned and stung. After all, Hitchens was picking on his bread and butter. By the way, if you should look up the video on the web, Maher’s HBO show is not subject to broadcast ideas of decorum. The language and conversation gets coarse.

Anyway, no one makes a more overwhelming case for the justification of action in Iraq (I still shrink from calling this single engagement a “war,” which language does violence to conventional English) than does Hitchens. He has said he never watches the news (which has jaded much of the public). He does his own investigation and is well armed with information that those sources never provide and are often unaware of. He reads the New York Times only to be aware of the ideas he will be confronted with from others.

If you aren’t familiar with him, you might want to slow down on the idea that Hitchens is an utterly penitent convert. Though he does recant his early revolutionary socialist enthusiasm, he claims no party and still outright disclaims conservatism. He credits George W. Bush’s resolve on this overriding matter of the Islamic/terrorist threat, and he is very dismissive of the shallow knee-jerk left. But aside from this disparagement, great fuel is added to his anti-Islamic zeal by his visceral hatred and disdain for all religion of any sort. Hitchens is not one for obligatory polite temperance toward his adversaries. When Jerry Falwell died recently, he called Falwell an evil huckster who taught hate and said “It’s a shame there’s no Hell for him to go to.” I suppose he didn’t expect or want an invitation to the funeral. I think Falwell often spoke injudiciously, especially given the likelihood that comments would be publicized. But, Hitchens is of course, just wrong in his assessment of Falwell’s deceptive and evil intentions.

It is interesting to me that Hitchens carries on at great length about the detrimental effect of religious belief and about the other subjects of his indignation, with rhetoric liberally studded with moral judgments. More often than not, I agree with him about actions he morally condemns. But I see these as abrogation of an objective moral standard that is the endowment of God. Plainly, Hitchens’ ontology doesn’t include such metaphysical entities. I expect he would supply a linguistically abstruse explanation of the social genesis of moral obligation. That’s what always has to be done. But, I’m sure he would do a better-than-average job of that challenging task of a naturalist weaving of common-sense morality. He’s tremendously literate and educated in history, philosophy, and literature. But, the final product of such efforts always makes of morality something quite apart from what intuition suggests it is. Out of a consideration for simple cultural practicality I suppose, he will just let Jefferson slide on that niggling notion of creator-endowed inalienable rights.

Hitchens typically describes religious people as fideisticaly embracing a dream to avoid death by following a prescribed routine. He does mention Christian friends, but even if it should move his mind not at all, it should present him with an ontological curiosity to be well-acquainted with a Christian who sincerely confesses not only to know Jesus, but to love him. How does such a creature come to exist? I don’t detest Hitchens for this. He simply has no experience so that he would understand that for some, denial of Christ would amount to something more akin to denial of a lifelong spouse. Knowledge of God can be the sort of knowledge that epistemologists call “incorrigible.” An assertion of denial would be merely a semantic exercise. In truth, Hitchens’ complete lack of sympathy for any of those he criticizes with a broad brush, like his reflexive suspicion of the intentions of people like Falwell, is not something to be hated, but rather to be pitied. He just doesn’t know. Judging by his non-partisan advocacies and criticisms, I’m sure if he did know, he would be an uncommonly effective apologist for the other side.

But, Hitchens’ brings strong logic and telling data to the table on the matter of the threat of Islamic fundamentalism and the necessity and justice of action in Iraq, which he explains with great passion, seeing radical Islam as the most ominous danger in the world, today. I think he’s correct. But, very strange bedfellows have been made in coordinating opposition to threats in history. In the world, there is a great population of us that Hitchens would deride as “religionists,” who would side with him in opposing the violent manifestation of Islam. Even if he shouldt never allow the slightest quarter of accommodation to their perspective, if its as important as he says, it seems like it would be wise to avail this great population of potential allies in this fight, of his current and historical knowledge by reconsidering on that matter of polite temperance.

To hear some of his case for justification of action in Iraq, I have linked below, to a debate of a year ago with Scottish Labor Party MP, George Galloway. Today, I bought Hitchens’ newest book: “God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.” One must sharpen one’s senses with flint.


Christopher Hitchens debates George Galloway

Sunday, May 27, 2007

Huckabee Meets With Fair Tax Supporters In Houston

Huckabee’s appearance on FOX New Sunday, including Fair Tax discussion HERE

Saturday, May 26, 2007

Could Ron Paul Win in New Hampshire?

Could Ron Paul Win in New Hampshire?

I’ve thought of this. To say the least, it’s interesting to think about. Paul certainly could and I expect will if he’s still around, surprise in New Hampshire. Because of his heterodoxy on Iraq/foreign policy among Republicans, even liberals tend to discount him. He should fare better in the field, the larger that it is. With 9 rivals, he could easily win. With 3 or 4 maybe not, though New Hampshire is an uncommon lot.

But, the linked post talks about “gaining momentum” in New Hampshire, which would seem not as likely given Paul’s distinctive foreign policy views, which many Republicans will regard as dangerous. But, what is interesting to me is how the conventional media would respond: Would they be aroused and infatuated with the idea of an ant-war candidate knocking The Republican Party off balance, which a strong Ron Paul showing certainly would do?

But, if they are so diverted, they might to some extent overlook the unprecedented threat that a president Ron Paul would pose to the gargantuan and expensive status quo of their precious federal bureaucracy. If they think Ronald Reagan was a threat to government activism, they ain’t seen nothin’. Ronald Reagan was an American romantic who voted 4 times for FDR, before he came to see runaway government growth and flaccid defense as a threat to the country he loved.

Ron Paul is pro-life (he sees Roe v. Wade as another outrageous contra-constitutional government presumption), but he is no mere romantic sentimentalist. He is and always has been a by-the-book intellectual constitutionalist libertarian. Ron Paul served in The Air Force. He believes that activist foreign interventionism is counter-productive and costs greatly in not only treasure but blood, unnecessarily. But anyone, especially terrorists, who think Paul would be soft on an offense to national security, would be sorely mistaken. Attack America, and you’ll get a more determined response out of no one. Personally, my fear and the reason I’m not supporting Ron Paul, is that he may not grasp the dangers posed by today’s world, to the extent that vulnerability to that provocative attack might make it an unacceptably costly one, in both property and blood. In today’s world, I want every precaution, even preemptive if demonstrably necessary, taken to prevent a calamitous assault on an American city. If hundreds of thousands of people were killed and an American city destroyed when a nuclear device was detonated, Paul would respond decisively. Heck, at that point Hare-Krishnas and PETA members would probably be war-mongers…AFTER they blamed George W. Bush for the attack.

I agree with Paul that The Patriot Act was not scrupulously-enough worded to preclude future potential abuse of constitutional rights. I said when it was enacted that (particularly social and 2nd Amendment) conservatives could expect to have their backs mowed by The Patriot Act in the future. But, scrupulously defined as it can be, every possible precaution should be taken to preclude any such unprecedented calamity on our soil. Plainly, Islamic terrorists have more against us than our presence in The Middle East. We are infidels that technology puts within arm’s length. Our presence in The Middle East is an additional, not a solitary irritant. I also question the morality of a strict indifferent isolationism in the world of today’s technology of travel, communication, and destruction.

I feel very positive about the character and sincerity of Mike Huckabee. I feel strongly that his disposition is what America sorely needs. But, I never thought I’d get within a dream of an American chief executive as conscientious about liberty and The Constitution as Ron Paul. That dream would be augmented by the hope that intelligence and military would keep it crystal clear to a President Paul, what dangers are posed in the world and what steps needed to maintain American security and defend against brutal inhumanity. America founding document recognized the value of “all men.”


Friday, May 25, 2007

The Fair Tax: Huckabee And My Question

Mike Huckabee has embraced and advocates for the Fair Tax national retail sales tax that would eliminate personal and business and all other hidden taxes to the United States government that, of courser, are ultimately paid by the people who support or use those taxed facilities. n I favored a national sales tax 12 years ago. I agree with everything that it aspires to accomplish. Most notable among those things are 1) to liberate and ignite commercial dynamism in the American economy by ceasing to tax investment and wealth creation and providing millions of new work and investment opportunities. And 2) it would revert the authority over the dispensation of wealth, including taxes, back to the private individual: spend more, pay more taxes, spend less, pay less taxes.

In fact, with the enormous amounts of wealth that would be thrown back into circulation, a "revenue neutral" calculation to convert our taxation to consumption taxes would probably quickly mean an increase in federal revenues, except for one question that has arisen to me in the past several years: how would the tax be fairly and equally collected" Its not that I fear that the federal government should go without any significant portion of what it currently collects. By the way, a great part of that total is "hidden" for a reason. It's easier to pick your back pocket than to ask for your donation.

No. The question I have is this, and I would be happy for anyone to answer, as no one has ever done. In the burgeoning Internet community of cummunication and commerce, will not a significant national sales tax fairly beg a consumer to buy offshore, rather than in America? My concern is for a potential great hit that could be taken for American commerce.

How would the tax be collected on goods shipped into the United States from foreign providers so that they would compete equally with American vendors? I honestly don't have an answer? The best solution I've been able to imagine is for the US Government to simply collect an at least approximately per capita tax directly from state governments and leave states to collect taxes as they will, which may well vary in the choice and practicability of individual states.

The bottom line really is that many(not all) of the ostensible operations of the federal government should be undertaken by the states or lower governments, if at all, which should be for the individual states to decide. Within a closer jurisdiction, the people are better able to decide what works best for them. The United States could become a great buffet of public service packages for citizens to consider when they contemplate a move.

But, I'm anxious to hear other ideas. Email me at . Meanwhile, here are links to YouTube videos of Mike Huckabee at a Fair Tax rally in South Carolina and a more personal discussion.


Mike Huckabee addresses the Fair Tax Rally

The Fairtax proposal to replace Income Taxes with National Sales Taxes on all consumer goods. (more)

Monday, May 21, 2007

Florida Moves Up - Social Conservatives Pick Brownback, Huckabee

Florida has moved its primary to January 29th, the same day as South Carolina, which will make campaigns scramble to somehow cover that large state. Here's a link to an expression of social conservatives in Florida on abortion:

Florida group cheers Brownback, Huckabee
The Westfall Weekly News - Canada
Longshot Republic, , ) and Mike Huckabee were well received by a socially conservative group who applauded their anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage and ...
See all stories on this topic

Why Ron Paul Should Stay In The Conversation

I watched a few interviews with Ron Paul after last Tuesday’s debate on FOX News. One noted that some want future debates restricted, and questioned whether Paul should participate as the lone Republican who opposes action in Iraq. Now, let me be clear that I’m not confident, as Paul is, that complete non-intervention is responsible in terms of security or morality. But, Paul’s argument is as informed and internally consistent as any other candidate, and probably more so. It is cheap and inaccurate to charge Paul with cowardice or blaming America. Historically, he is right about the blowback of American intervention. The question is what is security and moral prudence, given the state of technology today with regard to weaponry, travel, and communications. But, none of the other candidates is as studied and clear on history and The Constitution as is Paul. As I’ve said, a shallow perspective doesn’t recognize that.

And perhaps even more importantly for Republicans, all candidates need to refine their views relative to Paul’s, and more clearly than with visceral indignation. In case no one has noticed, there is concern about Iraq in the general populace. Leaving aside its origin and justification, Republicans can expect to be hammered with the issue in the general election. The united voice of Republican candidates will leave any nominee less prepared to engage the issue than he would be debating Ron Paul, who’s case is more refined than any that the crop of Democratic candidates will offer. Republicans will have to disarm the attacker with more more intricate tools than a shield of chest-thumping bravado.

Besides all that, he's more educated on social and economic policy, too


Romney Video on Life And "Choice"e

Check out this video of Romney from 2002 ,

& 2004 , re abortion. The video is also here with info about the abortion funding bill he signed as governor, and Pro-Life Federation grading of candidates: Romney got a D-. He’s out, as far as I’m concerned. Huckabee and Brownback got A’s.

But, this blogger asked why Romney’s numbers have risen so swiftly among probable Iowa caucus-goers. I had figured it was tepid feelings about Giuliani and McCain, and Romney spending his money. But, this blogger reports a pretty clecer tactic, too: invite thousands of activists to a personal teleconference with Romney, himself. Pretty good strategy.

But, with Giuliani and McCain slipping, maybe more attention will now be focused on Romney’s dubious inconsistent record. He has explanations for each of his changes. But, how philosophically clear is a man who has varied so widely. And I ask again? Do you really think he would have made the same progress without being a pretty boy? Too bad that affects peoples’ feelings.

Larry Perrault

Huckabee Debate Highlights

A Huckabee blogger, “Michigan Redneck,” has posted a lot of Huckabee videos HERE There are four highlights from the debate on The Fair Tax, Listen To Generals, Business, but not as usual after 9/11, raising and lowering taxes and some of the YouTube videos, including the post-debate interview with Hannity & Colmes.

Larry Perrault

Dobson and Viguerie Won't Vote For Giuliani, Either

James Dobson, the Christian Founder and Of Focus On The Family in Colorado Springs, is unequivocal: Dobson says today in an exclusive WND column, speaking strictly as a private citizen, "I cannot, and will not, vote for Rudy Giuliani in 2008."

"It is an irrevocable decision," says the founder and chairman of Focus on the Family. "If given a Hobson's – Dobson's? – choice between him and Sens. Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, I will either cast my ballot for an also-ran – or if worse comes to worst – not vote for the first time in my adult life." For Dobson, its an irrevocable matter of conscience.

And Richard Viguerie, a veteran of decades of conservative campaigning and writing, is even more pointed: "If the Republican Party nominates Rudy Giuliani as its candidate for either president or vice president, I will personally work to defeat the GOP ticket in 2008,"

Viguerie says that nominating Giuliani would amount to the destruction of The Republican Party.

For myself, God could still save it, but it would be in an incoherent cognitive coma. The Republican Party is far astray from what were its defining principles. If Giuliani were its nominee, it would have severed any tether to its republican foundation, and would be utterly adriftin a popular culture sea: not a good place to be. Here are the links.

Dobson: No way I'll vote for Rudy

Richard Viguerie responds to the South Carolina presidential debate: 'It's Rudy or the GOP'

Larry Perrault

Friday, May 18, 2007

Assessment Of The Field Of Republican Candidates

Of course, everyone knows that I favor Mike Huckabee, in sum because he’s smart, genial, honest, and sincere in his intentions. There are more comments at the official campaign blog and the first unofficial blog, at the sites in my sig. In his GOP Eagle, Bobby Eberle commented on “the highlights and lowlights” of the debate , ending with “The surprise candidate for me was Gov. Huckabee. His answers were strong on all the issues, and he came across as thoughtful, not contrived, and willing to listen.” It is clear to me that, though the media clamor still holds Rudy McRomney as “the top tier,” Huckabee looks to be 4th, even in general, sometimes unthoughtful and uniformed, opinion. He is called by objective observers, “the best communicator” in the field. Look it up with a search engine.

As for “the top tier,” in my opinion two of the three are ruled out, right out of the gate, and the third, Mitt Romney, has been just two flexible and is just too moneyed, scripted and just too darned handsome to make me comfortable. Where would Romney be if he looked like Tommy Thomson, who is much more consistent, more innovative, more experienced, and more personal than prepared?

Rudy Giuliani and John McCain are right out. I wouldn’t even vote for them in the general if they won the Republican nomination. It’s nothing personal. I agree that Giuliani sounds comforting about prosecuting both domestic and foreign (terrorist) criminals. And I would like him in a good cabinet post dealing with security threats. But, if a person doesn’t understand the fundamental American principle and the critical nature of respect for human life to the survival of a civilized society, I don’t trust that person’s capacity to protect and defend The Constitution, as the presidential oath promises. Similarly, McCain has made a very faint philosophical defense of the right to life AND has cosponsored and advocated for an outright defiance of the !st Amendment right to fee speech (“campaign finance reform”) As well as these people might mean, they are perceptually if not overtly incompetent to perform a president’s duty to protect and defend The US Constitution and elemental morality.

Mitt Romney is too cute by half, literally. Ask any woman. Let him get a good tan and be the next George Hamilton. His explanations for his position-changes don’t inspire me to sign up. Scroll down at to see their latest post about “Mitt-flopping.” It was funny. But, it was a bit of a sharp jab at Romney: the kind of thing that Huckabee wouldn’t approve. I’m not calling Romney a phony. But, I’m not saying I believe him, either. The logic of his explanation doesn’t jibe with me. So, he could be just illogical, as a lot of people are. But, as for the used car salesman charge…I’m not buying the pitch. Keep trying, Mitt. But as far as I’m concerned, you might have a better chance if you weren’t so pretty, and now perfectly aligning yourself with the Republican base. Huckabee joked about John Edwards’ haircuts. How much are Romney's?

I have a longstanding deep respect for Ron Paul’s fidelity to principle and his knowledge of history and the American Constitution. In the first place, media commenters’ sneers about Paul illustrate just how shallow they are. They say he’s a non-entity. But, he shows highly at every vote and poll. His 20-25% is a big hunk of a 10-man field. But, I’m thinking it is maxed out for the Republican campaign. It will still be the same if the field is 2 or 3, and that won’t be big enough.

It wasn’t fair and typically obtuse of Giuliani and others to describe Paul’s comments at the debate as blaming America for 9/11. Paul was merely stating the facts that 1) a “blowback” from America’s intervention in the Middle East should not be unexpected, and 2) terrorists and other Middle Easterners have, indeed, cited it as motivation for their animus. Let me quickly say that moraly, I could care less why murderers do their wicked deeds, and I don’t care relative to our response to it, either, though maybe the Democrats could charge bin-Laden with a “hate-crime,” and when he’s caught they could execute him TWICE, scorning him not just as a murderer, but also a “hater” Ooh, that’s really bad. That’ll teach him…

Paul was absolutely right that we should have gotten a declaration of war before the Iraq invasion, and I said so at the time. I think at the time he could have gotten it. That sure would have been helful in retrospect, eh? But anyway. It was simple-minded and unreflective to scorn Paul for being a traditional conservative isolationist. I don’t think that position is prudent in terms of security or responsible in terms of moral humanity, in a world where technology transports men around the world in hours instead of months and sound and images in minutes, and when you have the capacity to intervene on the behalf of oppressed and brutalized people. I understand the founders’ counsel to avoid foreign entanglementsin the late 18th century. But, I’m not going to hang security and morality on that hook today. Ron Paul’s adherence to principle and his thoughtfulness are so alluring in today’s world, that it would take concerns of that huge significance in the face of the utter miracle that The Republican Party nominated him to keep me rom voting for him. I don’t believe Paul is indifferent to American security. He was in the Air Force and anyone would make a mistake assuming that he was soft on that score. And, it would be such a wonder if he were nominated that I might think that God is trying to tell us something.

Kansas Senator Sam Brownback is a decent guy, though his intellectual incisiveness and rhetorical proficiency don’t exactly light up a room. Basically, he’s as moving and inspiring as a landscape of Kansas. I wish he’d endorse Huckabee.

I like Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter. They’d be good friends and I have many like them. But I think the focus on immigration as our biggest , though it’s a real problem, is misguided. If they built an impenetrable wall (I don't like walls, BTW), which I don’t see anyone running to do (they funded a 250 mile one a few months ago, and they’ve finished 2 miles), they won’t have fixed America. We have what I think will be weakening and ultimately fatal internal problems if nothing changes. In that case, the borders won’t matter, and to lose focus on those problems in America is a lethal distraction. Sure, we need to clean up immigration and certainly shut it to criminals and terrorists. But, that isn’t the meat on our plate of problems. Trust Huckabee with both the defense (Hunter) and immigration (both Tancredo and Hunter) issues.

Tommy Thompson and Jim Gilmore are former governors and more serious than posturing legislators. Thompson is fairly innovative and Gilmore is very sober and businesslike. Actually, Thompson has pretty much lived in Iowa and should fare better than expected in the August straw poll. But, I don’t think his followers will be the type to stage a big party. And, neither of them’s personality or presentation is going to set anyone afire. If there’s more to see, let’s see it. If not, make way for Huckabee.

Obviously, conservatives need to consolidate. With the support of Brownback, Hunter, Tancredo, Thomson, and Gilmore (though I think a lot of Thompson and Gilmore’s support would go to Romney and McCain), Huckabee would be solidly in the top tier. I think he’d end up winning the nomination. There is huge despair that Democrats have the general election locked up, but I think Huckabee may be the only one who can upset that. And besides, I may have quit on The Republican Party, but I’m not going to quit on God and what’s right.


Funny Mitt Romney post at Green Mountain Politics

I'm working on something else, but this post at was funny:

A Double Mitt-Flop On The Senate Immigration Agreement

We're getting a little burned out on the avalanche of "Mitt-Flop" opposition research that hits our email box every 48-72 hours.

"Mitt flops".

We get it. As does our readership.

So the news that Governor Big Love had "Mitt-Flopped" on yesterday's Senate Immigration Agreement wasn't really news to us at all.

Here is Romney's statement opposing yesterday's agreement.

And here is Ed Morrissey and Soren Dayton taking Romney to task for not supporting an immigration compromise that, they argue (and we agree with their argument), addresses Romney's past stated concerns regarding immigration reform.

Mitt "flopped" on immigration reform to pander to the Republican base. That simply cannot be surprising to anyone. And we hadn't planned on writing a thing about it.

Until we saw this 1994 Romney debate footage, which has absolutely nothing to do with immigration reform.

We are fairly certain (but not positive) that this Romney footage was put on YouTube to show Romney opposing the GOP's Contract With America.

But that's not of interest to us.

What is of interest to us about the clip is "why" Romney opposes the Contract With America. Specifically, when Romney says (oh so convincingly) "I don't like contracts..." I'd rather get together (with both Parties) and work together (to get things done in Washington)."

Ah bi-partisanship. Working together to get things done. In 1994 Mitt Romney was a big supporter.

But then in 2007 Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and John Kyle (R-AZ) worked together to get immigration reform passed and bi-partisanship wasn't so hip anymore.

Same issue. Mitt-Flop #2.

Which is why we wrote long ago that when we listen to Mitt Romney we start looking around for the used car we know we must have just bought.

We're just saying.

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Huckabee Making Headway

I’ve read many comments and listened to many interviews, and Huckabee is drawing a lot of attention, even among conventional media and political observers. Here is the link to an article by Bill Sammon, formerly of The Washington Times and now with The Examiner in Washington. Sammon frequently appears on panels on FOX News. Sammon says Huckabee is pushing top-tier status.

The article mentions the comments that I also saw, by Maryland Lt. Governor Michael Steele, who made a Senate run in 2006, and is considered an up and coming Republican presence. John Podhoretz of National Review and David Brooks of the NY Times have made similar comments.

Dick Morris twice warned a skeptical Bill O’Reilly to watch out for Huckabee, taking O’Reilly’s bet that Huckabee would never clear 10% in the polls. Most online discussions of the debate include positive comments about Huckabee. An interview on FOX after the debate, with a group of University Of South Carolina students all reported that Huckabee had fared most significantly. You will find many media and Internet citations about Huckabee at Huckabee relates his team’s report of a sharp uptick of hits and contributions at the official website.

I don’t support Huckabee because he faultlessly reflects my instincts on every question, or because I believe the mood of the country singnals a yearning for a conservative message from him specifically, or Republicans generally. I support him because he efforts to represent a positive Christian character in what he is offering. That his job and ours to support and do as well. The winning…that’s above our pay grade. If we are diligent about a positive and helpful character, we’ve done our job. That’s the only way that our message will be worthy of winning.

Larry Perrault

Monday, May 14, 2007

Presidential Candidates, Huckabbee, And Why Abortion Is Important

Giuliani’s tip-toeing on abortion wasn’t working very well. He was saying that he hated abortion, but believed a woman had to have that choice. But, he said, he would appoint “strict constructionist” judges. Finally, he responded to a question asked of all the candidates at the Republican debate in California: "If Roe v. Wade were overturned, would that be a great day for America?” Down the line, the candidates answered, Yes,” “Absolutely,”…until they reached Giuliani, who flatly answered, “It’s be OK…It would also be OK if a strict constructionist judge decided to respect the precedent and not overturn it.” It’s difficult even, to digest Mitt Romney’s conversion to a pro-life position, which he accounts to the study of the stem cell research debate. Considering that we might “create life to destroy life,” Romney said he concluded that we’d “gone to far!...No. I’m pro-life.” Using days old frozen concepti of a few cells for medical research is “going too far,” but before that, aborting unborn children at any point of pregnancy, wasn’t? Does that sound a little strange to you, or is it just me?

I have to admit that I am not confident that John Roberts or Samuel Alito might not balk at striking down Roe v. Wade, citing precedence. But count me among those who have a huge problem squaring strict constructionism with blatant defiance of the central and essential constitutional right to life. The right to life is straightforward, plain, and essential in The Constitution, unlike the “right to choose” abortion that is supposedly lurking unseen in emanations of the penumbra of the implied right to privacy. Everyone (even good liberal lawyers – Ruth Bader Ginsberg has said as much) knows that the “right to choose” was a constitutional fabrication knit of whole cloth and birthed in a phony contrived case, devised specifically to provide a place for such a ruling. The inelegant means are justified by the prized end, which Giuliani obviously agrees with. But, it’s a stunning contortion to speak of that desired end in the context of “strict construction” of The Constitution. How long a precedent was there for the practice of slavery?

Now listen: I’m not going to try to slide by on the fact that any criminal sanctioning of a woman’s treatment of her own body is an unprecedented and difficult thing. It’s unprecedented because no one ever previously proposed supporting killing unborn children, which were always thought of as a blessing. People have changed. The underlying argument may largely hinge on whether you think that change is a good thing. It looks to be a direct consequence of the sexual revolution that came to a head in the late sixties. Men took advantage of it and had the option to abandon the consequences. Left with a pregnancy, women couldn’t do that. It just wasn’t fair! The answer was the demand for the approval of abortion. Roe v Wade presumes to legitimate abortion in every corner of America. This legitimacy cannot even be democratically determined. At least states were free to outlaw human slavery. Written and broadcast media informs America that abortion can be offered anywhere in the country, and of course, a cowed populace consigns itself to what it is told. I think that is a great part of the problem: if the public steadfastly opposed it, it wouldn’t be easy to maintain.

But, aside from those considerations, it is unfair for men to avail themselves of sexual freedom, even with no attempt at contraception, and take no responsibility for the consequence. But, rather than license and encourage killing unborn children, fathers should be vigorously traced, pursued, and compelled to take responsibility for their offspring, even if only financially, and by garnishing waged or even enforced servitude, if necessary. What 30+ years of “precedent” has accomplished is the degradation of the human spirit that embraces the acceptability of exterminating life in the womb. As I have often said, that degradation of spirit and conscience will manifest itself in myriad ways and diminish and ultimately destroy the basic civility of a culture.

Hey, I don’t even agree with Huckabee about calling for a US constitutional amendment, simply because I don’t think it is practicable. The federal government doesn’t and shouldn’t even prosecute outright undisputed murders. How can it enfoce an abortion ban? No more than we need a presumption of abortion rights for the whole country, do wee need a federal policing of abortion, as if we could realistically imagine it. What society needs is not an edict from “on high” (I don’t even really accept the superior significance of federal courts), we need our near societies tamed by the consensus of the community, reflected in local law, that abortion is not civilized behavior. That position disqualified me from writing for a national pro-life group, even though I strongly believe the pro-life disposition is literally vital to the survival of a civilized society. I would favor a constitutional amendment or even a congressional resolution that says that states that don’t recognize the respect of human life, are renegade from fundamental American principle. The question is whether we are prepared to evict those states from the union or engage another civil war. At the very least, I would set a time period for drawing their laws into line.

That’s all fantasy because a Republican Congress, president, and Supreme Court weren’t about to take anything like assertive action regarding abortion. There’s no point even dreaming about it when an overtly “pro-choice” Democratic party controls Congress. The 2008 election and subsequent Supreme Court selections could double the 30+ years of precedence, which may mean the United States would be decidedly over the hill as a civilized nation. I favor Mike Huckabee not because I feel like he impeccably speaks my mind, but because he is honest and sincerely cares for the best for American society. I think that means he is the best chance for Republican victory. And, if he won a landslide with coattails to restore a Republican Congress and the character and resolve to inspire it. And he had an opportunity to sign a pro-life constitutional amendment, I trust him to handle that situation in the best way that he can imagine.


'Conservative's Dark Horse?' - Who's The Judge Of Bright Stars And Dark Horses?

NewsByUs: 'Conservative's Dark Horse?' by Guest: Nancy Morgan ...

I read this article at an open publication site on the web, by a person who was surprisingly impressed by this guy, Mike Huckabee, at a campaign BBQ. You see that this individual was not familiar with Huckabee before invited to the event. You see that this person is conservative. Aside from their acknowledging an instinctive (and unfortunate) instinct to assume that one with no national media profile (she specifically mentioned money, but money follows a national media profile) “had no chance,” what also jumped out at me was the fact that in an Arkansas election, Huckabee carried half of the black vote. What’s notable about that is that it didn’t snap up the attention of the national Republican Party. If a Republican presidential nominee picked up 20% of the black vote in a national election and didn’t win comfortably, they would have done something else very wrong.

But heck, the last time I supported a Republican candidate for president, he was black! And he was brighter, better educated, and more articulate than any political candidate that I’ve ever heard. Other people that smart don’t want anything to do with running for office. When you look at everything that has happened to Alan Keyes, maybe you get an idea why. But Keyes may have talked over a lot of peoples’ heads. Huckabee is as straightforward as a hamburger and fries. Anyway, the Republican Party didn’t embrace Keyes as a possible inroad into the black vote, either.

But here’s the point: conservatives will never break out of their pattern of losing social ground until they stop not only listening to national media, but until the stop listening to the clueless national Republican Party, too! The great trick that Americans must turn the corner on is believing that they, the sovereign of the United States, can support who and what they want to, and not who and what someone else says they should.. Is it any wonder what a nation can decline to, when the people can’t snap out of that hypnotic state?


Saturday, May 12, 2007

Just Say" No" To John McCain

Someone wrote me and explained, reasonably enough, their belief that John McCain will be the Republican Party nominee. Please don’t do it, Republicans! I long ago decided that I could personally like John McCain, personally. He just isn’t philosophically qualified to be a Republican candidate for president. I read this paragraph, this morning:

Thus, if energy policy is important to you, it's worth knowing that Republican John McCain as well as Democrat Barack Obama are in favor of instituting California's low-carbon fuel standard scheme on the national level. And that Democrat John Edwards envisions a $13 billion fund for energy innovation, primarily funded by the sale of greenhouse-gas pollution permits. And that McCain as well as Democrat Hillary Clinton have been softening their stance against ethanol subsidies.

How many examples do we need, that this guy just doesn’t get it!? If he has conservative instincts, he applies them from a Democratic perceptual apparatus: Government should regulate industry and speech (campaign finance reform). The guy is a creature of the Washington environment that he has swam in for so long. He has learned to think that way by totally immersing a structurally weak intellectual framework in a corrosive environment. And, it has been plain for years that he can’t articulate a case for the respect of human life, beyond the vacant mouthing of the words, “I’m pro-life.” I guarantee that if McCain became president, no progress on recovering respect for human life would be made for his entire term: Not in legislation, not in the judiciary, and certainly not in persuasion from the president. I wouldn’t trust him to hold ground on federal funding of stem-cell research, either. Don’t express any repair of the immigration process, either.

If McCain were nominated, media and Democrats would beat the stuffing out of him on Iraq, and if that didn’t beat him, he’s be the best Republican president a Democrat could have. They could beat him and grow government size and meddling at the same time: sort of a George W. Bush squared, only without the tax cuts. It would be as I said about Bush: my biggest disappointment being not in the man himself, but in The Republican Party that nominated him. He isn’t even the best candidate to beat the Democrats. Like Dole, maybe he could hold the door for a Clinton.


Tuesday, May 8, 2007

McCain is Finished, Head of Conservative Union Says/American Priorities

David Keene of American Conservative Union says McCain has fatal flaws. Keene says he’s not trusted on the right…”he’s not a small government conservative.” But, I think the main problem is that McCain is a sentimental, not a philosophical conservative. He doesn’t have a blueprint to restrain him from falling into the Washington culture about right and wrong, even though he’s troubled by “pork barrel spending.”

The article mentions McCain-Feingold in noting that Fred Thomson supported it, too. But, that makes the point: They want to stick their finger in the hemmoraging dike of power and money, but don’t have the perspective to see that the bill fatally wounds The First Amendment and at the same time won’t even accomplish what it aspires to. Liberals have a long history of this kind of foolishness. Welcome to Washington.

That’s also why McCain can’t make a vital cases on abortion and why neither he or Thompson (who also is “pro-life”) will not move the ball or even the discussion on the matter. The article also discusses Giuliani’s flaws. I wish the focus could get down to Romney and whoever, as soon as possible. Let the people decide if they trust Romney with social issues. I’m strongly inclined not to. Only Huckabee and Brownback, and Tancredo and Hunter (though it’s not as important as illegal immigration for them) feel any passion about it. I certainly agree (and so does Huckabee) that illegal immigration is a problem that leaves security full of holes and makes a farce of American law. That needs to be fixed. But the disrespect of life and socialist propensities inside America are much larger problems than the vast majority of immigrants who come here for work. And, if we don’t focus on those problems because we think a wall is going to fix America, we’re fatally misguided.


My Presidential Crystal Ball

A comment asked about Huckabee: "Do you really have hope?"

First of all, HOPE is all I ever have. And secondly, given that caution, yes. I know that there is dissatisfaction, and I know that he can solve a significant hunk of that dissatisfaction. All that needs to be overcome is the public's intimidation about inadequate media attention. As always, if they are depending on the media to get ahead of them, it ain't gonna happen. But, the public CAN pull (force) the media, if it decides to.

Honestly, I don't think the media can shove McCain or Giuliani down the throat of Republican activists, and I also hope not. I don't think they are making progress.

At this point, I think Huckabee's big hurdles are Romney and the unannounced Fred Thompson, who is getting that attention as a non-candidate. Actually, the fact that the media are willing to give Thompson that profile as a potential conservative savior, is a big red flag for me.

I look for Huckabee and Tommy Thompson to surprise in Iowa, and for the "big "three" to be weaker than expected. However, Romney is strong in New Hampshire and McCain has a following there, though it's dwindling, not growing. And McCain has a pro-military following in South Carolina, which will be substantial if the field is still broad, but (maybe a lot) less so if it is considerably thinned out. In SC, I think it's between Huckabee and McCain. After some thinning out and some more time (there's a debate in SC, next Tue), I think Huckabee could win.

I don't see Giuliani making it. I'll be very disappointed in the psychological pliability of conservatives, if he does. He and Romney will have a tough slog in SC. Romney might have to carry NH momentum past SC to the big day on Feb. 5. But a good show in Iowa, NH, and SC could push Huckabee up for Feb 5. Of course, he will need a good financial push from it, too. Romney can afford to hang with a NH showing and buy media for Feb. 5.

The national polls don't mean jack-squat. They are no more than bald popular name-recognition (a lot of people have never heard of any of them). The activists will have seen the political discussions on the tube and the Internet and will be more encouraged by the comments they have heard about Huckabee and Romney.

So, imagine that only Romney, Huckabee, Thompson, and a weakened McCain are around Feb 5. If Giuliani is still in, he might do well in New York and BIG California, Thompson in the Midwest, and Huckabbee in the South. Romney will need to gather a big kick from NH. He may be helped with name recognition in Michigan, where his father was governor over 40 years ago, getting some of the "I know that name! - maybe, he was a ballplayer" vote.

Anyway, I have exactly that: HOPE. I'd have more if they hadn't compacted and front-loaded the system. The nominee may be chosen 8 months before the election, and that might make a Democratic win more likely.


Monday, May 7, 2007

McCain Slips to Third in Latest Bloomberg Poll as Fred Rises; Huckabee Happy Too

Here’s a report on a Bloonberg/LA Times poll I read at Elephant Biz

Huckabee climbing in a national poll, and from what I understand, he’s well established in Iowa (where he has a longstanding party and campaigning presence and now has his campaign headquartered), New Hampshire (also strong local campaigning and presence among party activists), and South Carolina Big Republican organization headed by the wife and son of the l;ate former governor, Carrol Campbell, and finished 1st and 2nd in two large county straw polls of Republican activists in April.

Hey, you “top-tier" guys, inflated by media, but unpopular with Republican activists: See that guy on the road in your rear view mirror? A few weeks ago, he was one of those specks…


Sunday, May 6, 2007

George Will: Evolution Debate & The Oddness Of Everything

Included are a couple of links to old George Will articles, one last year about the evolution debate, and the other from a few years ago with striking observations about humans and the universe.

George Will posed a few expressions of incredulity at the acknowledgment in The Republican debate by three candidates, that they have questions about the truth of evolution. On ABC’s “This Week,” today, after a couple of comments that Mike Huckabee had shown well, Will just included that Huckabee was among those three, and that that was not going to help in middle-class suburbs. Obviously, it will help with some people and hurt with others. I’ve seen the unrefined scorn and mocking on the blogs. Will may be better situated than I am to gage the balance of those political reactions. And, maybe politics is the great part of the reason for the comment.

A little curious, I went to the web, looking for Will’s comments on the subject of evolution. I enjoy engaging with ideas. I must be honest: I don’t enjoy reading so much for its own sake, and never read fiction after I was grown. I guess it’s sort of like the typical man who doesn’t like to dance, unless it’s with the right woman. But, Will is always explorative and thought-provoking. I found an article on the human origins debate about, of course, the Scopes Trial, among Will’s archived articles for “Newsweek” magazine. I read it and, as I recall, it was consistent with his past comments about evolution. In this case, he makes reference to the tension between “science and religion,” while acknowledging that he understood that religious people’s concerns were not entirely unfounded. Will always seems to have a sort of Episcopal modesty about expressions of passion about God (Instead, his passions shine about…baseball? - I like it, but it ain't God)

You wish you had his cell number and could just call him up: “Yo, George…What’s up with you and this evolution thing? I know you don’t see it as your business to argue about science and religion, but…” I’m not interested in arguments abut religion and science, either, though I took a graduate seminar in “Religions And Sciences.” And Will notes that William Jennings Bryan’s prosecution of Scopes was not about that, either. He quotes Bryan, “It’s not about what should be taught, but who should decide,” (Bryan argued the right of the community to control its school), which is also my concern when it comes to public school teaching policy. The communities should decide what should be taught, whether evolution, creation, both, or some other community concern. And it should be noted that, I assure you, it is much more the naturalist evolutionists than the religious creationists who insist that their story must be taught, exclusively, to everyone’s children.

But, I would ask Will if there is anything beyond a curtsy to pop-culture provincialism that bars him from the barest statement about the integrity of the evolution argument. I know Will studied philosophy in college and as arguments go, the evolution argument is…not good, and that’s being kind. I understand that people who have no interest relative to God really have no superior options. But, just as a case argument, especially if you aren’t forced into it by theistic skepticism, the argument does not hold together and defies common sense and basic physics. I know I’m not going to argue an unbeliever into belief. But to me, mere honesty says that he is saddled with a weak case, the only strength of which is that a priori philosophical posture of skepticism about God. I’m not mad about it. But, not being mad about it doesn’t make the argument any stronger. Religious people shouldn’t feel intimidated and skeptics shouldn’t be emboldened by popular culture’s showcasing of a bad argument.

I also read Will’s older, “The Oddness Of Everything,” which at least gives some imposing perspectives about human contingencies and the grandiosity of the universe:


Friday, May 4, 2007

Notable Comments on Huckabee At The Debate

Lots of comments about Huckabee at the debate at

After The Debate -Still Behind Huckabee. Not Encouraged About Paul

I support Mike Huckabee based on his disposition. As you should hope from the pastor that he was, it tries to represent the character of Jesus. There are a few points that I would respond to, differently. But, I think he honestly and soberly holds those positions. There wasn’t much time to speak, of course. But, he did alright. But, I’d be surprised if “alright” is going to kick him to great national attention. Huckabee’s off to New Hampshire nest. Hopefully, the grassroots work in New Hampshire, Iowa, and South Carolina, where he won a big couty straw poll of activists, and finished second in another, will bring a boost. I did read some slightly startled comments about his good presentation. A Duncan Hunter blogger called Huckabee and Romney “winners.” Below is a response I left at the blog of MSNBC’s Chuck Todd (though I left it, they didn’t post my name), after irresponsible comments about Huckabee, and some comments from John Podhoretz and Peter Robinson at National Review.

I I have a towering respect for Ron Paul’s consistency and depth of thought. But, I desperately needed him to give an explanation for his assertive opposition to intervention in Iraq and an explanation of how the old, conservative isolationism of another world is safe and morally responsible. I did agree with his point that if we wanted to act in Iraq, we should have “gotten a declaration of war…and we should win it.” I said that, at the time. Bush did not pursue a constitutional path. He should have and I think, at the time, would have gotten a declaration of war if he’d said it was needed. If Congress refused, they’d own it. If a refusal hurt us, they’s lose security and defense credibility for at least a generation. I don’t think they have would have had the spine to refuse, then. But A) none of that answers questions about security and moral responsibility, and B) Paul knows all too well that unconstitutional impulse and process are the rule in Washington DC, and it has been for foreign policy since WWII.

Paul was too heavy on the “trumped up justification” line. Most conservative bloggers called left-wing, which is ignorant. But, since I can get no clarification, either here or through his campaign workers, I have nothing but speculation. As I’ve heard him do before, Paul talked about “no real threatening army, navy, and air force.” A brief reaction: Al Quadea has no army, navy, or air force. But two towering skyscrapers are down and thousands are dead. I can only speculate that Paul prizes constitutional scrupulosity more than concern about our people and our cities. Speaking as someone who once left The Republican Party for The Constitution Party, I’m not going there, without a more compelling contention than that.


Chuck Todd's credibility and judgment went right out the window on this!

Not because it isn't forgivable to be ignorant about something that isn't in the center of your radar. But, to charge someone with a "lie" when you don't have documented, indisputable truth of it, is just irresponsible. Todd certainly has nothing of the sort. 1) He doesn't offer any and 2)There ISN'T any, because there was no lie.

Chris Matthews was also typically unable to even imagine anything other than the image he has, himself, burned onto his consciousness. Matthews spoke to Huckabee of "backing down."

In the interview with George Stephanopoulis under discussion, Stephanopoulis asked whether a comment Huckabee had made about faith was an attack on Romney. And Huckabee said he didn'r think Romney's religion should be a disqualifier.

But, what DOES matter about the SUBJECT of religion is that one's faith is not segregated from one's actions and beliefs. These guys are either unprepared or perceptually lost if they don't know that this candidate is the LAST one who would have an interest in or a justification for lying to them. Perhaps, it's just the cynicism of always dealing with politicians.

Mike Huckabee... [John Podhoretz] really terrific. It's hard to know whether a debate watched only by a few million people can really launch someone, but I'd say halfway through that he is far and away the most likable and eloquent candidate on that stage.

Thursday, May 03, 2007

JPod, Just As Right As K-Lo [Peter Robinson]

I promise: I'd started typing a post on Huckabee when I saw that JPod had beat me to it. But here's what I wanted to say: Only one man in this debate so far has really helped himself: Mike Huckabee. Relaxed and funny—he got off the only really funny line when they were all asked whether they'd amend the constitution to let Schwarzenegger run for president—Huckabee is also articulate and determined. Giuliani is proving fascinating, but not in an altogether reassuring way. But Huckabee? This guy is coming across as likeable, smart, and maybe even up to the job.