Friday, June 29, 2007

Fundraising Quarter Closes Today - Contribute To Mike Huckabee

Below is the appeal at at the contribution screen Click here to contribute.

Take a read and decide if you can help raise his reported funs for the quarter. You might peruse the blogroll of Huckabee bloggers at the official blog site. And forward this notice to any other true and fully-rounded conservatives who could help.


Larry Perrault


At the end of May when we launched our first barber pole fundraising campaign, we had over 400 first-time contributors in four days. To reach 1500 contributions in 10 days it will likely take twice as many first-time contributors as well as a number of people contributing for a second or even a third time.

We are gaining ground. By anyone's evaluation, the only thing keeping us from vaulting to the top right now is the need for funds.

Up until now, our momentum has been on the strength of our ideas alone. Now in key states where organization can make a difference we need to invest and demonstrate that we are building momentum on the strength of a growing grassroots team.

Your gift TODAY matters.

-Mike Huckabee

Larry Perrault

Wednesday, June 27, 2007

How Huckabee "Has A Chance"

I've been away for a few days. Today, I read the report at on the Mike Huckabee blogger conference call. The writer was very positive. But, the responding comments were typical…and exasperatingly old. I’ve seen the same thing for my entire life. Either, “He has no chance…What’s the point” or “You’re probably right, but I’ll support him for the primaries, anyway.”

12 years ago, newly online on the then-young Internet, I imagined a day when this alternative media would end the mass mind-control of the traditional media. Now, the facilities are all there: we can communicate text, graphics, audio and video. We can learn more of candidates than we once could have imagined. There would not have even been the positive thoughts in places like Lonestar Times, 12 or more years ago.

But, old habits die hard. We still allow traditional media to define our outlook and our social potential. For God’s sake, STOP IT! I posted this response at Lonestar Times, and I’ll post all of this at my blog,


PLEASE LISTEN UP, ALL POP-CULTURE-MARINATED PESSIMISTS! Think about what you are doing: I've been watching this nonsense for MANY years. Conservatives, who supposedly don't trust the so-called "mainstream media” (they are really non-mainstream, their thoughts representing a minority of the public), nevertheless allow this element to determine who "has a chance," etc.

Why does Fred Thomson have a chance? Because they say so. You are told that the media only reports public sentiment, but they shape public sentiment before they report it. AND WE BUY IT!

But, the public shouldn't speculate on who has a chance, as though it were a horse race or roll of the dice. The public DETERMINES who has a chance. Mike Huckabee doesn't need a pass from the media. He WILL win, if he gets the most votes of people who have free will. Moving people isn't the job of the media. It's OUR JOB! THINKING OTHERWISE IS NOT MERELY MISGUIDED. IT'S PATHETIC!

I'm on board. The only permission I need is God's.

Larry Perrault

Saturday, June 23, 2007

Christians Must Take Responsibility

The below was posted today, at

If Christians don’t spread word this way, they can be assured that the Republican Party will serve up from what a clueless media anoint as viable or “top tier” candidates. And, Christians will continue to complain that things never go rightly. There is plenty of material in print, audio, and video available on the web. If only the traditional media defines your reality, unawareness is not the media’s fault. It’s YOURS.

Other Bloggers on Mike Huckabee

Want an example of how an AUTHENTIC Christian conservative's message is spread? Consider this post from Southern California blogger "Tom" of Brooktown Blog.

Tom says: "My sister directed my attention to this YouTube clip of presidential candidate Mike Huckabee answering a question during the Republican debate ... the main thing is how he articulates his position on evolution versus the biblical account of creation.
Before today, I had barely heard this guy's name. Now I'm hoping he makes it to the election so I can vote for him."

Huckabee's answer to the evolution question was described by a CNN analyst as "breathtaking." You can watch it on Tom's blog. Click HERE.

Larry Perrault

Wednesday, June 20, 2007

Obviously, today isn't June 29th, as the typo says.

Huckabee Overtakes McCain In Mason-Dixon Iowas Sraw Poll

Today, June 29, at , reports that Huckabee has surpassed McCain in a Mason-Dixon Iowa poll. It also reports that Huckabee has gained and McCain dropped in New Hampshire and South Carolina polls . Giuliani is also sagging. I would speculate that Romney is on top in Iowa based on what, whether they it is or not, appears to be poll-driven positioning and big media spending. That would unexpectedly be very effective. But, Huckabee is spending time on the ground, personally, ably, and naturally engaging people personally with longstanding conviction about such issues. On an individual basis, this method will surpass media crop-dusting. So, the question is: How many individuals can Huckabee reach? Keep working at it, governor!

A new Mason-Dixon poll shows that Governor Mike Huckabee has overtaken "front runner" John McCain in Iowa. Huckabee received 7% support in the poll, his highest poll ranking to date.


Tuesday, June 19, 2007

Tommy Thompson's Debate "Heresy" - Pop-Culture Orthodoxy Vs. Clear Principles

I like Tommy Thompson better than the media-anointed “top tier” Republican presidential candidates, and better than two or three of the rest. He has shown the ability to innovate and propose unique solutions, both as Wisconsin governor and as Secretary Of Health And Human Services. I suppose we should cut the man some slack, being just a politician and grasping for media air. But, I was unimpressed to learn of his support for stem cell research. It tells me that he has swallowed the buzz that embryonic stem cell research poses a unique potential for curing diseases. I would oppose it, regardless, refusing to make human life our tool. But the buzz isn’t true, besides. Other stem cells show superior promise and have demonstrated it, while embryonic stem cells have demonstrated nothing but harm.

I think all of the clatter is a ruse to establish a justification and precedent for disrespecting the sanctity of human life. Anyway, looking to read more of Thompson’s position on stem cell research, I was reminded of his recent debate controversy and aggravated by both the knee-jerk reaction and Thompson’s unimpressive scramble to correct himself for pop-culture sensibilities.

Thompson was asked in the New Hampshire debate by Wolf Blitzer about a business owner firing someone because that person was gay. Thompson’s response was the common-sense one: that that should be left to business owners. The pop-culture reflex was predictable. Comments on the Internet spoke of Thompson saying discrimination was “A-OK,” and having made an “anti-gay” statement. One spoke of a collective gasp at Thompson’s heresy. In correcting himself, Thompson blamed illness and hearing difficulty. Of course, we can’t say that that’s impossible. But, one is left with a similar scent of conformity to pop-culture orthodoxy which in this case would like to assume that government should not allow employers to set the terms of employment in their own business.

In the first place, why would people want to work somewhere where the owner dislikes people like them? Does that sound like the job you want? More likely than for securing or retaining a job, is the search for an opportunity to sue. But anyway, the implication of what Thompson said was neither that discrimination is fine or that Thompson is anti-gay. How about pro-freedom? People who want to administer a business should start their own!

It shows how distorted our thinking is that it is not obvious that an employer should determine the terms of employment at his/her own business. Whatever you and I judge to be right, it is none of our business! For myself, if I thought a gay person promised to be the best help for my business, I’d want to have that employee, though I would ask them not to make my business a display case for his/her lifestyle and keep it out of the faces of visitors and other employees. That wouldn’t be pro-gay or anti-gay. That would just be good business. But, as much as I have been informed of the practice, I would without being ugly, honestly inform that person of my belief that it is a restricting and destructive one. But, we might think it better that the issue was never raised.

In any case, the idea that government should direct the conduct of private commerce is a residue of an anachronistic and discredited presumption that government should direct social commerce. And, even more irritating than that presumption itself, is the sense that all must take the knee before such ignorant ideas. Doing so is one quick way to negatively impress me.

Larry Perrault

Monday, June 18, 2007

Illinoisans For RomneyPost Clear Questions About Fred Thompson

Illinoisans For Mitt Romney posted a long assessment of Fred Thompson’s “conservatism.” Re: Fred Thompson is shameless It’s not positive, needless to say.

Now, it’s possible that Romney is entirely genuine about all of his seemingly timely position changes, though I’m not at all convinced, at this point. Mike Huckabee is a candidate whose thoughts flow from a longstanding clear and consistent philosophical perspective. Even if Romney were serious, so many stark…errr…adjustments don’t typically occur within a lucid worldview. I have already said that Romney’s explanation of his abortion shift due to his contemplation of stem-cell research, which implies that the idea of farming humans to kill them was “going too far,” but aborting babies at any point of gestation had never provoked such revulsion, doesn’t make sense to me. Especially given his relative plethora of changes, political convenience in a campaign shift from Massachusetts governor to Republican presidential primaries, is a superior explanation to me.

But as for Thompson, it’s always nice to have someone else’s people do your work for you.

Larry Perrault

Sunday, June 17, 2007

Dennis Prager Interviews Rudy Giuliani On Abortion, And Misses The Important Point.

First, I should say that I absolutely love to read, watch, and listen to Dennis Prager, and have since my hair was not gray and his not white. I’ve always been a conservative, and used to listen to conservative talk-radio all day. In the last several years, most of them have come to bore me. Not so Dennis Prager, though I share a basic (mine isn’t just “basic” in any sense, but wholehearted) Christian disposition with some others, but not with the Jewish Prager. His considerations are almost always interesting.

Actually, this interview focused more generally on issues that, unlike Giuliani’s anti-terror, anti-crime, fiscally conservative relative strengths, conservatives might have a problem with. But, Prager lamented that conservatives might not support Giuliani because they did not like his position on things like abortion, despite the fact that a president has no effect relative to abortion, except to nominate judges and sign restrictions like the partial-birth abortion ban.

This is a concern about a simple falsehood, and I will tell you why it is an ill-founded one. You should understand that Prager is not insensitive to the sanctity of pre-born human life. But, I have no personal dislike for Rudy Giuliani and, in fact, rather like him in my superficial knowledge and experience of him. I needn’t dislike him to think that he misunderstands what should be a basic moral and American disposition toward human life, and that, not personal distaste, disqualifies him to serve as the nation’s chief executive, just as the finest lawyer or teacher or any non-surgeon is unqualified to remove a cancerous tumor. An individual who doesn’t understand the respect of human life should not be the chief executive of a nation founded on the confession of creator endowed rights (Declaration Of Independence) and central to its constitution. He looks great relative to many things, and he could be of great value at many tasks.. But interpreting American principles isn't one of them.

Prager declares that no “pro-life” (the parentheses don’t indicate insincerity as much as incompetence) president has ever done anything to stop the practice of abortion. And, he is correct. I am painfully aware of that and have made no secret of it. He also says that he would rather persuade than attempt to coerce, legally. Again, I agree completely. But, he also says that there is nothing a president can do. In light of the fact that he prefers persuasion to legislation, that is rather ironic.

Prager says that, therefore, you should consider a broader range of what is good for the country than merely an abortion position when considering whether to support a president. In fact, he says that if you would withhold your vote based on this single issue, you would have to be “emotionally retarded.” I would not vote for Rudy Giuliani, not because of my conjecture about legal consequences, but because of his demonstrated opacity about the one issue that may be of more gravity than the terrorist threat. I don’t call him evil. I don’t call him ignorant. I don’t call him stupid. I just say that he doesn’t understand what is at stake. And apparently, astute and morally sober as he generally is, Dennis Prager doesn’t, either.

What is at stake is not my feeling good in voting for someone who believes as I do, which is the primary animus that Prager mentions. What is at stake is not my ambitions about the law (not primarily, anyway). What is at stake is not even the specific obstruction of the injustice of the slaughter of tens of millions of human babies, horrible human atrocity though that may be. What is at stake is the dissolution of the moral sense at the foundation of the American creed that gives a special recognition to the integrity of human life, and what I believe is the attendant process of the degradation and ultimate demise of civil society.

A society that digests and assimilates the idea that human life (even its own offspring) is something to be deferred over on the basis of perceived convenience will manifest that selfish pathology in myriad ways in social conduct, and ultimately suffocate ordinary presumptions of civility.

Now, a federalist like me could wish that this long-established diversion of attention to Washington was not so in America, but largely owing to electronic mass-media, it is the case. It would be better if we were more focused and more affected by our state and local affairs. But, that is not the case. And what the president can and should do is constantly and clearly enlighten America about the moral and doctrinal abyss that it is sliding into. Unfortunately, I think the reason that the pro-life presidents that Prager speaks of have had so little effect is as much inability as indisposition.

While I am fervently pro-life and have worked with and contributed to pro-life efforts, I in fact do not favor a pro-life amendment to the US Constitution. I think it is not the province of the US Constitution, any more than is the protection against and prosecution of conventional murder. Such effort would be entirely impracticable and would more than likely be counter-productive. A constitutional amendment seems to be an entirely abstract fantasy, besides. As Prager says, the idea that you can repair a social dysfunction by legislation is a misguided liberal idea. But, like the frog in warming water, we passively have adapted to an ultimately destructive environment. Sadly, it appears to me that a president is best positioned to rap the American consciousness like the distorted picture on an old television set.

Larry Perrault

Friday, June 15, 2007

George Will Bats Fred Thompson Balloon

I have said that I would never support Fred Thompson for the nomination or for president if he won the nomination. George Will cites the same consideration in reaction to the assertion that Thompson is “a conservative.”

Thompson supported McCain in 2000, and advocated and voted for McCain-Feingold “Campaign Finance Reform.” He and McCain argue that they wanted to go after the influence of big, especially “soft” money. And, they may have. But, you don’t prescribe poison to cure an illness. Besides, at least
that would stop the cold. McCain-Feingold has not perceptibly dented the influence of money, even while straight out steamrolling the First Amendment. The worst part of it is the residual precedent of conceding the power of government to regulate such things which power we can expect to be easily abused, later. I especially hate it when Republicans lay the foundation for liberals to construct atrocities upon, later.

Anyone care to guess what presumptions a (maybe near) future Democratic government will now totally incautiously impose upon politically organizing conservatives? McCain and/or Thompson may have had perfectly good intentions, and I expect they did. But, that is why proper procedure follows sure principles, not hasty feelings. None of this is personal against anyone. I just won’t support a constitutional incompetent as the chief executive defender of The Constitution. It would be like employing my loving mother to perform my brain surgery.

Will also discusses the relative emptiness around which (clueless) media have anointed Thompson a “conservative” savior, and overall imagines the bursting of a “bubble” of poorly founded hopes and imaginings. Incidentally, I myself believe that abortion should be regulated by states and localities. Where I live, I would vote for it to be illegal and practicing doctors punishable. But, for your information, Thompson is historically, not as clear on this issue as most pro-lifers would like. Look it up.

Anyway, McCain and Thompson and unborn, 2nd Amendment, and family-disrespecting Giuliani are right out. And Romney has too many near 180 degree turnabouts in different races in different places. Who’s next? What about this guy, Huckabee?

Larry Perrault

Thursday, June 14, 2007

Rednecks And Bluenecks

A term of disparagement, usually implying ignorant, narrow-mindedness is “redneck.” Often, people who fancy themselves “progressive,” rather than disputing them, scorn and scoff at “rednecks” or “redneck ways of thinking.” An online dictionary definition: Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source

red·neck /ˈrɛdˌnɛk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[red-nek] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation Informal: Often Disparaging.



an uneducated white farm laborer, esp. from the South.


a bigot or reactionary, esp. from the rural working class.



Also, red-necked. narrow, prejudiced, or reactionary: a redneck attitude.

The “progressive” people I speak of are often imagined to be the opponents of bigotry and the concomitant hatred. But observing either television or worse, online discussions, bigotry and hatred is exactly what you see them expressing. They demonstrate hatred against political opposition, and bigotry toward people of a different philosophy: usually Christians. Christianity is what they consider the “oppressive majority” religion in America, unlike other faiths.

The adversary will be talked about as though uneducated, as in the 1st definition, regardless of the actual relative education of the subject and the object of the discussion, in history, science, or whatever is relevant to the topic. If you haven’t seen more than enough of it on television, I invite you to explore the liberal blogosphere and observe the purely visceral disparagement and ad hominem abuse. A precise definition of “ad hominem”:

American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition - Cite This Source
ad hominem [(ad hom-uh-nem, ad hom-uh-nuhm)]

A Latin expression meaning “to the man.” An ad hominem argument is one that relies on personal attacks rather than reason or substance.

See if you can describe these criticisms as anything other than the bigotry of the 2nd definition. As for the 3rd definition, that this behavior is “narrow” and “prejudiced” is…well, a no-brainer. It doesn’t anger me, anymore. However uninformed or inexperienced these critics may be, I believe they are genuine about their feeling, which you at least have to appreciate. But then again, so are “rednecks.”

Now, neither side of these discussions is always hateful and mean, though some plainly are. Those who are angry and hateful, of course get all of the attention. But, it would be decent to confine using the pejorative sense of the term “redneck,” to that hateful slice of one perspective, but not to mere philosophical foreigners. Yes, of course there are such hateful and mean people. But, that is endemic not to geography or philosophy, but rather to human nature, itself. After watching the corresponding animosity on the other side, and given the cultural connotation of “redneck,” I thought that we might call their similarly hateful counterparts, “bluenecks.” Rednecks and bluenecks both react emotionally to a contradiction to their training.

As an example, the visceral disparagement was great when some candidates at the Republican debate indicated that they did not believe in evolution, which we can assume specifically meant that they didn’t believe that an unguided series of random mutations across species is the ultimate explanation of all of life on earth. Sure, there are very literate people who believe that. But, the scoffing and guffawing that took place in public discussions was conducted by empiricist acolytes who knew little or nothing of what they were talking about. Heck, I’m not a scientist. But, I don’t believe evolution explains all of life, and I clearly know more of the literature on both sides of the debate than did these bleacher-sitting hecklers. I could make their arguments far better than they could. The point is not to compare and evaluate educations. The point is to highlight an irresponsible and ungracious lack of modesty. As I am well aware that many educated people make an evolutionist confession, they should be well-aware that many educated people do not. But, no: The sneering people who participated in such crude supercilious parties disdained dissenters as “ignorant of science,” “small-minded,” “stupid,” or…”redneck.” These mindless scoffers are “bluenecks.”

Similarly today, many of the same sort of people who know only the gospel of philosophically segregationist textbooks, Time and Newsweek magazines, and a myopic popular television culture, scorn in a similar way those who question the dogma of “global warming.” No matter the education or occupation of dissenters, they are dismissed as biased by philosophical, political, or financial interests. There is no basis for rational conversation. “There’s no debate?” There is educated and credentialed information all over the web on both sides of the matter. This highlights a perspective that is philosophically blinkered: a “religious” faith. Renecks and bluenecks should both work on inspecting the conclusions of others from within the context of their given assumptions. They should learn the perspective of their philosophical strangers

The “blueneck” expressions I’m speaking of are plainly ill-informed and reactionary, to use a term they often use, themselves. The difference in this case is only in the people to whom the term is applied, not in the animus and nature of the charge. I’m talking about people who react emotionally and judgmentally from the relative ignorance of a cultural dogma: a naked provincialism, if you will, rather than from knowledge and experience.

My point is not to disparage them. What good does it do to disparage people for ignorance of your own experience? None, at all. In fact, it quite more reliably serves the contrary purpose of steeling their resentment and resolve. And, I’m not saying that the other side or either side is necessarily the consequence of stupidity. Academic knowledge is no rescue from either perspective. I’m reading Christopher Hitchens’ “god Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.” Hitchens sees all manifestations of worship of a transcendent reality as fanciful delusion. And he is manifestly not stupid or uneducated. He is rhetorically erudite and exceptionally studied in history and literature. Unfortunately, he is deprived in terms of experience and awareness of God, the very subject of his book, whose confessors are the target of his derision.

That is the point: It is the rare individual who is philosophically moved by argument. In fact, while I believe it to reflect an accurate judgment, someone who adopts a belief in God merely on the basis of information and argument does not experience and understand the essence of what it is to know God. I have compared arguing this point to trying to convince a foreign government that you are married, without the sort of documentation that they recognize. A description of your relationship will carry more weight than stories of your wedding and travels. What a doubter of God needs to judge is not the soundness of an argument, but the savor of the character of God, whether by direct intervention or the example of a transformed life. This essential factor is often missing in not just those who viscerally react, but also in the conduct of genuine debate. God does not judge the exactness of confession or the exercise of debate. Of course, we would all fail such a test. You have only been of use in engaging another when you have submitted yourself as an instrument of God’s character.

On a social level, my point is that neither side serves a productive purpose while they confine themselves to the solace and affirmation of like-minded people. Quite the opposite of spurning and sniggering at rival viewpoints, we should work together on advancing the liberty, charity, and human brotherhood that all should approve. When someone rejects that, that is their problem. When we offer only animosity in the absence of that, that is ours.

Larry Perrault

Tuesday, June 12, 2007

Huckabee On Hardball - Hard-headed Journalists

I watched the Hardball video on the web. WATCH VIDEO It cut off, but I found the rest of the interview at the Hardball website. As usual, Chris Matthews was boorish, telling the guest and the viewers what he believes the guest thinks, before the guest can finish an answer.

The "against science" business is ignorant nonsense. If we see God as the creator, we should see science, the examination of nature, as exploration of his work. Belief in the God of The Bible does not conflict with exploration of his creation with the empirical tools that God has given us.

The problem is that some people of an a priori naturalist disposition have conflated naturalist conjecture with science. The conclusion that all of life descended from an arbitrary appearance of a microbiological life form is not an empirical observation (not science). It is the conjecture of a process that would in principle (though not in fact, obviously) be empirically testable, if it were true. As conjecture, it is not science, but philosophy. Philosophy should not be dictated in the science classes of local communities by distant governmental compulsion.

Mike Huckabee gave an appropriate truthful response: If empirical experience is the standard, none of us were there to know by that standard. Beliefs are just that: beliefs.

It was amusing that Matthews included human-produced, CO2-caused climate change as another example of "science." If evolution and C02 caused global-warming are both science, how can professional scientists disbelieve in both? Science is what emprical experience dictates, not what ill-informed popular media organs repeat. The problem with presidential campaigns is that candidates have to engage discussions of poorly conceived questions with ignorant (not stupid; ignorant) journalists.

Larry Perrault

Thursday, June 7, 2007

Here's To You, Mr. Robinson/Re: Luntz-Huckabee Thompson Post

Jim Robinson commented on the Lutz-Huckabee-Thompson post, that Thompson could face strong criticism on trade for “fast-tack” approval and support for “most-favored-nation” trade status for China, and also from people like Tom Tancredo for a relatively lax voting record on immigration. While I do believe government should enforce the law and not watch law be made a mockery, immigration should be made in an orderly and legal fashion, and illegality not rewarded with respect of any sort, I am not as stark about immigration as Tom Tancredo. But, I would hope that he can hang around long enough to take some swings at Thompson.

But, my primary problems with Thompson are:

His enthusiastic endorsement of McCain-Feingold "campaign finance reform," in utter defiance of the 1st Amendment, demonstrates that, irrespective of his intentions, he is constitutionally illiterate. Though I understand how popular culture can distort perceptions, I will not support someone as chief executive charged with protecting and defending The Constitution who cannot decipher the most basic principles of The Constitution. What constitutional atrocities lay waiting to be committed? Obviously, that goes for John McCain, too.

Though I may have positive sentiments about an actor who rises above the shallow group-think that is widely reflected in that profession, especially in view of his constitutional incompetence, there is not a reason in the world that I should embrace the political celebrity fomented by an even more forlorn popular media.

I like both McCain AND Thompson…just not for president!

Incidentally, the C-SPAN presentation of Huckabee’s National Press Club speech today was obviously scrubbed. It was neither on the Huckabee web site, this morning or on C-SPAN, today. Maybe we can find a recording or transcript. Hopefully, the “Hardball with Chris Matthews” appearance will air today or tomorrow. The Washington Times published Huckabee warns Christians not to abandon principles . The article notes that Huckabee “barely registers in the polls.” Though the general public scarcely knows his name, he does show above all those but the 4 widely circulated names., and quite a bit more among politically tuned-in or active people. The article also mistakenly says that Huckabee thinks that creationism should be taught alongside Darwinism in schools. I think in my neighborhood, students should be apprised of all widely embraced accounts of human life. But regardless of what we think, Huckabee knows as I do that candidates or even presidents don’t make such decisions. School-boards should. This is just more simplistic perception because Huckabee didn’t express unquestioned faith in a macro evolutionary (across species) account

Wednesday, June 6, 2007

Frank Luntz On Huckabee On Fox, and the Fred Thompson Question

Frank Luntz appeared on FOX News’ Hannity & Colmes, Wednesday night. Discussing the debate he talked of tracking responses showing very positive reaction to Giuliani and Romney, and very negative reaction to McCain, mostly regarding the immigration issue.

He then said that even though he wasn’t in the race, yet, Fred Thompson polled the highest in identification relative to approval. Then, he said that Mike Huckabee was another one that showed a very positive response at and after the debate.

Colmes asked the obvious question: “Why are Republicans so excited about Thompson, when Huckabee is already in the race?” And Luntz gave the obvious answer: essentially that Huckabee hasn’t gotten the media magnification that Fred Thompson gets. But he’s separating from the rest of the so-called second tier, relative to the media christened 4 of Thomson, Giuliani, and McCain. I heard talk-radio comment, today, that McCain is done, and I don’t think The Republican Party will nominate the “pro-choice” Giuliani. If it does, its base will rupture and hemorrhage in the general election.

So, as I have already said, I hope that media-inflated Romney and Thompson struggle with each other, McCain fades, and Giuliani can’t close the deal. And before we are a quarter through the race, it is evident that Huckabee is the only one climbing. Especially if the other 6 are falling out, Huckabee will draw more attention. Then, the Romney/Thompson media hypnotized conservatives can ask the question that Alan Colmes asked: “Hey, why not this guy. We like him and he’s still around.”

Unlike Alan Keyes, who talked over some peoples’ heads, Huckabee is engaging and positive. There are still conservatives saying that they like him, but unfortunately he doesn’t have a chance (Boy, have I heard that about candidates I supported) But, this seems to be a plausible scenario, especially with Giuliani and now McCain declining to contest the Iowa straw poll: All of those who do contest the Iowa straw poll in August, will speak to the participants a few days before the poll. The door is open for Huckabee to stroll into the room. Clearly, Huckabee could finish in the top three with Romney and Thompson. Boy, would I like to see him straight up in a contest of three or four.

Here are other media reports about Huckabee and Romney:

Huckabee says he's GOP's southern choice

Huckabee: Voters reject 'Mighty Mouse' candidate

Huckabee on VP, Thompson

Huckabee lamented Wolf Blitzer’s allocation of time in terms of both candidates and topics. He was not asked about issues like education and health care, but asked about his belief in creation. I think he did a good job of taking that question and clearly stating his belief in God’s work of creation.

You know, there is fuller material from most of the candidates available on the web, in text, audio, and video. And, I have to expect that that will be a more preferred familiarization with candidates in the near future. I hope television wanes in significance not long after McCain, Giuliani, Romney & Thompson do.

Some Blog Comments On Huckabee At Debate

Official campaign site lists several blog comments: declares Huckabee the winner and post video of response to creation question:

Look at this video of comment on a local television station in nearby Maine, only a few miles from Manchester. Very positive comments on former Wisconsin governor Tommy Thomson (who, by the way, identified himself in the debate as the real experienced “Thompson” – he really is way more innovative and experienced in government than Fred, whose major qualification is television and film face time) and Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee. Post Debate Analysis: Who Won?

By the way, Rudy Giuliani won't compete at the August Ames, Iowa Straw Poll. He obviously hopes to carry his media profile through Iowa and do well enough in NH to still look strong in FL Jan. 29, and the big, over 1/3rd national primary day on Feb 5. Though he says he's still playing for the Iowa caucuses, his bag is not a great Iowa fit, and Iowa activist Republicans will be unimpressed by his snub of their straw poll. It looks like Huckabee and Thompson move up a notch for that straw poll.

Tuesday, June 5, 2007


This was specified as Eastern Time. Evidently, the Huckabee web site copied the local New Hampshire Eastern Time. So, that's 6:00 Central, where I am. Preparatory coverage begins at 6 Eastern, 5 Central.


Monday, June 4, 2007

Republican Debate At 7 PM, Eastern, Tuesday Night On CNN

From Mike Huckabee's posted schedule: 7:00 p.m. ET – Participates in WMUR/CNN/Union Leader Presidential Primary Debate in the Sullivan Arena at St. Anselm College, Manchester, NH. .
I read an incorrect time on the web.

Romey Buys Straw Poll

Clipped From Real Clear Politics: "Over the weekend Romney offered free bus rides to Ames, Iowa for the Aug. 11 straw poll, " The Daily 2008

Ummm...TOMORROW'S Republican Debate

Out surfing, my brain got ahead of the clock...he said, sheepishly.

Tonight's NH Republican Debate, the Thompson Factor, & Plausible Hopes

I’ve looked all over the web, including at CNN and WMUR, which are sponsoring and televising the event, and I’ve only found a few references to the time of the Republican presidential candidates’ debate in New Hampshire, this evening. And none of them offered any specifics, relative to time zones. I saw 7:00, and I saw 8:00, so I’m thinking 8 Eastern, 7 Central. In the Central time zone, I will make sure I’m watching at 6, to be certain.

The polls are the same ol’ same ol’: Giuliani, McCain, Romney, and maybe Thompson, some of them only mentioning these three or four. Frankly, Thomson should be included as suspect, despite the media proposing him as a “true conservative” alternative. Whatever they say and whatever he feels, and whatever he genuinely believes and is reflected in his record, conservatives should understand this. FredThompson was a big advocate and supporter for McCain-Feingold. Anyone who doesn’t understand that this is a blatant defiance of First Amendment free speech, is intellectually unqualified to be the chief executive charged with defending The Constitution: especially for what is ostensibly the conservative party in American politics.

These early states are supposed to reflect retail politicking more than media profiles. And all three of the “top tier” candidates are suspect among conservatives, and rightly so. So, why do the polls reflect and focus on this media-induced counter-conservative bias?

Who, among the other 7 announced candidates is a more qualified conservative? Very simply, all of them: even Ron Paul, whose originalist disposition parks him away from the rest of the current Republican field on foreign policy. Relative to Paul, I’m not too concerned about the Republican field. I’m concerned about responsibility in terms of security and morality.

But, the “top-tier” and a third (Thompson) will never get my vote, now or in the future. I don’t pick philosophical plumbers for social surgery assignments.

But, after Thompson’s half-pregnant announcement (he’ll explore and raise money and maybe announce, next month), a great deal of discussion has been over how he might affect the field. Who might he help and hurt? Frankly, I’m unqualified to predict how the public will behave, and demonstrably so. Too often, most people are unstudied, manipulable, and philosophically incoherent. I can’t predict them, and I don’t care to try to make a science of trying.

But, I can tell you what seem like plausible hopes. Speculation has been over how it affects about how Thompson nught affect the (other infidel) three; Giuliani, McCain, and Romney, and it’s been said that its even worse news for the rest of the hopeful conservative alternatives. But does this seem like a plausible hope?:

I think those three lead the polls because the clatter in media causes people to suppose that they have the best chance of winning the general election against the dreaded Democrats. I consider that a lot of Thompson’s support would be of a similar sort. Conservatives support one among Rudy McRomney because they believe they have te best chance of beating a Democrat. I don’t think that’s true. In fact, if nominated, I think any of the others would have a better chancer But, let’s assume the belief and motivation among Republicans is as I say. If the “winnability” factor (I think due to media noise) is the main issue, then conservatives will drop from those three to a supposed “conservative” whom the media has suggested as a serious consideration. The top three drop and Thomson picks up that support, putting them all at 15-20%, approximately (Romney show lower in national, but higher in early state polls)

Support for the other 7 is based on conviction, not media name-identity. So, their solid support is less changeable and larger relative to the 4 splitting the celebrity contest. If one is around or above 10%, they will be more relevant compared to the others, and that effect will increase in future polls and primaries. As I’ve said, I think the best prospects for a “stronger-than-expected showing are Tommy Thomson and Mike Huckabee. Both are affable state executives. Huckabee is smart, articulate, and principled. Thompson is innovative, plainly more conservative than the media celebrities (Romney’s metamorphosis repels more than appeals to me), and has basically camped in Iowa for months and will until August’s straw poll.

Most commentators say that Thompson would draw most from Romney, who is positioning himself with the base. Romney has also been strong in early state polls, so maybe this would put him with the 4-pack. I could only hope that this or anything else would hurt Giuliani and McCain, too. If I wouldn’t vote for a 1st Amendment heretic, I surely wouldn’t vote for someone who doesn’t understand the necessary American respect of human life established since The Declaration Of Independence. Those two issues and others, remove Giuliani, McCain, and Thompson from my consideration. And, as I said , I’m not dancing to the Romney Pied Piper show.

The big issues for Hunter and Tancredo aren’t especially big in Iowa and New Hampshire, or even real big in South Carolina. Ron Paul has a following to show early, especially in NH, but I can’t see that following growing to an ultimate victory Jim Gilmore is a serious adult: almost the flip-side of a rock star. I’d be happy to see America support an adult. But, how likely is that?

So, Fred Thomson obviously won’t be in tomorrow’s debate. And it seems like he has a lot of work to do if he plans to compete in the Iowa straw poll in August. But, let’s suppose that he’s in and joins Giuliani, McCain, and Romney coming out of that straw poll, with Huckabee and Thompson showing and hanging in. Now, there are six. Except if Thomson gets a fire started, I don’t see any potential for anyone of the top four rising. I don’t know what ultimately happens with Fred ThomsonMcCain has to kick something new in. He isn’t raising money fast, and his numbers have only sagged. As strong on security, Giuliani can only gain by McCain falling. But I don’t think Giuliani can win the nomination. At least McCain is nominally pro-life. Unfortunately, Romney has a lot of money, and that Pied Piper flute, suit, and hair. So, I think he’s in for a long time.

The sooner McCain swoons, the sooner Huckabee and/or either or both Thompsons (one will survive) have a chance to be seen square up against Romney As the field shrinks, Giulian’s topped out life-indifferent Republican support shrinks in relation. I hope Huckabee survives and it comes down to he and Romney. Hey, if Huckabee can’t flush out Romney and distinguish himself between them, he can’t ask for a better chance. He’d get to sell roast beef against whatever custom presentation Romney served up. If Romney wins, that’s what the Republicans want. Theyd face a Democrat without me, which I’m sure they’d never stop crying about. J