Monday, September 24, 2007

More Posts At Huckabee Blog, SaveTalkRadio Comment On Gingrich-Huckabee, Captain's Quarters Interview

Be sure to go to the Huckabee blog which will run all night until 10:00 AM Tue, and read more postings which include former South Carolina Governor David Beasley, a retirement question and Mike Huckabee video about the Fair Tax, and Bob Vander Plaats, Iowa Stae Chair of the Huckabee campaign, at http://mikehuckabee.com Blog: http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Blogs.Home

Another Gingrich-Huckabee Connection at http://www.savetalkradio.com/ - http://savetalkradio.com/2007/09/21/another-gingrich-huckabee-connection/

Ed Morrisey at Captain’s Quarters has an audio interview with Governor Huckabee (Huckabee Interview Set For Tonight) on his “Heading Right” broadcast: http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/009294.php


Another Gingrich-Huckabee Connection at http://www.savetalkradio.com/

One Mom mentions Gingrich’s Huckabee blog post: Newt Gingrich blogs for Vertical Day

3 New Huckabee Blog Entries: Mike Huckabee, South Dakota Governor Mike Rounds, Brian Donega

September 24, 2007 - 05:19 PM
Three more Blog Entries: Mike Huckabee, South Dakota Governor Mike Rounds, Brian Donegan
http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Blogs.Home
September 24, 2007 - 07:19 PM

A Different Kind of Message

by Mike Huckabee
September 24, 2007 - 06:31 PM

South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds (Guest Post)

by Governor Mike Rounds

http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Blogs.View&Blog_id=457

September 24, 2007 - 06:27 PM

Enough is Enough! (Guest Post)

by Brian Donegan, Guest Blogger

Video: Pastors and Pews: Mike Huckabee

September 24, 2007 - 05:46 PM

Video: Pastors and Pews


http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Blogs.View&Blog_id=455

Reflecting on the Campaign by Mike Huckabee

September 24, 2007 - 05:19 PM

Reflecting on the Campaign



http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Blogs.Home

Newt Gingrich (Guest Post) At Huckabee Blog

September 24, 2007 - 04:34 PM

Newt Gingrich (Guest Post)

http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Blogs.Home

Mike Huckabee On Newt's Vertical Day Nine, Nineties in Nine DebateFformat

Vertical Day Nine, Nineties in Nine

Mike Huckabee discusses Newt Gingrich's debate idea.

Author: explorehuckabee
Keywords: Huckabee Presidential Debat Newt Gingrich
Added: September 24, 2007

Kevin Tracy's video discussion of Vertical Day

Kevin Tracy's video discussion of V(ertical) Day

Huckabee’s V-Day (Part I)

http://ktracy.com/?p=418

Video: Iraq by Mike Huckabee

At the blog page at

http://www.mikehuckabee.com

, Mike Huckabee has posted a video about the US effort in Iraq.

September 24, 2007 - 02:14 PM

Video: Iraq

Club For Growth Posting

Be sure to check in today for "Vertical Day" at

http://mikehuckabee.com



This was posted, yesterday at http://mikehuckabeepresident2008.blogspot.com

http://larryperrault.blogspot.com/

Sunday, September 23, 2007

Huckabee and The Club for Growth

I've spent quite a bit of time over the last year responding to questions about The Club for Growth's obsession with trying to bring down Gov. Huckabee's campaign. To make a long story short, The Club for Growth gets its largest single check each year from a guy in Arkansas with a personal vendetta against Huckabee.

Now lets set aside for a moment the fact that by allowing itself to become the mouthpiece for a single contributor - and that it distorts the facts in the process - The Club for Growth has completely shattered its credibility.

Lets focus instead on the reality that they are doing Governor Huckabee an enormous favor because each time they re-issue their "hit piece," it creates an opportunity to Huckabee to set the record straight...which results in fantastic articles like this one from South Carolina's The State news organization (excerpt below).

Saturday, September 22, 2007

Mike Huckabee Plans A "Vertical Day" To Engage America, Mon., Sept 24

September 22, 2007 - 11:06 AM

Vertical Day - Monday, Sept. 24

by Mike Huckabee

Send to a friend

Everywhere I go on the campaign trail, I meet voters with a real thirst for a healthy discussion of the issues. Ultimately, people don't care whether an issue comes from the left or the right. What they want to talk about are ideas that lift America up and make us better. It's what I call "Vertical Politics."

On Monday, our campaign has set aside 24 hours, for what we are calling a "Vertical Day". The focus of Vertical Day will be a discussion of the most important issues facing America. The plan is to promote my positions on these issues through video and personal blogs, and to have an online conversation with voters about our ideas, the solutions we see possible, our hopes for America and the challenges we face.

I'd like you to be a part of Vertical Day. I encourage you to tell your friends, family members and co-workers about it and ask them to participate. Vertical Day will start on Monday, September 24 and end on Tuesday, Sept. 25. I'm excited about this opportunity. With your help, and the power of the Internet, we will be able to involve thousands of voters all across America and truly build excitement around this discussion of issues.

To encourage you to make the time to be a part of Vertical Day, my campaign team has put together an incentive package that I hope will be fun and also create buzz and excitement. First, we've created a special Vertical Day page on our website, where you can view the 24 hours of online content we have pulled together.

We also have created a very simple online tool that will give you the ability to promote Vertical Day to your friends, family members and co-workers. We've developed a package of rewards based upon the number of people you are able to get to visit the website. As a way to cap off Vertical Day, we'll enter the names of each of our top promoters into a raffle. On Tuesday, September 25 at 3 p.m., we will draw two names who will receive special invitations to be my personal guests to the YouTube Debate on November 28 in St. Petersburg, FL.

I will have more details for you soon. In the meantime, please mark Monday, Sept. 24 down on your calendars.

Permalink: http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Blogs.View&Blog_id=435

Comment (13 Comments)

Friday, September 21, 2007

VV Debate Posted Online

I found the link to the debate posted online: Get Values Voter Debate DVD

http://www.afa.net/debate/

Get Values Voter Debate DVD

Anyone who missed the Values Voter Debate in Ft. Lauderdale, FL, on Monday, can order a DVDy it at. Values Voter Presidential Debate,

The debate was 3 hours long and posed all questions of interest to socially conservative voters. Order one to show at your church or group function.

Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Description Of The Huckabee Campaign To An Inquirer

A longtime political contact referred someone to me about Mike Huckabee, who sent me an email that I missed. It gave me an opportunity to summarize the situation:

I’m sorry, David: I was going back through my inbox and found your email, which I had evidently missed. I don’t know of someone organizing for Huckabee in Houston. I scream online and to friends. I am disabled and don’t drive.

But, I would say this: I watch events and polls in Texas and elsewhere. And if Mike Huckabee is in the thick of things when the Texas primary comes around, I think he will do fine in Texas. I’m sure he’ll begin organizing a general election strategy, once the Republican nomination is in sight.

In the meantime, go to http://mikehuckabee.com for campaign information and updates, look at/in the blog and the blogroll on the right side (You will see my blog there, by the way). Anyway, I printed a copyable doorhanger that I downloaded from the blog (I will hang one on my walker, BTW J ) , and I also downloaded a sign. Some of the blogs on the blogroll like “Mike Huckabee For President” have other items that can be ordered/downloaded. There’s plenty of video information on YouTube as well: perhaps too much to sort through, but some of it is very good.

If you are in Houston, perhaps we could convene a lunch, perhaps with some others, before too long. In the meantime, stay plugged in to the campaign web site and the Huckabee bloggers, be informed and keep your contacts informed.

When Chris and I first made contact, 12 years ago, the Internet was in its infancy with email the vast majority of communications. A few percent of the population was online and we could not access hi-res graphic images, much less transmit them and get full video and audio. Much has expectedly changed, since then. This campaign obviously started very early, and in an environment like ’95, all but a few would already have been washed/smothered out. The Internet can keep a campaign breathing, even when the media has neglected it.

However still, a majority still get the vast majority of their news from television and radio: at least what they consider politically relevant news. If you aren’t spoken of in these media for a, your campaign has been unable to “break through.” You may “like” a candidate, but you probably consider him no serious threat if he isn’t mentioned in the conventional media.

My family, for instance, is both well-read and very computer-active. Nevertheless, they would know little about Mike Huckabee were in not for the presence in their home of a freak like me. Having access to all the information in the world on any candidate out there, the computer is for them mainly a tool to aid their primary interest in friends and other topics of personal interest, and unlike me, they are NORMAL. I wish people paid more attention and I think they should. But I wouldn’t go so far as to say that the world would be a better place if all were even near as distractd by a bird’s eye rather than a personal engagement of life.

I’m pretty confident that another dozen years will substantially shrink the importance of conventional media in elections. But, to give you an example of the residual power of conventional media (I think for those of us over forty, it is very much the force of a lifetime of habit: media decides who and what is celebrated and of imprtance, including political candidates.

But, we just had an example in the past few days: Huckabee sweepingly won (with almost 5 times the support of the nearest competitot), a vote of delegates from 40 socially conservative organizations (THE LARGEST SINGLE VOTING BLOCK IN THE COUNTRY), after a Values Voter debate they held Monday night in Ft. Lauderdale, FL. The media-celebrated “frontrunners,” Giuliani, Romney, Thompson, and McCain, chose not to come to the event. We are confident that they knew they could not gain, but only lose, just like Giuliani, McCain and Thompson chose not to compete in the Ames, Iowas Straw Poll. Romney spent his money to buy a victory, else he wouldn’t be counted among “the frontrunners,” now.

Because these “frontrunners” didn’t appear, the results were picked up and reported by almost no one in the conventional media. So, we see that their “frontrunner” status justified by “the polls” which only reflect name ID allows them to dictate what will be covered by the media, and no-show action allows them to at once avoid a contest they have no confidence of competing in and suppress the celebration of non-frontrunnetrs. Pretty good deal, huh?

We do know that there is a high-level of dissatisfaction among conservatives with the celebrated few. Which is why Thompson is in the race to see if he can fill the void, and why Thompson, and why Romney has hewn his rhetoric and confessions to appeal to this group. Neither are heartfelt systematic conservatives. As he swept the Values Voter debate delegates (incidentally, votes before and after showed very dramatic positive shift while the support of most fell), Huckabee took second at the Ames Straw Poll spending a fraction per vote of what the others did. He did it the old-fashioned way: person to person, meeting to meeting. Again, using my quite capable family as an example, If I weren’t saddled up to the campaign, they would know next to or nothing about these events or about Mike Huckabee at all.

Any objective observer can see that Huckabee is the most charismatic and engaging candidate in the contest for The Republican Party in the general election. If that were the primary interest, the rest could withdraw and endorse him, now. But that isn’t the primary interest. Ego is an importan interest for many. Job or other interest for others. For others, just promised favors seal;ed by contributions. For most of the media itself, a strong Republican candidate is the last thing they want, let alone an assertive Christian one.

So, we still have a considerable challenge. But Mike Huckabee has done better than could be expected. He has not become an overnight celebrity, but his acceptance has not fluctiated or fallen like all of the others, but tantalizingly slowly and steadily risen since the announcement of his candidacy. My motivation was all conviction at the beginning of the campaign, but my hopes and expectations have grown at a rate corresponding to his success with voters. At this point, I’m not prepared to predict victory, but it wouldn’t surprise me. And, I DO precict that a strong and importants statement will be made by Mike Huckasbee’s campaign whether he wins the nomination or not.

It’s been exciting to watch: more even for America than for Mike Huckabee himself. Contact me anytime.

Tuesday, September 18, 2007

Huckabee Wins Big Among Value Voters - CBN Brody File Report - On Alan Keyes

Today, Mike Huckabee’s weeping win in the Values Voter debate in Florida and most of comment I made at another Huckabee blog on Alan Keyes’ (who also made the debate) entry into The Republican nomination contest.

The Value Voter Debate web site http://valuesvoterdebate.com/ Mike Huckabee won the vote in a romp, receiving 63%, nearly 5 times as many votes as the other candidates. Of the 340 delegates from socially conservative organizations, Mike Huckabee won 219! Ron Paul was 2nd, with 44, Alan Keyes was 3rd with 24, Sam Brownback was 4th with 18. Brownback is campaigning hard for a historic record in futility.

Giuliani (though he was in Ft. Lauderdale, where it was held), Romney, Thompson, and McCain didn’t come. It’s a “scheduling conflict” thing, don’t you know…YEAH!...THAT”S the TICKET! Surely you’ve noticed how these guys won’t show where they can only look bad. But the debate sponsors left up empty podiums with their names on them. Nice touch. They obviously didn’t fare well. Thompson did best, falling to 15 delegates from 52 supporters before the debate. Giuliani and McCain got a few and Romney got ZILCH.

The Brody File at CBN on the Values Voter Debate http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/233319.aspx

About Alan Keyes’ Entry:

· I heard this about lunchtime, today. Listen, I supported and campaigned for Alan Keyes in 1996 and 2000. I’ve heard him speak live at political and pro-life gatherings between 10 and 15 times and have planned for his appearances in Houston. In 1996, I was active on a national email list and kept a Texas Keyes email list and went to Des Moines, IA for a campaign meeting at the time of one of the debates. I maintained national email contacts and was known for speaking for Alan Keyes, well into G.W. Bush’s term. And now I hear of his announcement and think, “WHAT THE @#$% IS HE THINKING?!”

I can only guess, but that guess might be that he was the most educated, the most intelligent, and the most articulate person in the Republican Party: He served in the Reagan administration in his 40′2. And, now he’s in his early 60’s, looking back at 3 failed Senate campaigns (2 in MD, then 1 in IL in 2004), and 2 failed presidential campaigns. Keyes was the acknowledged winner of every Republican debate, shown by Dick Morris in online polls in 2000. Now, thinking that it all looks downhill from here, is he just frustrated that The Republican Party has not used him?

I feel sorry for him. The Illinois Republican Party solicited him to run against Barack Obama in 2004. And, when Keyes looked at Obama’s record in the IL state legislature, in which Obama voted TWICE against abandoning babies born alive after botched abortions, Keyes determined that he had to accept.

Then, when he went to IL and started campaigning, the media started calling him radical and extreme and such. And the party establishment, not wanting to be associated with those adjectives, disclaimed and abandoned him and ran for the tall grass like…like… well, like Republicans…

He was crushed in the election, though Obama was no reasonable match, just like all the Republican candidates he had faced, previously. No matter: after that, he’s totally politically damaged goods.

That’s a fact that I’m sure is hard to swallow. The difference I see with Huckabee is that while Keyes wowed people with his knowledge and oratory, Huckabee engages them with his character. I feel sorry for Keyes, I really do. But, WHAT THE @#$% is he thinking????

And on what Keyes insisted were the most important issues, Huckabee is right there. I could just dismiss Brownback as not exceptionally wise. But Keyes? Somebody’s got some ’splainin’ to do.

It’s true that Keyes’ growling, however sincere or not sincere, can distract from what he is saying. I agree with most everything that he is saying. I just don’t understand his reason for being there. Their manner this evening, aptly displays the difference between Huckabee and Keyes. Keyes is hard and sharp on the negative points. Huckabee is careful to discuss the positive ideal. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to guess which manner will work. And you not only need to BE a person of faith in God. You need to ACT like Jesus Christ. That’s why I support Huckabee.

Saturday, September 15, 2007

A Brief Statement Of Why I Like Mike Huckabee

This is my brief statement of the main reason that I like Mike Huckabee for President Of The United States:

I am a conservative and have been all of my life. Republicans should aggressively dissociate theirs from simple caricatures of conservatism, like selfishness, indifference, and ethnic hostility. The Republican Party was introduced in a rebuke to human inequality, after all. Mike Huckabee recognizes these human essentials AND the value, productivity and innovation of freedom and free markets. These values should not be in tension, but in balance.

There are conservative groups who have criticized Mike Huckabee because he has spoken to groups traditionally dominated by Democrats, he acknowledges the concerns of average people, and as governor he even dared to sign tax bills to fund the needs and responsibilities of his state. Is America so focused through media on the federal government that people who call themselves conservatives can no longer distinguish between what is necessary and proper for state vs. federal government?

The Club For Growth has been so aggressive in their criticism of Governor Huckabee that I can only account it to either complete ignorance in this regard or to a vested interest in a competing candidate. And none of those other candidates is more tethered to principle than Mike Huckabee.

And Mike Huckabee will tell you that the interests of freedom and compassion are not his invention. They are the dictates of his faith in a God who gave us both freedom and responsibility at the same time. It is always typical in politics to quickly question a candidate’s honesty. Recognizing Mike Huckabee’s submission to God, it is much easier to see through those sorts of criticisms from either right or left. But Mike will also tell you that like anyone else, he needs to be held to account. America should ask honest questions and demand honest answers. I see honest, more than calculated answers from Mike Huckabee.

Today, we face a unique global threat. The primary responsibility of the federal government is maintaining a security which makes everything else possible. I like Mike Huckabee because I have not seen a deceiver, putting ambition above principle. He can lead America to be more safe, prosperous and civil.

Friday, September 14, 2007

My Latest Correspondence With A Liberal Friend

I have a bright and literate friend who is decidedly inclined toward liberal thinking, and even more disinclined to approving of Republicans. This is the large part of my response to his communication about Bush’s foreign policy fiasco in Iraq. What has always been remarkable to me is how someone so philosophically and practically ambiguous as George W. Bush is often portrayed as an expression of “the extreme radical right wing.” That kind of talk can leave one speechless.

Anyway, I’ve edited out the personal references and conversation, but left my personal reactions to today’s political situation and a very basic reason why I so strongly support Mike Huckabee:

I was going to write a response to some of these specifics with some questions. But, it would be better if we could talk over a drink and a piece of bread, where tone and motivation can be clearer.

It is beyond clear what you think and what it seems you will think, no matter what happens. Remember that as a Texas I never was a George W. Bush supporter, never voted for him for president, and still wouldn’t. But watching someone, especially someone so modestly armed to explain himself, so roundly and completely slandered as he has been, is sad and offends my moral sensibilities.

I have some questions, but it seems to me that there is an element for whom George W. Bush will be a dishonest, devious, and inhumane devil regardless of whether the facts play our far to the east or far to the west. As I have said, either in intellectual or leadership terms, I don’t count him as clear enough to be responsible for either. And, I don’t say that as an insult. I would say the same of all but a few of the presidents and candidates that we have seen in our lifetimes: Morally-driven people usually lead scout troops and intellectually lucid people usually write books for a living. Ordinarily, the job doesn’t demand extraordinary capacity in either of those respects. But, given the extraordinary disorientation of America, in both foreign policy and domestic terms, I think an extraordinarily able shepherd is needed.

About Ron Paul, whom I often agree with about things like the social waste of bureaucracy and the ideal of a hard, fixed-commodity currency, I am left to wonder to what extent the unconcern for the Iraqi people is denial or indifference.

You and others who disdain anyone with an ® after their name today, do not exhibit that indifference,but many clearly do. As you know, most people would identify me as having constitutionalist ideals, to which Sophie and Ron Paul appeal. But basic humanity lies beneath The Constitution in the foundation of a moral disposition.

In terms of respect for his character, I am convinced that Ron Paul is honest and serious, as is Joe Lieberman in the opposite direction. But I have a great deal more uncertainty about the accuracy of Ron Paul’s belief that it would be better for America if we pulled right out of Iraq, leave aside what horrible calamity may or may not befall people in Iraq. And the matters at stake are unprecedentedly huge.

But I wouldn’t say that about most Democratic politicians. My impression has been that the most sober and able of the Democratic presidential candidates would be Joe Biden and Bill Richardson. Biden balked at the slandering of General Petraeus’ character, while Richardson has joined the rest of them in jumping over each other to advocate for the most expeditious withdrawal, in an effort to attract even a sidelong glance from the moveon.org type activist Democratic voters.

Biden would be a sober and responsible president, though I would disagree with him about most everything, especially the essential nature of cultivating and maintaining a respect for human life in the American consciousness. I don’t believe that Richardson would follow through on the immediate pullout plan that he has proposed, either. He needs the attention, but he isn’t stupid. In fact, I don’t believe that Hillary or even Edwards (who near to makes my skin crawl) would, either. I doubt Barack O’Bama would, though I think he might make one of the most under qualified presidents that we have ever had.

I really look at the situation and very seriously consider that the nation might be better off today, if Al Gore had won in 2000. Don’t get me wrong, I think Al Gore was an outright ridiculous candidate. But, if he had won,

1) he wouldn’t have made an occupation of flogging the Chicken Little anthropomorphic global warming fear-mongering, behind which I see no scientific/logical substance.

2) There wouldn’t have been the national trauma about the terrible nature of whatever he had to do in The Middle East. When he said it was necessary, it would have been accepted as necessary, rather than him being called the lying evil genius worst disaster of a president in American history, except by a minority, most of them Republicans!

3) Republicans in Congress would have resisted his suggestions of expanding government, instead of rolling over like a puppy as they did for George W. Bush ®, and bathing in the corruption of power. And, they probably wouldn’t have been kicked out of office.

4) The bottom-line is that we probably would not be quite the hair-pulling, eye-scratching, hating, screeching popular culture that we are, today. The visceral unreflective venom that fills the blogosphere on both sides is ugly and dismaying. The most basic problem our society has is not one of whose dogma (speaking as a reputed dogmatist), but of disposition. That is the major reason that I support Mike Huckabee. Though he’s not off the map on the most vital issues, as he says, “I’m a conservative, but I’m not mad at anyone about it.” Boy, could this nation use a little moderation of demeanor.

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

Discussion Of Dr. Laurence White's Letter - Why I Will Never Support Rudy Giuliani: It's Not Personal, It's About The Integrity Of America

The last thing I posted was on Saturday: a letter from Dr. Laurence White about the gravity of The Republican Party as the last major party in The United States to hold that principle aloft, standing up for the sanctity of life. That provoked discussion between Christians about the integrity of Dr. White’s letter and of how important the issue really is, and whether moral people should support a candidate like Rudy Giuliani.

I sincerely believe that the sanctity of life is a foundational moral principle on a par with slavery in the history of The United States. Slavery defied the foundational principle of the inalienable right to liberty of all human beings. The practice and toleration of abortion, defies the only value mentioned prior to that in American history: The Declaration of Independence asserted the inalienable human right of life. Some will say that unborn children are not fully human. Some once claimed that blacks were not fully human.

As I always say the offense to the child is not the most critical issue, here. Humans have always died unjustly in the world. The victims are committed to the care of God and there is no better place for them to be. However, the people and society that have reduced human life to a subject of their own convenience are diminished as humans and as a civilization. There is something very fundamental to human dignity and the integrity of a civilization that has gotten away. It’s plain to me that such a society has critically cracked its foundation of civility. Remember, this is not a cruel and barbarous ruling regime that has imposed this on the people. This is a nation whose sovereign is “We, the people.” It is the people who are the barbarians. It’s the rule of The Supreme Court, you say? Nonsense! The people would not stand for a Supreme Court ruling that presumed to perpetrate much smaller things, for which they would take to the streets.

The sad truth is its just too much trouble for a self-absorbed people for whom their own comfort and amusement is the primary concern…They might miss a day of work or some great diversion. They might face something hideous like a fine or, worse, being called names like “extremist” or “fanatic” or maybe even spend a few hours in jail. Listen: people complain that this has been going on for thirty years. If for only a few days, millions of people would stop their work or even stop buying cheeseburgers, there would be panic in the country. But, no: The ones who are the extremists will write a check for a tiny fraction of their annual income: much easier than risking the embarrassment of ridicule or even raised eyebrows.

Pro-lifers can just stop it. The problem isn’t their fault: the liberals or The Supreme Court. The problem is us. It’s our fault! Ye are the salt of the earth? We kid ourselves. The terrible Christian right is supposed to be a critical constituency for one of the major American parties. Christians may point fingers at the awful people who make such laws or rulings. But, God doesn’t hold unbelievers responsible for acting like unbelievers. We have been given race and peace and the knowledge of better things. God will look straight at the people who should have acted and didn’t.

Now, we hear that many of these people will support a leader who has no compass to lead, and for what? To avoid the horror of a Democratic president? Never mind that this cowardly path won’t even accomplish that cowardly and squalid objective. You are going to help a Republican Party loose republican moral principle to the currents of a shallow popular mass-culture? The Republican Party was founded on the principle of fundamental moral principles. Now, we are going to let that go for what? For fear?

2 Timothy 1:7 (New American Standard Bible)

7For God has not given us a (A)spirit of timidity, but of power and love and discipline.

I’m not angry at Rudy Giuliani. He’s dead serious about what he believes. And he’s straightforward about it. I’m angry at the pathetic excuse for a church of Jesus Christ that will countenance this stuff and even stoop to advance it. And believe me: I know politics and when we tell the political strategizers of The Republican Party that we will support then mo matter what is put out, even the stripping of the very foundation of The Republican Party and civility itself, there will be absolutely no cause for them to respect it again.

I believe that taxes are too high and the federal government has unconstitutionally and ineptly taken upon itself supposed responsibilities for which it was never intended. But the sad truth is that there is plenty of a Republican constituency that would not stand still for a candidate who proposed higher taxes. But, they will support the abandonment of the sanctity of life. And, that just makes me sick.

Here is the last thing I wrote in that conversation:

Usually, it’s the extremes of liberalism and conservatism, which speak darkly of the consciences of other people and talk about "ilks" and such. But, there you sit in the middle talking that way about people who care about principles. That's terribly ineffective in addition to being aggressive and insulting.

I don't know what Dr. White's other pursuits are and I don't know or care what kind of car he drives. You caricature people very easily and hastily. I only know that Dr. White is very serious and sober, and a relative scholar among pastors.

Your talk might be a little dismaying to him, but especially as you tinge it, it would not accomplish a thing. But worse than that, you talk like that to me, who KNOWS him, and knows better than your jaded cynicism. If you would talk like that to most people, they will tell you to hang it in your ear, however politely, and I've seen that they have. I'll just tell you to be a little more judicious and empathetic, instead of impetuously painting people into pigeon-holes.

Let me give you an example: You contacted me with an interest in Sarah Palin, which to me looked like a good, reasonable, and positive effort. If you don't care how people react to you personally, that's one thing. But, you hurt your case for Sarah Palin when you talk disparagingly like that. I'm inclined to think that Sarah Palin has a lot to be said for her, and you are just a little impertinent about some things. But many people will wonder if her apologists are so cynical and disparaging, maybe birds of a feather...It isn't fair to the causes you speak for.

Just speaking of myself, I have told you that I will in no case support a man to be America's chief executive and the standard-bearer for The Republican Party who hasn't a clue about republican (small "r") principle, neither for the Republican nomination nor as the nominee for The Republican Party. The Republican Party who puts such a person at the head of a national ticket has earned abandonment. I not only won't support him but I will fervently HOPE that The Republican Party loses and learns a lesson about such grave foolishness. I'll keep my blog alive to campaign against him in the general election.

I am well aware of how bitter and jaundiced you can get about people you disagree with. I've never lied to or in any way tried to deceive you. I'll just leave it to you to decide if your mind can deal with the fact of honest disagreement, which I'll tell you is the first key to building coalitions with other people. I have worked very hard in the past few years to be aware first that I may consider someone mistaken, though honestly so.

It's monumental irony that you begin your disparagement of Dr. White, whom you clearly don't know, by referring to his "nonsense." "Nonsense" is a kind way of referring to this sort of ignorant unkindness.

You know, I regret it, but a lot of evangelical Christians will vote for Rudy Giulian if they feel forced to in the general election (I know them). Some will even support him for the nomination because they (mistakenly) think he has the best chance of beating a Democrat.

I don't think electing a Democrat is to be feared more than standing aside while The Republican Party flushes its principles down the cultural drain. If they let that (literally) vital principle go, the Republican political strategists will no longer feel any necessity to adhere to it. I'm thinking they would be heading the way of the slavery -condoning Whigs and would well deserve the same fate: better The Republican Part perish than The United States.

Saturday, September 8, 2007

A Momentous Choice For America/Dr. Laurence White's Letter About Abortion

Mike Huckabee's campaign blog has a letter posted today, from Dr. Laurence White, pastor Houston’s Our Savior Lutheran Church. The letter is titled, “This Election Cannot Bee About Electability.” The urgency of “electability” is what we hear on so many fronts, unfortunately even among our supposed Christian leaders. But, I sincerely believe that though I disagree with almost all of their policy proposals, the election of a Democrat will not damage America as much as a continued flaccidity about the respect for the sanctity of life in American leaders.

This year The Republican Party not only advances candidates who are feeble in their resolve and ability, the supposed “leading” candidate for the only pro-life American political party, outwardly displays that he has no conception of the problem. If The Republican Party is going to surrender this literally vital disposition to the cultural confusion, there is no reason to expect that it is going to swim back to us against the currents. If you think there is a tough job now, wait until no political establishment holds any basic standard out above self-interest? We will have reduced a great cultural moral struggle to a back-alley game of craps.

Here is the comment I left at the Huckabee web site, followed by Dr. White’s letter:

Dr. Laurence White is one of the most traveled and pointed pro-life speakers in the country. He is the prime speaking option for pro-life forums in Texas.

In fact, I visited his Lutheran church when we moved into this area of Houston, now many years ago. I voted for him as a delegate from our congressional district to the Republican National Convention many years ago.

Dr. White was kind enough to address sanctity of life rally that myself and a friend put together at our church facility in 2005.

I always make the point to emphasize what is implied by Dr. White's statement that the condoning of abortion is destroying America's soul. A culture that fully digests the idea that the lives of its own offspring are matters of its convenience is sick unto death.

With what can we presume to trust such a people? The "me first" disposition will corrupt everything from ordinary commerce to simple neighborly responsibility. And it won't require an obvious turn. Putting self at the center is simply the standard disposition.

Dr. White is right. We need to restore the hearts of the people. Many of our candidates don't really have resolve about the sanctity of life. Many who do, haven't the facility to inspire the nation. That's what sets Mike Huckabee apart. He has the empathy for every human to engage and lead from the platform of the presidency. I'm not primarily endorsing the reflection of MY FEELINGS. I'm encouraging the prospect of actually bringing some healing to our ailing culture. My vote isn't for my own pride. It's for the vitality of our society.

September 08, 2007 - 11:18 AM
This Election Cannot Be About Electability
By Dr. Laurence White

After months of coy flirting and media maneuvering former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson has finally admitted that he is running for president. He made it official - in a manner completely consistent with his style over substance approach to date - on the Jay Leno Show rather than the New Hampshire Presidential Candidate Debate held the same night. CNN reports today that on his first official day of campaigning in Iowa, the core of his pitch was electability - he’s the man who can beat Hillary Clinton. (CNN “Thompson: I Can Stop Hillary Clinton” Thursday, September 6th, 2007) My response, as a Christian conservative who is deeply concerned about the future of this country, is “So what?” Beating Hillary Clinton is not good enough at this critical moment in America’s history. Thirty-four years into an abortion holocaust that has produced the slaughter of nearly fifty million defenseless infants we need more than an election victory. We need to transform American culture and put an end to abortion.

For years we have foolishly heeded the counsel of pragmatists who have advised us to be realistic and settle for Republican establishment candidates who promised us by and large pro-life judiciary appointments in return for our support. These guys don’t see abortion as a crucial factor in
America’s future. They say as much about being “Pro-Life” as they have to pacify us during the primaries. But once they have been nominated they promptly head for the safety of the Center. After they are elected the same pattern prevails as abortion and the other controversial “social issues” are relegated to the back burner. That’s the way “politics as usual” works in this country. In the meantime the little ones continue to die and with them the soul of America is dying. The establishments of both of our political parties are complacent and corrupt. They care only for the continuation and expansion of their own power. There is no possibility of ending abortion as long as Christians are content to continue to play “politics as usual.”

God doesn’t give a damn (literally!) about which party or candidate wins the next election. The blood of the innocents cries out to Him for justice from the soil of
America. The day is coming soon when He will heed that cry and when He does, woe to us and to our country. We Christians can no longer be satisfied with the crumbs that fall from the politician’s table. Certainly, some good justices and judges have been appointed. But America has been going to Hell in the meantime. If the Supreme Court were to overturn Roe vs. Wade today its decision would be completely un-enforceable. In a country where sex is recreation and procreation is an inconvenience to my personal pleasure, abortion is a practical necessity. We who bear the name of Christ have got to change the culture. More Christians must engage in the decisions that shape our society. We must participate in that process not as Republicans or Democrats but as sons and daughters of the Lord Jesus Christ. Politics is the art of the possible but Christianity is the art of the impossible. Christians must stop settling for the lesser of two evil as we choose our candidates. An establishment Republican who will do nothing to stop abortion is no better to us than a liberal Democrat. What happens to our economy or even to our national security in the face of terrorism won’t make any difference if we cannot stop abortion. This single issue will determine the future of America. “I Can Stop Hillary!” So what! Can you stop abortion?

Permalink: http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?Fus

Huckabee Accepts Thompson's Debate Challenge/Could Iowa And New Hampshire Reaffirm Their Primacy?

Below is the letter with which Mike Huckabee has accepted Fred Thompson’s statement of the necessity for a more in-depth discussion of issues than is presented in shallow 30-second ads and multi-candidate debate formats. You can go to Huckabee’s web site and register your affirmation of the challenge:

http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Blogs.View&Blog_id=344#SubmitAComment

How about a series of extended discussions between pairs of candidates, modeled on Newt Gingrich’s suggestion of “Nine Nineties in Nine”: nine ninety-minutes debates in nine weeks. That was a suggestion for the party nominees, but something similar could be arranged for the process of selecting the nominees in the primary process, in the 12 to 15 weeks between now and the beginning of delegate selection.

Maybe Iowa and New Hampshire could enhance their primacy in the process by hosting a round-robin of debates, after each of which Iowa and New Hampshire caucus and primary goers select winners to go to the next round. Here is Huckabee’s web statement and letter, followed by my own endorsement of the idea:

Below is the text of the actual letter to Fred Thompson. We encourage you to co-sign the letter with Governor Huckabee by leaving a comment.

September 7, 2007

The Honorable Fred Thompson
1130 Eighth Avenue South
Nashville, TN 37203


Dear Senator Thompson,

Welcome to the 2008 Presidential race. I look forward to seeing you on the trail in the upcoming days, weeks, and months ahead.

I share your view of the debates and agree that Newt's "Nine Nineties in Nine" concept is a far better way to make sure America's next President has the character and capacity to lead our nation forward, and that's why I have already signed that pledge. I agree that what is needed is a real discussion by the candidates about their vision for the future of our country.

The debates so far have not offered an in-depth discussion on critical issues such as health care, education, energy independence, in addition to terrorism and national security.

I am aware of your comments on Fox News that you would like to participate in a series of Lincoln Douglas-styled debates. I would like to officially accept your offer and look forward to working with your staff to schedule this. I would suggest we start this series in New Hampshire.

At the end of these debates, the American people will know each candidate far greater and would be able to choose which candidate possesses the depth of knowledge on the issues and has the character and capacity to lead or great nation. More importantly, the American people would be able to rely on a true conversation on the issues, instead of just 30-second ads and sound bites to decide which candidate has the right vision for America's future.

Senator, let's lead by example and get the ball rolling. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this idea and debating you in front of the American people.

Sincerely,



Mike Huckabee
Former Governor of Arkansas (1996-2007)

-------

Fred Thompson is absolutely right about the "sound-bite" 30-second tidbits of discussion of issues. Mike Huckabee would like to begin a series of in-depth discussion of several foreign and domestic policy issues. The nation owes Fred Thompson a debt of gratitude for highlighting this need in his entry into the nomination contest. The sooner we can start down this road, the better.

Wednesday, September 5, 2007

New Hampshire Republican Presidential Candidates Debate Tonight

Don’t Forget To Watch The New Hampshire Republican Presidential Candidates Debate Tonight at 8:00 Central Time, 9:00 Eastern, on FOX News.

Of the candidates still in the competition, only Fred Thompson, who decided to go onto the Tonight Show with Jay Leno tonight and announce his candidacy tomorrow.

I can’t figure out what he was thinking, except that he could only lose some of the shine he has in the media by any direct comparison with the existing candidates. It surely isn’t going to help him in New Hampshire, and I don’t think in Iowa either, where he has first skipped the Straw Poll and now the opportunity to be compared with candidates who have been on the ground in early states for months, while he has no on the ground campaign effort at all, yet.

Monday, September 3, 2007

A More Thorough Pro-Life Discussion Of The Constitution, The Candidates, And The Sanctity Of Life

An ardent Republican and a pro-life contact on the Internet, Stephen Maloney http://camp2008victorya.blogspot.com/ has carried on a conversation with me that has often swung around a disagreement about what is practical for the nation with regard to the abortion issue. I think it is important to post this discussion, particularly in light of the fact that he and I are more broadly both conservative and pro-life. Stephen has focused his web site on advocating for the Republican nominee to select Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to be a Vice-Presidential running-mate against a Democratic ticket, especially one headed by Hillary Rodham Clinton. Palin is a moral, resolute, and fresh Republican executive representative whom Stephen feels would greatly strengthen the Republican ticket, especially compared to the other known options, and I agree.

Abortion..."

Stephen R. Maloney said...

As you know, I often disagree with you the subject of how Republican candidates "stand" on sanctity of life issues. I believe the differences between Giuliani, Romney, and Huckabee are minimal -- in any sort of practical sense. Giuliani has said that he would appoint "strict constructionist" judges (people like Robert and Alito) to SCOTUS. The effect of that MAY WELL be the overturning of Roe v. Wade, which would immediately send abortion issues back to the states (as per the 10th Amendment). As for Romney, he has said he'd also like to get the issue back to the states (and there are two ways to do that, through the Supreme Court and/or through constitutional amendment). As for Mike Huckabee, a candidate I like a lot, he supports a constitutional amendment (presumably to overturn Roe v. Wade). My reading is that he doesn't want to wait for SCOTUS to overturn Roe, since he believes the wait may be interminable.

That would of course send the abortion issue back to the states -- which is not really that different from Giuliani and Romney. Apparently, it's about the same as the position (positions?) of Senator Thompson.

I've never heard Gov. Huckabee (and he's not alone among the candidates) explain exactly why he believes a constitutional amendment could pass in our lifetimes. The last significant vote on the Human Life Amendment (Hatch-Eagleton) was in 1983. There probably will NEVER be such an amendment, and to pretend otherwise is not helpful.

Given these realities -- not exactly novel ones -- what is the point of squaring the circle when it comes to candidates' stands?

As you know, I've written columns on the absolute necessity of candidates being very candid with people. Candidates know better than most of us what is doable -- and what's not.

So, what exactly is the problem here? I suggest the "problem" in the life discussion relates to a misunderstanding of what it would mean to overturn Roe. It would not mean nearly as much as many people seem to think.

However, there is NO chance currently now for a constitutional amendment overturning Roe. Thus, candidates who propose an amendment to that end are not leveling with people. Mike Huckabee's comment that life begins at conception but doesn't end at birth contains an implicit -- and stern -- criticism of people who are "pro-life" mainly for the purpose of feeling good about themselves. The way I've put it is that we're not pro-life merely for the sake of being pro-life, which would be nothing more than feel-good politics.

I guess my main point is that we should not mis-characterize the practical effect of what seem like (subtle) policy distinctions.

The one question we should ask the candidates is this: How would your proposals create laws that would reduce the number of abortions and increase the number of adoptions? Rhetoric alone is not enough.

steve

Steve:

As YOU know, this is a more in-depth consideration of possibilities with regard to the abortion issue, than the typical knee-jerk emotional reaction, as will be my response. As you ALSO know, the abortion issue to me is more than just another checklist yes or no measurement of what percentage of "issues" I agree with a candidate on.

Rather, the values of a worldview are arranged like a pyramid, and the respect of human life is at or near the bottom of a good and civilized society, such that the failure to understand them is immediately symptomatic of a weakness in the worldview and the soundness and facility to order the rest of the pyramid. For me, Giuliani, McCain, Romney, AND Thompson evidence such a weakness in ordering essential elements of American principle. It's not a matter of mere personal distaste or hostility. It's the recognition of a personal disability. You can't dig ditches with no legs and you can't lead a misguided culture in the right direction with a philosophical disability.

To try to respond and explain more fully:

The appeal to Giuliani’s intention to appoint “strict constructionist judges” makes no sense. Giuliani is an attorney. What he is saying is that he supposedly respects the intent of The Constitution even though he doesn’t understand it. How do you do that? If Giuliani were a judge himself, he would oppose extending a constitutional protection of life to unborn children. Is he saying he would select a strict constructionist judge even though he himself is not a strict constructionist, or is he saying that strict constructionism does not include a scrupulous respect of human life? If the prior, why in the world would I believe either his intentions or his abilities? If the latter, we have reduced “strict constructionist” to a semantic exercise, assumedly employed by Giuliani to seduce a vital constituency that he has expressed a profound difference with. The bottom-line is that Giuliani talking about “strict constructionism” does not communicate jack-squat to me. He has directly said as much in a debate when he expressed that it would be OK if a “strict constructionist judge” either overruled or upheld Roe vs. Wade. So what is his diction supposed to mean to me?

Romney has shown irregularity in his willingness or ability to interpret what is constitutional. As I’ve said before, in his fervent advocacy for McCain-Feingold, Thompson has evidenced a provincially filtered ability to interpret The Constitution, as have other of his statements and actions. I know that you have said that “money is not speech.” I think that’s silly: if it isn’t speech, who needs it? And, I’m also confident that upon reviewing McCain-Feingold, James Madison or any of the American founders who fought and worked to establish The United States would be scandalized and traumatized.

Mike Huckabee has expressed support for a constitutional amendment banning abortion, And, I have told you that that’s a brief expression that he feels The Constitution respects unborn life, a sentiment with which I agree. But, I have also said that Huckabee is not oblivious to the practical fact that amending The Constitution presents a formidable task, as would be achieving compliance thereafter, especially in the context of 30+ years of sentimental accommodation.

I expect that, as with advancing to Congress the cause of the Fair Tax which would sharply and hugely restrict the power of the same Congress, the most effective thing that Huckabee could do is to communicate and enlighten the importance of the matter DIRECTLY TO THE PEOPLE OF THE NATION.

Particularly because of this, as you also know, I too favor a return of the matter to the states, because a more local consensus should be reflected in law and conscience. That would leave many states to continue to behave in what I believe is an unconstitutional and socially dysfunctional fashion. But 1) the unique particulars of the abortion issue make it practically absurd to presume to regulate it nationally, with the sort of futility and anarchy that attempting to do so would provoke. And 2) the society of the states, individually, would bear the social consequences of heightened or diminished civility.

Sunday, September 2, 2007

Blogger Reports: NH Huckabee Endorsement, Fred Thompson And Abortion...

Along with a link to today’s interview of Huckabee on ABC’s “This Week,” MA For Huckabee has posted a video of a New Hampshire State Representative Jason Bedrick’s endorsement of Mike Huckabee. This is not of particular significance because of the weight of his office, but because 1) New Hampshire is traditionally the first primary state. It was leap-frogged by Michigan a few days ago, but Michigan will face both parties for violation of their rules, and New Hampshire law requires the primary be held at least seven days prior to any other. If the parties don’t threaten Michigan back, New Hampshire will move theirs up. And 2) Bedrick is another in a recent group of NH political figures who have endorsed Mike Huckabee for president, and the reasons he gives in the posted video are reflective of the reasons that Iowans went to Ames to vote for Huckabee without busses or often without even campaign-purchased tickets. Huckabee got substantially more votes than his campaign provided tickets, as compared to Romney and Brownback, who got fewer votes than the tickets they had purchased. The only question of whether Huckabee is the nominee is whether he and we will get the news to others before the nomination settling votes are cast by people who only know what they hear in the media.

Mike Huckabee 2008 has discussion and information on Thompson (Fred, Tommy’s gone), and mention of Romey and Giuliani, relative to abortion. Thompson was hired as a lobbyist lawyer for a Family Planning to restrict negative abortion counseling. Romney says he figured out that abortion was wrong in consideration of creating life to kill it for stem cell research. Apparently before that, poisoning or dismembering developing babies and the imperative status of the American respect for life hadn’t been able to shake that loose for him. Romney now speaks firmly pro-life, and Thompson’s Senate voting record is pro-life. But, Thompson’s Tennessee constituents were pro-life and Romney’s Massachusetts constituents weren’t and he promised to defend a woman’s “right to choose,” at the time. In either case, these minds are too muddled to lead as statesmen. At least Giuliani is straight out “pro-choice.”

Some bloggers also commented on Thompson’s plans to enter the Republican nomination contest on Thursday, the day after Wednesday’s New Hampshire Republican debate, during the broadcast of which, Thompson will run ads. Some have called this a cowardly strategy, going for the announcement boost without facing his competitors, as he hasn’t for months. If you have a better explanation, I don’t.

Forbes Magazine reported on Huckabee’s ABC interview: Huckabee Eyes Matchup With Clinton , as did The New York Times in today’s Caucus blog post: Sunday Sampler Platter, Sept. 2