Echoes in Eternity

UPDATE: Joe Carter, a former staff member on Huckabee's election team, weighs in on this issue here.

Almost two years ago, I wrote a series of posts on the Republican candidate Mike Huckabee, excoriating him on many of his political positions. One of my main complaints with the man as a presidential candidate (note: I think he's a nice guy on a personal level, but so is Obama) was his propensity to undermine the judicial system by releasing murderers and other dangerous convicts for no apparent reason than his love of "compassionate conservatism" and clearly no real grasp of a Biblical view of justice (Wayne Dumond was the most (in)famous of his monumental screwups). So it was not too surprising to me when I found out today that the main suspect in the murders of four police officers near Seattle this weekend was released by the Huckster in 2000. What was he released from, you ask? From a 108 year sentence for multiple aggravated robbery convictions. He was paroled on the say of Governor Huckabee TWICE {see comment section for more on this}, the second time after being convicted again of robbery. All because Clemmons wrote a nice letter to Huck telling him how he had been raised in a Christian home and was a changed man.

I don't know what his political aspirations are, but let this be a reminder that Mr. Huckabee is not fit for the office of Commander in Chief!

Now that Romney has "suspended" his campaign after Tuesday's poor showing (except in Minnesota, where he Romped), and Huckabee's Southern-only popularity, John McCain has become the de facto Republican nominee. One might rightly ask how it came to this point? How did the man who, over the last two decades, single-handedly undercut conservative principle after conservative principle (in doing so, ceded the debate to liberals) come to be the Republican nominee? Unfortunately, I think party pragmatism won out. As Ann Coulter said today in her column, "nominating McCain is the gesture of a desperate party." And "as the expression goes, given a choice between a Democrat and a Democrat, voters will always choose the Democrat." So what are principled pro-life conservatives supposed to do (besides hope that Ronald Reagan rises from the grave and runs as an independent)? Well, I'll tell ya. One, prepare for the political wasteland. Two, either stay home or, as Coulter makes the case, vote for the Democratic candidate.

On the litmus test issues of our time, only partially excluding Iraq, McCain is a liberal.

-- He excoriated Samuel Alito as too "conservative."

-- He promoted amnesty for 20 million illegal immigrants.

-- He abridged citizens' free speech (in favor of the media) with McCain-Feingold.

-- He hysterically opposes waterboarding terrorists and wants to shut down Guantanamo.

Can I take a breath now?

-- He denounced the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

-- He opposes ANWR and supports the global warming cult, even posturing with fellow mountebank Arnold Schwarzenegger in front of solar panels.

The only site that would have been more appropriate for Schwarzenegger in endorsing McCain would have been in front of an abortion clinic.

Although McCain has the minimum pro-life record demanded by the voters of Arizona, in 2006, McCain voted in favor of using taxpayer funds to harvest stem cells from human embryos. He opposes a constitutional amendment to protect human life. And he frets that if Roe v. Wade were overruled, women's lives would be "endangered." This is the same John McCain who chides Mitt Romney today for "flip-flopping" on abortion. At least Romney flips and stays there.

I should point out here that McCain was endorsed yesterday by Republicans for Choice (as it refers to abortion, not paper or plastic OR salad dressings).

Of course the most important issue for pro-lifers is the Supreme Court. As long as Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, it doesn't matter how many hearts and minds we've changed. So it's not insignificant that McCain has called Justice Samuel Alito too conservative.

We ended up with David Hackett Souter when a Republican president was actually looking for an Alito. Imagine how bad it will be when the "Republican" president isn't even trying.

McCain uses the boilerplate language of all Republicans in saying he will appoint "strict constructionists." This is supposed to end all discussion of the courts. But if he's picking strict constructionists, he will have to appoint judges who will commit to overturning McCain-Feingold.

That could be our litmus test: Will you hold President McCain's signature legislation restricting speech unconstitutional?

In 2004, McCain criticized the federal marriage amendment, saying, it was "antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans." Really? Preventing the redefinition of a 10,000-year-old institution -- marriage, that is, not John McCain -- is part of the core philosophy of being a Republican? I had no idea.

I'm not a lawyer -- oh wait, yes, I am -- but Republicans were proposing to amend the Constitution, a process the Constitution specifically describes.

It's like saying it's antithetical to the core philosophy of Republicans to require presidents to be at least 35 years old. It's in the Constitution! And Republicans -- other than the ones who voted for McCain-Feingold -- support the Constitution. You might say it's part of our core philosophy.

Of course, back in 2004, McCain was considering running on a presidential ticket with John Kerry. Realizing that this would not help his chances to run as a Republican in 2008, when he would be a mere 120 years old, McCain quickly withdrew his interest in being on Kerry's ticket.

But he defended Kerry from the Bush campaign's suggestion that Kerry was not tip-top on national security, saying on the "Today" show: "No, I do not believe that he is, quote, weak on defense." So that was helpful.

McCain also explained to an admiring press corps why he wouldn't want to be anyone's vice president, not even a national defense champion like Kerry, citing the meager constitutional duties of the vice president as: (1) to assume the presidency if the president is incapacitated and (2) "to break a tie vote in the Senate." (At which point several members of the fawning horde were heard to remark, "What is this 'Constitution' you speak of, Senator?")

But McCain conveniently forgot the second of these constitutional duties just a year later when Vice President Cheney was required "to break a tie vote in the Senate" on a matter of utmost importance to liberals: federal judges.

Just one year after McCain had correctly identified one of two jobs of the vice president, he was indignant that a Republican vice president might actually exercise one of them. Better to let a gaggle of 14 Senate malcontents pick the president's judges for him.

As part of the "Gang of 14," McCain hysterically opposed allowing the vice president to break a tie on judicial nominations. Following the Constitution with regard to the role of the vice president, McCain said, "would be a terrible precedent." Yes, if members of Congress actually read the Constitution, they might realize McCain-Feingold is unconstitutional.

If Hillary is elected president, we'll have a four-year disaster, with Republicans ferociously opposing her, followed by Republicans zooming back into power, as we did in 1980 and 1994, and 2000. (I also predict more Oval Office incidents with female interns.)

If McCain is elected president, we'll have a four-year disaster, with the Republicans in Congress co-opted by "our" president, followed by 30 years of Democratic rule.

There's your choice, America.

Well, a lot has changed since I wrote the first of this three-part series. Huckabee is still in the race, but for what reason, no one knows. Supposedly, he's trying to get a VP nod from McCain, but that's ludicrous, since Minnesota Governor Pawlenty has that spot wrapped up with his non-stop campaigning for McCain. Right now, Huck is merely a spoiler, giving the election to McCain. But then again, who isn't giving the election to McCain? Well, besides Republican voters, that is. The media has all but crowned the 72-year-old J-Mac as the party nominee based on a mere handful of state primaries. Never mind that a bunch of those states had Democrats and Independents voting in the Republican primaries. For example, in Florida, Romney beat McCain among REPUBLICANS. Yet he lost the primary because of the independent votes. Meanwhile, a New York paper tried to claim that Romney has a chance of losing his own state of Massachusetts, altogether ignoring the polls that put him up by 20-30 percentage points over McCain.

How did we get to a point where the likely November matchup is Hillary versus McCain? After all the talk of getting rid of the establishment and going for fresh voices and faces, how is it that we end up with the epitome of the establishment; a first lady - who, if elected, will make the Bush-Clinton reign last for a total of 28 straight years - against a career senator who's been in office since I was three. Plus, as Chuck Norris once said, if the elderly McCain (4 years older than Reagan when Ronny won) wins, it is quite possible that the VP will serve out the end of McCain's term. [I guess the silver lining is the VP will be Pawlenty, and I wouldn't mind a President Pawlenty.]

As Mark Steyn said in his "A McClinton Consensus" column this past Sunday,

President McCain? Or Queen Hillary? Henry Kissinger said about the Iran/Iraq war that it's a shame they both can't lose. Conservatives have a slightly different problem: It's a shame that neither of them will lose — that, regardless of who takes the oath come January '09, the harmonious McCain-Clinton consensus policies on illegal immigration and Big Government solutions to global warming will prevail. Where's Neither-Of-The-Above when you need him?

All this begs the question, who would Darius prefer to see in November? Well, I'm glad you asked. The strikes against McCain are myriad, but in case it isn't obvious why he is such a deplorable candidate, here are a few problems with him. One, McCain-Feingold. Two, McCain-Kennedy. Both are utter pieces of legislative trash; the first a campaign "reform" bill that is so unconstitutional, the Supreme Court has been stripping it piece-by-piece, the latter an immigration bill that, besides having Ted Kennedy's name on it, was so anti-rule of law, it was laughed out of the building by all true conservatives. Furthermore, he graded an F on the Second Amendment, his voting record recently has put him in the "most liberal" category of Republican senators, and on abortion, he said that "in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade." He also said that he thinks Alito is TOO conservative. In other words, he values being a moderate and being liked more than being right. Plus, he lies about Romney all day long and then has the gall to claim that Romney is the dirty campaigner.

Now, on the other side of the aisle, I actually would prefer Clinton to win the nomination, since I believe she is relatively easy to defeat in the general election. However, I will not, as Ann Coulter half-seriously suggested she will do, campaign for Hillary if McCain wins today. But why not just leave McCain on the side of the political road right now, Super Tuesday? Why can't conservatives rally behind the man who has been endorsed by the MAJORITY of Christian leaders? Christians such as Rick Santorum (while he was a senator, he led the fight for social conservatism, and his "yes" was always yes), Dr. James Dobson, Hugh Hewitt, Ann Coulter, Wayne Grudem, Thomas Sowell, and Bob Jones (who would have ever thought that possible?) have all endorsed Willard "Mitt" Romney as their candidate.

Now for those who aren't convinced Romney's conversion to conservatism isn't legit... neither am I. However, as Coulter pointed out recently,

Romney's first race was against Sen. Teddy Kennedy -- whom he came closer to beating than any Republican ever had. If Romney needed to quote "The Communist Manifesto" to take out that corpulent drunk, all men of good will would owe him a debt of gratitude.

In a way, she's right, winning on conservative values is IMPOSSIBLE in Massachusetts. So Romney did what he had to do to get into power, then turned on the liberals.

After his term as governor, NARAL Pro-Choice America assailed Romney, saying: "(A)s governor he initially expressed pro-choice beliefs but had a generally anti-choice record. His position on choice has changed. His position is now anti-choice."

Plus, as a political analyst said the other day, Romney has painted himself into such a political corner that he could not switch back to moderate liberalism without completely ruining his political career. As I heard Santorum say on the radio last week, Romney had an authentic conversion on the issue of life. Most of his other supposedly "liberal" positions were much more moderate than Massachusetts was accustomed to in the past. I don't think it is fair to punish a political candidate for "seeing the light" when we wouldn't do that in our own private lives. We would welcome them with open arms. Why are Christians not so gracious with political "conversions?"

And when you hear Romney speak, he says mostly the right things, something you can't fake as long as he's been in the race. Eventually, a man's true convictions come to the top. Yet, Mitt's been spot on (except for a couple issues regarding government's role in health care and people's lives). His speech on the role of religion in public life was very powerful and, as Dr. Dobson referred to it, "magnificent." He is a man who lives his religious convictions, having been married to the same woman, his high school sweetheart, for 38 years, joining her in wedlock shortly after returning from a 2 1/2 year mission trip to France.

So, tonight, as the Minnesota Caucus gathers, I plan to vote for Mitt Romney. Those Huckabee supporters out there... consider carefully that your vote is in essence a vote for McCain.

"Nothing doth more hurt in a state than that
cunning men pass for wise." - Sir Francis Bacon

Dirty Politics

Mike Huckabee has been accused of running the dirtiest campaign of all the candidates this year. Which is interesting, considering that the governor claims to run only a positive, uplifting campaign; one that even Jesus would approve of. Well, let's look at the facts. His head campaign adviser said that "The negatives feel good. It's like being a boxer when you're young. To me, hitting somebody, knocking somebody down, is a great feeling. Firing out a negative ad just feels amazing." The adviser also said that he wants to kick Romney's teeth in. Gee, nice guy you got running your campaign, Huck.

Huckabee also pulled one of the scummiest political tricks I've ever seen, and then had the gall to claim innocent naiveté. Personally, I don't mind negative ads if they're true and not just political spin, but the stunt he pulled four weeks ago in Iowa goes beyond the limits by attempting to have his cake and eat it too. Does he think voters are that gullible? I guess Iowa voters were, but then again, they are from Iowa.

Poor Immigration Record

Governor Huckabee’s pattern was to ignore immigration laws, often in the name of Christianity... In 2001, Huckabee... pushed for legislation to provide driver’s licenses for illegals...

In 2001, Huckabee opposed a measure to require proof of citizenship to vote.

In 2005, Huckabee supported a bill that offered illegal immigrants in-state tuition rates and made them eligible for the same merit-based scholarships to Arkansas state colleges and universities as legal citizens. The bill would have violated federal law and was not enacted by the legislature.

In 2005, he opposed a bill that denied some state benefits to illegals and required proof of citizenship to vote... In this story, Huckabee called the measure “un-American... inflammatory... race-baiting and demagoguery.” He added that the bill “inflames those who are racist and bigots and makes them think there’s a real problem. But there’s not.” He then singled out State Senator Jim Holt, also an openly professing Christian, saying, “I drink a different kind of Jesus juice.”

So, in Huck's world, it is racist to believe in the rule of law, to support the LEGAL immigration of those people who want to have a better life, and oppose using taxpayer money to send illegal immigrants to college. And the whole "Jesus juice" comment leaves a bitter taste in my mouth; it's not something I think a Christian should say, belittling a fellow believer (and pastor) in public.

Pro-Big Government

"No one can read our Constitution without concluding that the people who wrote it wanted their government severely limited; the words 'no' and 'not' employed in restraint of government power occur 24 times in the first seven articles of the Constitution and 22 more times in the Bill of Rights." - Rev. Edmund A. Opitz

"Liberty has never come from the government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of government. The history of liberty is the history of resistance. The history of liberty is a history of the limitation of governmental power, not the increase of it." - Woodrow Wilson

I suppose some of you do not see any inherent harm in bigger, more powerful government nor see how, as Christians, we are called to fight for liberty of our fellow man. Yet many civilizations have crumbled throughout history because of the idea that a bigger government is always better and always benevolent to its denizens. In the Old Testament, this view helped cause the eventual collapse of the nation of Israel. The Israelites desired to have a king to protect them (instead of relying on God's sufficient protection); when in the end, it was the king who oppressed them and caused their downfall. Later, it happened with the Greeks and the Romans. Sir Edward Gibbon described the demise of freedom in ancient Greece quite eloquently,

In the end more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free.

So back to our subject... Governor Huckabee has consistently shown a willingness, nay, a desire to increase the size of government and to use it as a sort of "nanny" for the citizens.

During Huckabee’s term, Arkansas showed a net tax increase of $505 million, and the average Arkansan’s tax burden grew from $1,969 to $2,902. Governor Huckabee raised more taxes in 10 years in office than Bill Clinton did in his 12 years.

During Huckabee’s 10 years as governor, state spending more than doubled (from $6.6 billion to $16.1 billion), higher education and public schools got big increases, as did social services...

The conservative Cato Institute gave Huckabee an “F” for his final term as governor on its Fiscal Policy Report Card, saying, “Huckabee’s leadership has left taxpayers in Arkansas much worse off.” His grade was lower than 15 of the 21 Democrat Governors. His overall grade as governor was a D.

“[Huckabee] says he’s pro-family. If you’re raising taxes on the families of Arkansas, causing wives to go out and get jobs to make ends meet, that’s not pro-family.” - Former Republican Arkansas State Representative Randy Minton.

Another pet of Huck's was his intention to promote a national ban on smoking. Now, federal rights versus state rights aside, that sounds all nice and good. After all, what non-smoker doesn't enjoy a night out without getting a whiff of cigarette smoke? I certainly find the smell disgusting. But it is an extremely slippery slope, one fraught with loss of liberty for the sake of the majority's tyranny. For example, some California cities are now banning smoking inside people's homes. First the government decided it would keep citizens from smoking in public government-owned areas, then it decided it could force private businesses (i.e. restaurants and bars) to ban smoking on their premises, next the nanny state took it upon itself to ban it in cars with children present, and now finally (or maybe not so final, as some cities are already moving to ban it from streets) they ban the populace from smoking within their own homes.

Since when is it the government's right to criminalize vices? The only person harmed by smoking is the person doing it. The secondhand smoke-mongers would have you believe that the science proves that secondhand smoke is extremely dangerous and toxic. But this is not so; the studies showing health risks that supposedly "prove" this were conducted on people who were breathing the stuff all day, every day. An hour spent in a smoky bar on occasion isn't going to hurt you. Furthermore, why should the government be telling PRIVATE businesses how to run their business? I'm certain that most rural Minnesota bars have at least 70% of their patrons who are smokers, and those who go into that environment know what they're getting themselves into. As for how a Christian should view this issue... I never saw any indication that Jesus was for using the law to force someone to stop a bad habit or sinful act, but rather the person's own conscience and God's working in his or her heart. Free will is given us by our Creator, and we should do whatever we can to not take it away from others.

Okay, enough with that rabbit trail. In Huckabee's defense, he has recently seen the light on this issue, at least to some extent, and backed off of his support for a federal ban. However, methinks this is more due to political pressure than a thought-out understanding of the principles behind the matter, giving us one more example of how easily swayed the governor is.

Proponent of government-controlled education

The New Hampshire chapter of the National Education Association (NEA) has
endorsed Hillary Clinton and Mike Huckabee for the upcoming Primary elections. This is the first time in memory that they have recommended a Republican (in 2004 they endorsed Howard Dean). They likely chose Huckabee because... [he] has consistently opposed virtually all proposals for education reform, including school choice vouchers.

In his defense, he was also endorsed by the national homeschool group, the HSLDA. But if he were to get an endorsement from Planned Parenthood, would we really forget that fact if MCCL also endorsed him? No, of course not. We would most likely say that Planned Parenthood is seeing something of which MCCL isn't aware. After all, most abortion lobby groups are extremely shrewd and will not associate with anyone who shows any interest in saving lives. Plus, the HSLDA is primarily concerned with homeschooling rights, and not so much into reform within the public school realm. So, while Huckabee has shown mixed support of homeschooling, he has shown almost no support for reforming the monstrosity that is the public school system.

Preaches Populism

I suppose some may wonder what's wrong with populism? To some extent, nothing. But the root of populism is envy and covetousness, something we as Christians are to abhor. And the fruit of populism this century are best known by their other names: Soviet Socialism and National Socialism (Nazism). Appealing to the common man's base jealousy has wrought a lot of evil in this world, but rarely good. It stems from the idea that everyone has the RIGHT to be prosperous and that it isn't FAIR if someone does better than another. This is entirely false. Bill Gates' success didn't mean a bunch of people got poorer, but rather that many became wealthier. As Seán Lemass, the Irish Prime Minister in the early 20th century once said, "A rising tide lifts all boats." Our Declaration of Independence doesn't say that our inalienable rights include the right to not be poor, but instead the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." It would behoove us as Americans to remember those words.

Support from all the wrong people

Lastly, I will touch on the surprising lack of support for Huckabee from many Christian leaders while secular liberals are singing his praises. Focus Action, a political advocacy group put together by Dr. Dobson, gave a less-than-glowing analysis of Huckabee. Many prominent Christian conservatives are backing other candidates, while editorial writers for the New York Times (you know, that bastion of pro-Christian rhetoric) have been praising Huckabee, even AFTER he called homosexuality an "abomination." Frank Rich has repeatedly heaped his blessing on Huckabee, perhaps because he knows Huck will be an easy target come the general election. Frank Rich, for those who don't know him, oozes hatred of Christ and His followers in almost every one of his columns. So why the sudden love of Huckabee?

Meanwhile, and perhaps the most telling, the Huck can't even get his own state to back him. In a University of Arkansas poll a couple months ago, among all Presidential candidates in both parties, only 8% of Arkansans said they were supporting Mike Huckabee. Only a third of the Republican Arkansas legislators are supporting him.

Well, that's all folks. Sorry it was so long, but what can I say? My third and last installment will be regarding my alternative to the Huck and some of my reasoning for that choice.

[Updated Jan. 25, 2008: corrected missing third paragraph]

Just before Christmas, I promised a blog post on why I would NOT be voting for Mike Huckabee (at least in the primaries) and why I think other evangelical Christians should likewise abstain from the Huckster (though it appears that he is now assured of not being able to win the nomination, and will possibly not be around come caucus day in Minnesota).

Well, that post (or should I say, posts) has arrived at the station. Hopefully it has some semblance of clarity and order, since I am borrowing from different sources. For the sake of space, to get all the details, one will have to follow the links I have provided. Please understand this isn't intended as a personal attack on the man; for all I know, he is a very genuine believer and a nice guy. But "a nice guy" or "good Christian" doesn't necessarily make him the best candidate. And here's why:

Michael Huckabee is NOT a conservative.

Yes yes, I know Huckabee is a pretty solid abortion opponent, and supports almost all socially conservative positions. Yippee. Guess what? There are at least a couple other candidates of whom I can say the same. As the title of the reality show in the opening scene of the movie "The Stepford Wives" reads, I CAN DO BETTER!

This letter by an Arkansas man (and self-described "conservative, evangelical, politically-active father of four") lays out seven reasons why he will not again vote for his former governor. In his first reason, he says

It’s hard to go after Democrats with a conservative message when your Republican Governor is out front releasing violent criminals, providing state benefits to illegals, pushing tax increases, expanding government spending and programs, and constantly walking an ethical tight-rope.

A column in the Wall Street Journal quotes Phyllis Schlafly, one of the premier conservative Christian pro-family voices in America, as saying that Huckabee "destroyed the conservative movement in Arkansas, and left the Republican Party in shambles." Betsy Hagan, a key backer of his early runs for office, was very disappointed with his record. "He was pro-life and pro-gun, but otherwise a liberal," she says. "Just like Bill Clinton he will charm you, but don't be surprised if he takes a completely different turn in office."

“I think if they knew [his record] it would totally de-energize them... his policies are just wrong.” – Former Republican Arkansas State Senator Jim Holt

Just what did he do to acquire the ire of these committed Christians? For one, he released a shocking amount of criminals.

"Over the course of his 10 and a half years as governor, Huckabee granted a staggering 1,033 clemencies... That was more than double the combined 507 that were granted during the 17 and a half years of his three predecessors: Bill Clinton, Frank White, and Jim Guy Tucker."

Another paper reported this scary statistic:

Here are the figures for neighboring states since 1996, when Huckabee took office (and keep in mind the population of these states is nearly 20 times [Arkansas']):
>> Louisiana – 213.
>> Mississippi – 24.
>> Missouri – 79.
>> Oklahoma – 178.
>> Tennessee – 32.
>> Texas – 98 (includes 36 inmates released because they were convicted on drug charges with planted evidence).

Total: 624 vs. Huckabee's 703.

This disgusting disregard for the justice system and wanton abuse of power is exemplified in his handling of the Wayne Dumond case. For a fantastic write-up of the entire case, go here. Basically, Huckabee pressured a parole board into releasing a convicted rapist, who then went out and murdered two women. The apparent motive for his desire to release Dumond was that his victim was a distant relation to Bill Clinton, and thus Huckabee let his dislike of President Clinton overwhelm his common sense. What's worse, Huckabee has repeatedly LIED about his involvement in the Dumond case, claiming that he did not exert any pressure on the parole board, something FOUR members of the board contradict.

And his proclivity for commuting sentences wasn't just from a naive willingness to believe in some inherent goodness in mankind (though I'm sure that's part of it). It also stemmed from Huckabee's easily-led nature:

A 2004 investigative article by the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette found that prisoners had a better chance of being granted clemency by Huckabee if they had a mutual acquaintance, labored at the governor’s mansion under a prisoner work program, or a minister intervened on their behalf. Prosecutors say Huckabee was more inclined to release or reduce the sentences of prisoners if he had direct contact with them or was lobbied by those close to him.

What this says to me is that this is a man who abuses power, misunderstands the depth of deprivation in man, is a lamb easily led to slaughter, and is profoundly dishonest when caught (kinda reminds me of a different former governor of Arkansas). If he had merely made a mistake and had owned up to it immediately, then I might cut him some slack (though after reading the full story linked above, I don't think he deserves any leniency). But when he, a professing Christian, blatantly and continually lies about a decision that later cost two women their lives...

Next time, I will further discuss Governor Huckabee's less-than-stellar record on other issues, including immigration, taxes, his own corruption scandals, and education. Also, I will mention the utter lack of support from his own state. If you're thinking of supporting Huckabee, please reconsider! Remember, anti-Christs and false teachers don't come from without, but from within the body of believers... let me be clear, I'm not calling Huckabee an anti-Christ, but that if someone is going to politically fool Christians, it's going to be a professing Christian, am I right? So we have to show extra discernment of those in our midst.

For my third and last installment, I intend on giving my alternative candidate choice (now that Fred Thompson has left the building) and my reasons for choosing that person. Suffice it to say, I can do better!