One of my favorite Mike Huckabee quotes (leaving aside John Edwards at the beauty salon): "Life doesn't end at birth."
Another blog I'm strongly recommending is Tennessee for Huckabee, with this link: http://tn4Huckabee.blogspot.com . Today, he reprints a fine Michael Medved column, one that makes a strong case for current GOP candidates as a whole lot better than those in the past. Read it and see if you don't agree. Here's a comment I made to tn4huck, whom I'm doing my "hot pursuit" number on in an effort to get him to sign up as a "Palin Fan."
And here's another one walking through the gates into the Palin camp: "http://kazoolist.blogspot.com/2007/08/palin-for-veep.html Kazoo read Adam Brickley's (http://palinforvp.blogspot.com/) original essay on The Case for Sarah, and it made eminent sense to him. I urge you to read his piece. I believe that by Feb. 5, 2008, Super Tuesday, we may just have our 777 Bloggers for Sarah. If we "only" have 599, however, I'll still be ready to claim victory.
I don't see Michael Medved's columns as often as I should. Generally, I love the guy. He's absolutely right -- this year's Republican candidates offer more diversity and better records of accomplishment than we generally get.
I wrote a column about three weeks ago going through the Republican choices for V-P over more than 50 years. Frankly, it's a sorry lot.
Nixon? Twice V-P, resigned later as President, although not before his own V-P, Agnew, resigned in a bribery scandal. Dan Quayle? Well, Sen. Quayle was a nice man, but he came across as dumb as a doorknob. Dick Cheney? Again, a good man (with a great wife and daughters), but he has a serious health problem and no plans to run for the presidency or any other office.
Presidential candidates (Republicans and Democrats) often seem to make their V-P choices out of a hat. When they're chosen to carry a particular state, the ticket ends up losing it, as happened with Nixon-Agnew and Maryland in 1968.
After the 1972 election, one of Nixon's top aides asked why he had kept Agnew on the ticket. The President replied, "No one in his right mind would want to assasinate me."
Most of us sitting at home watching FOX or CNN assume the presidential nominee goes through some calculating -- and even agonizing -- choice for a VP who is "thoroughly vetted." That just doesn't happen.
Yes, we do want to "push" somebody like Sarah Palin, an absolutely terrific candidate, on the presidential nominee. Why? Because we don't need another Spiro T. Agnew or even a Dan Quayle.
If worse comes to worse and Mrs. Clinton gets elected, we want someone there -- preferably a female -- who would be a ferocious competitor in 2012. We don't want someone who can carry one state. We want someone who will eventually carry the nation.
On the issues: as my earlier column (which will expand a little and become tomorrow's column) says: There are a lot of "conservative" candidates standing foursquare for the Family and children who don't practice what they preach. They tell us the lies they think we long to hear.
When it comes to have a large and loving family, Sarah Palin isn't relying on slogans. In fact, she goes home everyday to just such a situation. When it comes to political corruption, she doesn't just say she's "agin" it, but rather exposes the wrong-doers. Ironic as it seems to say it, she's putting her home state -- by far the largest one geographically -- on the map.
Gee, what if we had a candidate who truly was wonderful? Short answer: we do.
Stephen R. Maloney