Why Conservatives MUST Back McCain

All onliners who want to know how to help John McCain should go to an important resource: http://mccainbloggerresources.blogspot.com/. On that site, Kathy Morrison has many suggestions on how you can help build you own small (or large!) coalitions for Senator McCain. I'll review some of her points here on Monday. Hope you all had a great weekend!


NOTE: For those of you interested in the Republican Veepstakes, take a look at Sunday's piece by super-columnist Jack Kelly. He likes both Chris Cox, former congressman and current head of the SEC, and Mitt Romney. You can find Jack's column at: http://post-gazette.com/forum. Scroll down to his name. (My guess is that Romney will get the nod, partly because of his electoral strength in his home state of Michigan.)

I'm reprinting below a guest editorial by Larry Perrault of Texas. You can find this column -- and many other fine ones -- at: http://larryperrault.blogspot.com.

Why Conservatives MUST Support John McCain
I have been resting from my Blog since Mike Huckabee withdrew from the campaign for the Republican nomination on March 4th, after John McCain secured enough delegates to clinch the nomination. I must soon be about changing many of the objects on the Blog, including revising its primary objectives. There are always current events I want to discuss and in fact, some specific writing that I want to focus on.

But for right now, it is a priority that I establish my resolve to support John McCain for the fall election and state why I believe this objective is critical. My feelings are independent of but unsurprisingly consistent with Mike Huckabee's expressed intention to direct his infinitely greater influence to the same end.

With respect to me, some may find my disposition odd, given my history of dissent and criticism of conservative drift in The Republican Party. Perhaps I am a little different, but I certainly think the immediate situation is a LOT different and I will explain why I think so.

It is important first, to briefly explain my own background. I am a lifelong conservative who began reading conservative thinkers and ideals as a teenager in the 1970’s. After developing multiple sclerosis in the 1990’s, I became an activist participant in Republican politics and the convention process. I went to the 1998 Republican Party of Texas convention armed with flyers about my problems with John McCain.

Even today, on most of the standard conservative catalog of McCain infidelities, I may generally agree. And in fact, I declined to support or even vote for George W. Bush, whom at the time I saw as only marginally better than McCain.

I didn't and don't dislike Bush. I just thought he was not constrained by sound conservative principles.The profligate spending and federal government usurpation of the past six years have born that concern out. But looking back, perhaps Bush was more politically constrained.

What has become clear is that on the things that he strongly believes, John McCain has been an uncommonly resolute United States Senator, including on urgent issues on which we agree. And, he has run his campaign this year in an uncommonly civil and gracious fashion.

Let me explain why a few of those points of resolve and agreement rise categorically above any list of disagreements:First, all of us other than some Ron Paul enthusiasts understand that on the primary duty of the federal government and the president, defending the American people and their interest, John McCain is not only with us but most assertively so and most prepared for the responsibility.

America’s physical defense is of course, constitutionally established as a priority for the federal government generally and the chief executive specifically, who is the commander-in-chief of America’s armed forces.

And in a world that technology has brought close and in which America is the technological and military supreme power, defending American principles of humanity is a duty the neglect of which is a human dereliction. As we know, today, these concerns are not incidental but pressing priorities.Secondly, there is another great crisis upon us that some have warned of but many Americans seem to have slept through the approach of.

For decades now, we have had warnings of the long-term insolvency in government’s accrued liabilities versus reasonably expected revenues. But, when plans to devise a correction have been raised, political rhetoric has killed the effort. In fact we have only continued to widen the shortfall.

Well guess what? We are only barely talking about a future problem, now. For the next decade the entitlement liabilities will devour the disbursements of the federal budget. Discretionary expenditures will be cut. And the gap won’t be near filled. The yawning debt will be expanded. New taxes, benefit cuts, and accelerated currency printing (i.e., rapid inflation/devaluation of money) will be the only options to try to meet the liability.

Unless a dramatic change is made to boost productivity and revenue (a massive tax reform – like The Fair Tax plan) is implemented, all three of these supposedly more modest solutions would probably be tried. But, the net effect would be to make matters worse.

John McCain has the resolve to resist these efforts.Whatever course is taken to infuse the system, America will have to stop the bleeding; that is, the spending. Say what we might about John McCain, there has not been a more resolute actor in Washington against budgetary extravagance.

Under the Bush administration, a Republican majority expanded government at a rate not seen for forty years, since Lyndon Johnson and a Democratic Congress. Most dramatically, these Republicans greatly increased the Medicare entitlement that along with Social Security was already long-term insolvent. John McCain was among the few who opposed this action. There probably is not a more stark demonstration of why fiscal conservatives like Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn and former Senator and economist Phil Gramm are enthusiastically supporting McCain.

Thirdly, we are looking at long-term social imprudence prevailed upon the country if Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton appoint the next generation of federal jurists, including 2-4 Supreme Court justices. The folly will be broad and deep, but for example, the social calumny of “legal” abortion will be guaranteed until at least the middle of this century. I always emphasize that, as hard as it is to believe, the most tragic victims of this would not be the innocent lives lost over what will have been 60-80 years.

God has always dealt with and will continue to handle the deaths of innocents. They are a class that will bypass this vale of tears and be delivered directly to perfect justice.However, as usual, the true sufferers and victims will be our children that have to live in a society that has assimilated this most fundamental and grave selfish incivility. Why will neighbors and commercial relationships be afforded a respect that is not held up even for our own offspring? Relatively speaking, dog-eat-dog sounds like an innocuous social standard.

For all of last year, until he withdrew on March 4th, I was a Mike Huckabee supporter. I studied Mike Huckabee’s record and campaign for over a year, and found the supposedly “conservative” criticisms of him to be misrepresentation.

But, most remarkable about his candidacy was his distinctive positive and engaging approach, which often disarmed and engaged even liberals who disagreed with his policy conclusions, but trusted Huckabee’s honesty and sincerity, which was particularly ironic in that those were precisely the thoughtful qualities that many conservatives were suspicious of. In defending him, I often found myself oddly cast as a “liberal,” just like he was.But, John McCain conducted a campaign that was likewise civil and genuine.

For the sake of the nation and an American model for an elevated disposition, it is critical that conservatives rally around John McCain and engage him by putting their concerns before this genuine and resolute American patriot.

Let’s help him with everything we have and ask him to help with our sincere and noble concerns for America.

MIKE HUCKABEE'S FLAG-WAVING RACISM

GOV. SARAH PALIN: I know you're at Ft. Benning for your son's graduation from infantry training, and that you've recently visited this site. You and Track are much in our thoughts and prayers. Please keep "tuning in." As young American patriots, your son and his friend John Bates are in exactly the right place.

My next column will appear tonight (Saturday), after the South Carolina Primary. If John McCain wins in SC, he probably will end up as the GOP's nominee. If he doesn't, then things will continue to remain very complicated. The Florida Primary occurs in 10 days and "Super Tuesday" will be in 17 days. Will we have a nominee by Feb. 6? Anyone who knows the answer to that question should let the rest of us in on it. Also, is it just me, or does Obama look like someone who's going to be nearly impossible to beat in the general election? As the saying goes, "we live in interesting times."


One of my biggest problems with "Mike" Huckabee is his embrace of the Confederate Flag, a symbol of racism, slavery, and segregation to many in S.C. and the nation. A little good ole Arkansas racism seems to be the way to get some vote from the Pavlovian "evangelicals," who make up most of his supporters. A little offense against Black folks isn't going to hurt him in in the heart of Dixie.

Of course, the Confederate flag means different strokes to different folks. To African-Americans, a group that doesn't "like Mike," the flag stands for racism, slavery, segregation, and humiliation. To the group that drives dusty pick-ups and drinks throws Blue Ribbon cans out the window, the flag reflects a time when Black people "knew their place."

Mike Huckabee claims to be a Christian -- a claim for which I see no evidence. I don't take him at his word, because I don't see any deeds. I see another Southerner out conning the boobs.

Of course, many politicians in the Republican Party (including Mark Foley and Duke Cunningham) have made the faith claim. But I have no earthly (or heavenly) idea what Mike Huckabee believes -- if anything. He exemplifies the stylistics of a backwater form of what passes for Christianity in rural areas of the Deep South, but I don't see anything more substantial. He seems to love his neighbors, but not the ones two streets away.

As I've tried hard (but failed) to explain to Larry Perrault, a big backer of Pastor Mike, people can claim to believe anything, and of course some of them believe nothing. I increasingly tend to think Mike falls in that category. And I'm beginning to wonder about Larry, who seems to have two issues: abortion and gay marriage, which happen to Huckabee's key issues. For someone like Larry, disagreeing with him constitutes a deviation from "The Word of God."

Huckabee knows (and so does Larry) that the chances for a constitutional amendment on either issue are about the same as polar bears migrating to Miami. (The last effort at an amendment on abortion was in 1983, and it fell 18 votes short of passage in the Senate.) Mike knows there's no chance for such amendments, but if that waves his rhetorical version of the bloody sheet in front of the primitives, some grunt and some drool.

The only way we can determine an individual's beliefs -- be it Larry or Pastor Mike -- is by their acts. "By their fruits ye shall know them." If the fruit is rotten, well . . .Mike's "fruits" right now seem to be confined to cozying up to the Primitive Baptists and racists crawling out of the S. Carolina swamps.

The push-polling on his behalf is Exhibit B of the racism and foulness that afflicts his campaign. There has been an effort in 2000 and another one this year by Huckabee supporters (Christians all, one presumes) to make false statements about John McCain. Pastor Huckabee could stop this, but he chooses not to. The claim made in the sewers of South Carolina politics is that John McCain "faithered an illegitimate Black child." As I've explained, John McCain and his wife Cindy adopted a dark-skinned orphan in BanglaDesh, and she's been their daughter for many years.

As I mentioned, Mike Huckabee could stop the slurs about the McCains, but he chooses not to. Are there enough good Republicans in S. Carolina to repudiate Mike's tactics? I guess we shall see soon.

The admonitions of Jesus Christ are difficult ones, and the "evangelical favorite" is falling far short of living up to them. He's Goomer Pyle with an attitude -- and not a good attitude.

Regarding another Huckabee supporter, Triva, of Greenville, SC, she and I have had an interesting "relationship." She made many comments on this blog, and I reprinted all of them. I made a few comments on her blog, and she reprinted none of them. I guess that struck her as fair.

Triva is a homeschooler, a group that strongly backs Mike Huckabee. She doesn't send her children to public school in Greenville, SC, because, as she explained, "the schools aren't good enough." In the Deep South, the "not-so-good schools" are code words for having too many people that don't resemble "us."

I told her that her views on the free exchange of information didn't augur well for preparing her children -- many pictures of whom she prints on her blog -- for life in a diverse world. She didn't appreciate the advice, mainly because she hasn't yet grasped the fact that some people disagree with her! There are occasional signs that Triva could actually be a good person, but somehow that doesn't look like a realistic possibility. Self-righteousness and goodness don't go well together.

She doesn't like me, and right about now the feeling has become mutual. As for Mike, he reminds us why so many people continue to view Southern Baptists as symbols of narrowness, sexism, meanness, and intolerance.

In the 2000 SC Primary, John McCain backed off on criticizing having the Confederate Flag fly above the capital. In 2008, McCain called his earlier position "an act of cowardice." Of course, John McCain is a 20th century model of American heroism.

Somehow, I have the strong feeling that terms like cowardism and heroism have little meaning to Mike Huckabee, who is the former but not the latter.

McCain: American Hero, Patriot, Christian

Mike Devine, who posts under the name "Gamecock" sent me an article that's critical of Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, and just about everybody other than Fred Thompson. It centers on the South Carolina primary, and you can see it by clicking on: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200801/POL20080109d.html

The article may tell you more about SC politics than you want to know, but you won't find anything better between now and the Palmetto State primary. I expect Larry Perrault and SJ Reidhead can't wait to respond it -- especially SJ (Cindy), who hails from SC.

I think all the article's criticisms, including those of Mike Huckabee, are somewhere between petty and totally unfair. For Huck fans, the accusations are mostly "inside baseball" stuff about the conservative wing of the So. Baptist Church and the VERY conservative wing. In the mind of some Baptists, Mike chose the "wrong" side in a denominational struggle. Talk about arcana.

I like Mike Devine (Gamecock) a lot, but his support of Thompson, like the Fred Campaign itself, is embarrassing. Fred is the laziest of candidates, and he's the worst when it comes to raising money. After 9/11, Fred said, "Now is not the time to leave [the Senate]." Shortly thereafter, he left -- to join the cast of a television show (Richard Wolf's "Law and Order") that missed few opportunities to bash the military and the GWB segment of the country. Frankly, Fred should be ashamed of himself.

"Yes, we have no bananas," when bananas is an analogue to perfect candidates.

I criticize Mike Huckabee myself, but anyone with sense will see that he, like several other candidates, is a good one and a man with some remarkable political achievements.As for John McCain, yes, he is a "maverick," that is, someone who thinks for himself -- wow, how exotic.

He has been pro-life and pro-military for his entire life. He is a Christian, which is a term that does not and should not have a narrow meaning. Of great significance, he's an American hero who underwent torture for many years.

Of great note, he has tackled issues (including immigration and campaign finance) where others have relied on pandering to an increasingly clueless "base." That's a group which believes the answer to real, pressinging problems is to "just say NO." On campaign finance: it has turned into a vehicle for re-electing incumbents (Pelosi, Murtha, Obey, Waxman, Rangel) unto perpetuity.

McCain's approach may have had its flaws, but anybody who doesn't see that the current financing system is a nightmare for representative democracy has not been paying attention.

For Huck supporters, they need to see that -- in many ways -- McCain is a lot like Mike Huckabee, although without the Southern accent. Mike and John both get criticized at least as much for their virtues as their faults. At times it appears the only people who like them are voters (and not just in states like Iowa and New Hampshire).

My point is that we need to recognize that candidates who disagree with us on one or more issues are not therefore beyond the pale. Heck, even in my case, I'm not always right.

May the best man win.

Huckabee: Beginning of the End?

Like all other fans of Senator John McCain, I congratulate him on the endorsements by the Des Moines Register and the Boston Globe. In many ways, the quasi-endorsement of McCain by The Economist of London might be the most important. I'll discuss tomorrow The Economist's assessment of the Senator -- and its equally important insights on why Mike Huckabee is not an appropriate nominee for President. The many people online, especially Brad Marston and the other members of Team McCain, have impressed me deeply. Would John McCain make a good President? Frankly, I believe he'd make an excellent one. I believe the same about Rudy Giuliani, and the nomination of either man would please me greatly. -- Steve Maloney

Note: The following (in italics) is a comment by the Rev. (?) Don Spitz, a strong Huckabee supporter, to my column below. The Rev. Spitz is one of the first supporters of a major candidate to endorse mass murderers (Paul Hill and Olympic Park bomber Eric Rudolph). I believe he helps me make my point. By the way, I'm personally opposed to abortion in just about all its forms, but unlike the Rev. Spitz, I don't confuse myself with God Almighty.
I believe that constiutionally, abortion is a matter for the states to decide, which would happen in the unlikely case that Roe v. Wade is overturned, a point apparently lost on Mike Huckabee and Don Spitz, a leader in the Army of God Terrorist Organization.

Rev. Don Spitz said...Paul Hill and Eric Rudolph did the right thing in stopping those babykilling abortionists. You on the other hand, support the murder of helpless babies. You are much worse.SAY THIS PRAYER: Dear Jesus, I am a sinner and am headed to eternal hell because of my sins. I believe you died on the cross to take away my sins and to take me to heaven. Jesus, I ask you now to come into my heart and take away my sins and give me eternal life.


Huckabee: Beginning of the End?
I see that Larry Perrault, a staunch supporter of Gov. Mike Huckabee, has begun attacking me again on his blog. Larry generally spends his time writing endless columns devoted to establishing that Gov. Huckabee didn't really say what he said and didn't do what he did. Larry despises every other Republican candidate and has said that if Mike doesn't get the nomination, he will sit home on Election Day cuddling his blankie and his binky.

Mike Huckabee is not a bad man, but he's a careless individual. He surrounds himself with supporters, such as Larry, who are theocrats, people who would be much more comfortable in John Calvin's era than in 21st century America.

Some of Huckabee's supporters are anti-Catholic, such as Rev. Rude of Iowa, who denounced Sam Brownback for being too, well, "Catholic." Most evangelical Protestants have made a peace, perhaps an uneasy one, with Catholicism, but many have not.

As Mike zipped up the lips of Rev. Rude, he failed to make any sort of definitive statement about evangelicals who are strongly anti-Catholic. I have no idea what Mike's specific thoughts are on Roman Catholicism, and that's something he must address. He certainly needs to speak forcefully about what he's done, if anything, to eradicate the Rev. Rude types from his campaign. Saying that he's pleased Rude "apologized" is not enough -- by far.

Huckabee has recently made anti-Mormon statements, directed at Mitt Romney, in an interview with the New York Times. Mike doesn't seem to understand -- or care? -- that Mormons are an important element of the Republican Party in states like Utah, Idaho, Nevada, Arizona, and California. Mike needs to apologize for raising the canard that Mormons believe that "Satan and Jesus are brothers."

Remember, Mike, there are six million Mormons in America, and almost all who are of age vote.

One of the biggest problems Mike will face is his support from America-haters like Dr. Laurence White, a Lutheran pastor in Houston. (Dr. White is Larry Perrault's favorite preacher.) In his essay "God and Caesar," White talks at length about how contemporary America is as bad -- or worse? -- than Nazi Germany in the late 1930s. White suggests that he is like the German preachers (he doesn't mention Catholic Germans) who were persecuted and executed by the Nazis.

On September 25, 2007, on his blog, Mike Huckabee reprinted Dr. White's column entitled "The Election Cannot be About Electability," which used some material from "God and Caesar." Huckabee's supporters chimed in with responses about how America is rapidly descending into Hades.

Frankly, it's not possible to understand an important segment of the Huckabee constituency without reading "God and Caesar." It's an amazing political document, and it's not something Huckabee will be sending out with his Christmas cards.

In a previous column about "God and Caesar," I said the following: "I quote the piece extensively, and my conclusion is that White is (1) basically calling for a violent revolution by Christians against American civil society; (2) encouraging "pro-life-killers" like Paul Hill and Eric Rudolph; (3) writing a document that sounds uncomfortably like an American Mein Kampf in targeting certain groups and institutions -- including homosexuals and the public school system -- for supposedly destroying the moral core of society."

If a Rudy Giuliani, a John McCain, or a Mitt Romney were associated with someone as odious as Dr. White, their campaigns would soon come to an end. A Laurence White is the equivalent for a candidate of an anvil around the neck.

What Laurence White and Larry Perrault fail to understand is that this is in fact a "government by, of, and for the people." Sometimes, the people will disagree with us on important issues, including abortion. That doesn't mean we can ignore them -- or treat them with contempt. It means that politics in a free country is a dialogue that goes on . . . and on . . . and on.

The kind of contempt for others -- even those who are "wrong" -- that went on during Calvinism and the Inquisition is not appropriate in 2007. If Mike Huckabee wants to win the nomination and the presidency, he needs to outline exactly where he stands on other religions, including not only Catholicism and Mormonism, but also Judaism and other faiths practiced in America. He doesn't have to say that he agrees with them, only that he truly respects them.

He also needs to repudiate -- to condemn -- people like Rev. Rude, Rev. Laurence White, Rev. Don Spitz, and Larry Perrault. Otherwise, he will be carrying around the political equivalent of a time bomb. As you'll note, there are lot of "Reverends" whose actions and words are very un-Reverend like.

I know where serious candidates like Giuliani, McCain, and Romney stand on such issues -- they're in favor of tolerance, respect, and basic decency. But do we really have any idea where Huckabee stands? Mike, it's put up or shut up time.

Let me add this about the Rev. Don Spitz: he exemplifies the kind of craziness that's gathered on the edges of the Huckabee candidacy. The Don Spitzes, Paul Hills, Eric Rudolphs -- and their intellectual mentors, such as Laurence White -- are just plain dangerous.

MIKE HUCKABEE: DECISON TIME ON AMERICA-HATING SUPPORTERS

Blogger Larry Perrault has accused me of "vomit[ing]" on his spiritual mentor, Dr. Laurence White, pastor of Our Savior Lutheran (OSL) Church in Houston. It's true that I regard Dr. White as a purveyor of anti-American (and anti-Christian) rhetoric, the kind that drives mentally and spiritually deficient individuals (I've cited abortion site killers Paul Hill and Eric Rudolph) to violence.

As to White's relentless anti-Americanism, I've cited the preacher's own words in his disturbing speech/essay called "God and Caesar," where he compares America to Nazi Germany. He says:

[In the early years of the Third Reich] ". . . most Christians looked the other way while innocent people were slaughtered and a nation was led down the path to destruction. I would submit to you this evening that we [in America] find ourselves in a similar predicament today. "

White adds: "Once again the innocents are being slaughtered, the country is being led down the path to destruction, and Christians, by and large, are looking the other way. America finds itself today in the midst of a moral catastrophe. We have cast aside the most basic standards of human decency. We have broken marriages and fractured families.

He continues: "Our youth are losing their way and often their lives in a maze of alcohol and drugs. We live in the midst of a culture that mistakes lust for love and tolerates the vilest perversions as acceptable alternate lifestyles while pestilence stalks the land. Our public schools have become facilitators for fornication and procurers for the abortionists knife."

White also says: "America has sown the wind of immorality and we are reaping the whirlwind of destruction and death. We have degenerated into a nation rolling in luxury, reveling in excess, rollicking in pleasure, revolting in morals, and rotting in sin. Personal responsibility, duty and honor have been abandoned in our mindless pursuit of instant gratification for our every desire."

This is more than a preacher jeremiad. Frankly, it sounds like a call for violent revolution.

Here's the link to "God and Caesar," which I urge you to read in its entirety: http://mtio.com/articles/bissar55.htm

Just prior to the Ames (Iowa) Straw Poll, Mike Huckabee disassociated himself from an evanglical Protestant supporter (Rev. Ride) who made anti-Catholic statements. It would seem to be the time for him to do the same with Dr. White and Larry Perrault (who blogs at: http://larryperrault.blogspot.com/

I've compared Dr. White's thoroughgoing blast at America with Osama bin Laden's similar attacks on the U.S. and Western culture. Substitute Islam for evangelical religiosity and the two men basically are saying the same thing about our society. They are calling for its overthrow.

Mike Huckabee's blog reprinted Dr. White's recent condemnation American politics, complete with an ethusiastic endorsement from the omnipresent Larry Perrault. You can read these strange documents on Mike's blog at: http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Blogs.View&Blog_id=478. Note that White compares the current situation in America with the "holocaust." Essentially, the letter says it would be preferable to elect Hillary Clinton rather than one of the candidates from "the Republican establishment."

Here's what Larry Perrault said in an accompanying letter mainly attacking me for criticizing White's apocalyptic rhetoric and distaste for America: "Just look at the [White] letter and consider that America is well entrenched into a mortal social sickness." (Note: It turns out that the "social sickness" refers to the fact that most Americans don't agree with Larry Perrault and Laurence White.)

Understand that Perrault is condemning a society where four-out-of-five people identify themselves as Christians. It is the most Christian -- and the most charitable -- society on earth.

What White and Perrault are criticizing basically is that most Americans practice a form of Christianity that's anathema to them. Their condemnations of society exemplify smugness, sanctimony, and spiritual arrogance.

The vast majority of Mike Huckabee's supporters are decent, god-fearing individuals, and they're certainly people who love their country. They certainly have issues with the tawdry elements of American popular culture, but they also recognize that this is an extremely diverse, pluralistic society -- not a theocracy.

Candidate Huckabee has a decision to make: Is he a serious presidential canidate, or is he basically the captive of a small number of extremists in the evangelical movement? From all evidence, Mike is a patriot, not someone with a deep hatred of this nation. He doesn't need overheated supporters like Dr. Ride, or Dr. White, or Larry Perrault.

Stephen R. Maloney

NOTE; IN RECENT WEEKS, I'VE PROPOSED AN AMENDMENT THAT CONGRESS AND THE STATES PROBABLY WOULD PASS. IT WOULD REDUCE THE ANNUAL NUMBER OF ABORTIONS IN AMERICA BY ROUGHLY 200,000 -- PERHAPS MANY MORE OVER TIME. PEOPLE LIKE PERRAULT AND WHITE HAVE SHOWN NO INTEREST IN IT. I FEAR THAT'S BECAUSE THEY LIKE BEING "PRO-LIFE . . . FOR THE SAKE OF BEING PRO-LIFE." THESE ARE THE PEOPLE MIKE HUCKABEE WAS ADDRESSING WHEN HE SAID, "LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION, BUT IT DOESN'T END AT BIRTH."

SOME EVANGELICALS -- VERY FEW IN NUMBER -- APPEAR TO BE MAKING A CAREER OUT TALKING THE PRO-LIFE MESSAGE WITHOUT ACTUALLY DOING ANYTHING TO REDUCE ABORTIONS AND INCREASE ADOPTIONS.

Note 2: If you go the Our Savior Lutheran Church website, you will notice Dr. White preaching to what appears to be an all-white (or nearly all-white) congregation in a comfortable middle-class section of Houston. That causes a problem, becuase it means the preacher (and his flock) are unlikely to have much understanding of the vastly different world inhabited by most of humanity, especially the women who end up having abortions. I'll write about that next.


-----------------------------
Excerpt from next blog piece (quotes from Elizabeth George's superb novel What Came Before He Shot Her:

(Multiracial Dix D'Court, a kind and loving man, to his multiracial girlfriend Kendra, who lives in depressed area of London with three children basically dropped off at her doorstep): "You ever think about how God works?"

Her response: "Man, I tell you: No God I'm familiar with has ever lived in this part of town."

[God supposedly does live in Rev. White's part of Houston, and that's why he will never understand Kendra or her children. ]

At one point in the novel Kendra talks about her niece, "Ness," to a rather stiff white woman from Social Services. The white lady is talking about the need to get to the root-cause of Ness's problems (truancy, drug overuse, constant indulgence in sex. and an attempted mugging -- all at age 15).

Here's what Kendra, who deserves an award as surrogate mother of the year, is thinking: " . . . She asked Fabia Bender [the social worker] a logical question. How much more than a dead father and an institutionalized mother was necessary to the understanding of Ness's fury? And what did an understanding her fury have to do with keeping her from ruining her life? Because, Kendra Campbell told the social worker, some serious life-ruining was what Ness Campbell had in mind. She saw her existence as destroyed already, so she'd decided to go along for the ride."

[I submit that people like Laurence White have probably never once listened carefully to person like Kendra Campbell or Ness. By the way, Jesus apparently communicated with such people regularly.]

LAURENCE WHITE AND LARRY PERRAULT: EVANGELICAL EXTREMISM (AND THE DESTRUCTION OF THE HUCKABEE CAMPAIGN)

NOTE: ON THURSDAY, SEPT. 27, I'LL BE WRITING ABOUT HOUSTON BLOGGER LARRY PERRAULT AND HIS SPIRITUAL MENTOR, DR. LAURENCE WHITE, A HOUSTON PREACHER -- AND A MAN I CALL "EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANITY'S OSAMA." THE PIECE WILL DEAL WITH THE DEEP HATRED OF AMERICA FOUND IN THE EXTREMIST SEGMENT OF THE EVANGELICAL "COMMUNITY." I WILL BE ASKING MIKE HUCKABEE TO DISSOCIATE HIMSELF FROM LAURENCE WHITE'S VENOMOUS COMMENTS ABOUT THIS COUNTRY -- COMMENTS I'M SURE ARE AS DISTURBING TO MIKE AS THEY ARE TO ME . . . AND WILL BE TO YOU. http://camp2008victorya.blogspot.com/ (my site); http://mtio.com/articles/bissar55.htm (Dr. White's speech/essay, where he compares America to Nazi Germany)
http:// http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Blogs.View&Blog_id=478 ((Dr. White's letter to Mike Huckabee saying "This Election Cannot Be About Electability")

I strongly believe Dr. White's apocalyptic rhetoric is the kind that encourages such demented "pro-life-killers-for-Christ" as Paul Hill and Eric Rudolph. This man and others like him are going to tarnish Mike Huckabee's reputation beyond repair.

Like any candidate, Mike inevitably will attract some nutcases. But the last thing he needs are "supporters" who claim to be Christians chanting "We Hate America."

Larry Perrault and Laurence White: Endorse Sarah Palin Now!

"Sophia Petrillo" on "The Golden Girls" as she uses the remote control: "Look, there's a Black man doing the news -- and it isn't even the weekend!"

I'm sorry this is long, but I'm presumptuous enough to believe it is very important. I will "fiddle" with it until about 1 p.m. Friday. I will respond to all comments, other than those by "Anonymous."

In the comments to this piece, I talk some about Dr. Laurence White and his essay called "God and Ceasar." I quote the piece extensively, and my conclusion is that White is (1) basically calling for a violent revolution by Christians against American civil society; (2) encouraging "pro-life-killers" like Paul Hill and Eric Rudolph; (30writing a document that sounds uncomfortably like an American Mein Kampf in targeting certain groups and institutions -- including homosexuals and the public school system -- of destroying the moral core of society. I disagree with him on all points. This is a pluralistic representative democracy. It is not a theocratic state. One of my biggest problems with Dr. White (among many) is that there seems no evidence that he's ever talked to one of those young women "in trouble and in need of a friend." In fact, he's not their friend, but rather their accuser. One of my best friends is a woman with the initials P.L., who counseled many pregant women, most of them young, some extremely young (13-14), and some of them ended up having abortions, often being pressured to do so by femily or "friends." P. L. loved them unconditionally as is her way, and that approach is what makes her a living saint. I also think of my African-American neighbor Mary, whom I saw tonight on my way to the h.s. football game. She was -- appropriately -- wearing a gold cross. She's in her 60s and take care of children -- current, Ali, age 4, and "Mo Mo" (Monique) who's 14 months. I expect shen she's 80 she'll be taking care of Ali's and Mo Mo's kids. P. L. and Mary are so of the inhabitants of the "evil" America Dr. White supposedly sees. Sad.

In the comments section of my most recent piece on my proposed Human Life Amendment, you'll notice a statement by Larry Perrault, a Southern Baptist and an important figure in the Houston religious community. He's also a dedicated supporter of Mike Huckabee, and much of my own attraction to Mike's campaign comes from the support he gathers from Larry and various others, including important bloggers like Kerry in Minnesota, James H. in Louisiana, and several others.

Here's Larry's comment:

"Seemingly, all that does matter is their continued ability to express their enduring moral superiority to people like me" [Steve's statement]

I selected out this sentence because it seems to best distill what you think is going on. And, it also tells me that I'm wasting my time. You have made an a priori and incorrect judgment of intentions, and evaluate everything from within that perception. So, you don't believe me when I say that it isn't about me, which truly enough would be a squalid motivation, when I make a moral point about something. It's about right and wrong. The same is true of Laurence White. It's a good thing that I'm not after judgments of my moral superiority, because they aren't exactly pouring in.What I think you should note is that both Dr. White's [Laurence White, an important figure in the Houston Lutheran community and in Texas politics] speeches and most of my writing, including the last post at my blog, do not indict American culture in general, but rather the avowedly pro-life social conservatives who are too timid to hold up a clear and discernible standard. As I said, it isn't about THEM, it's about US.But, you appear to believe that I am a lying morally posturing Narcissus. In that case, it is pointless to converse because everything said is not to be trusted and is up for measurement in the context of what you KNOW is really a self-serving motivation.All I can repeat is that I have drastically disagreed with you on strategy as well as on your perceptions. But, I have not, therefore, reached to call your character or intelligence into question. I think that is a first step toward a possible constructive cooperation in the face of not just this, but any disagreement. But it is one that it appears as though you are not about to take.You should consider that I may not be lying to you, or give up the conversation."

Here's my initial reaction:

I'll respond to Larry later today (Friday) in the comments section, but first I'd like to switch gears somewhat and reprint a short statement from Gov. Sarah Palin in her three-part interview series with the Anchorage Daily News. By the way, Sarah is happily married and has four children, a boy 18 and three younger girls. She has stated her firm commitment to the sanctity of life (from conception until natural death), but doesn't discuss the matter (in public at least) at any length.

Sarah was responding to a question about the need some political figures (especially those in Alaska) feel to cut ethical corners. She said:

"Right. Well, that's why I think we need more real and normal and hardworking and blue-collar Alaskans to want to run for office and serve in these positions that are making decisions. Again, I will personalize this. I am not from that other world. My dad as a school teacher wasn't a mover and shaker developer making big bucks in the state of Alaska off of property development. My husband [a commercial fisherman and oil field worker] isn't that way. I am not raising my kids to be that way.... If you want to be in public service, it is being willing to serve Alaskans for the right reasons. It is having to have a servant's heart when you come into these positions. It's not to get rich."

That's one of the great statements in the history of American politics. It was made by a Governor in Alaska whose existence is not yet known to a majority of the American people.

"A servant's heart" is one of selflessness, the rarest commodity in politics. A servant's heart in this case also is one that recognizes a large majority of Americans want to reduce significantly the number of abortions in our country. Everything in Sarah's career and life indicates she would do anything in her power to serve the people's needs. Yes, I tend to idealize this fine woman, but her capacity to serve seems unlimited.

Sarah Heath Palin is a "politician" with ethical standards that are rare in any nation. People like Larry Perrault and Dr. Laurence White should be lining up behind and supporting her as a major leader of our country.

I hope to live long enough to attend her inauguration as President of the United States -- presumably as early as 2012 (when she presumably would run against President Hillary Rodham Clinton) and no later than 2016, when her opposition could be someone like Barack Obama.

Will Sarah Heath Palin be able to end abortion in this nation? No, of course not. Even if abortion were made illegal -- something that's not going to happen -- it would not "end." Right now, 800,000-plus abortions occur in this country and, even before Roe v. Wade, as many as 300,000 occurred, most of them illegal.

I believe strongly that Mrs. Palin would be receptive to ideas such as mine that would sharply reduce the number of abortions in America. How could she do this when so many other people have failed so miserably?

She knows that abortion in this country will not be reduced by angry rhetoric -- the approach favored by people like Dr. White and Sen. Larry Craig. Instead, the direction has to be one of love for real people, especially young women and poor women who see no alternative to terminating their pregnancies. The resolution, partial though it may be, will depend on elected officials who have true empathy for the people they serve.

The answer to abortion will not come from people (like Dr. White) comparing our country to Nazi Germany. Instead, it will come from individuals like Sarah Heath Palin who recognize that the vast majority of Americans are good people who want to do the right thing.

We desperately need leaders who have "a servant's heart."

It amazes me that candidates like Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani aren't beating a path to Sarah's door in far-off Wasilla, Alaska (a suburb of Anchorage). They should be seeking her guidance and support. They could also get some tips on how to defeat entrenched members of both parties, which she has done.

The candidate who seeks her out first -- and best -- could just be the next President of the U.S. Before you can lead the American people, you first have to love them, warts and all.

Elected officials with the potential for real greatness -- figures in the tradition of Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Reagan -- come along so rarely. Sarah is one of them.

Stephen R. Maloney
Ambridge, PA

P.S. My direct response to Larry's comments will occur in the Comments section later today (Friday).

SOLVING THE ABORTION ISSUE: A GIANT JIG-SAW PUZZLE

Solving abortion or any moral and political problem is not a matter of who shouts the loudest. It's a question of "mental computing." In the words of the always superb magazine The Economist: "At first glance, the task . . . looks impossible . . . The secret, as with any computing task, is to break the problem into smaller, more managebable chunks." The Economist is not talking about abortion, but its point is relevant to that subject.

That's exactly what I'm trying to do with the hideously complex and controversial issue of abortion.

My abortion columns will total at least four in number. It's important for those concerned with sharply reducing the number of abortions in the US (and perhaps overseas) to at least read quickly through all the columns. Doing this series is at times mind-boggling. Column 2 (this one) will come up around noon Wednesday. Column 3 will come up later today (Wednesday afternoon or early evening). Please send your comments, as several people have done.

(In column 1, I'm changing the numbers and the cost related to women who have abortions mainly because they're poor. Of the women who have abortions, more than one-in-five cite lack of money. My solution is to give them money to prevent abortions.)

I appeal to good people, including Dr. Laurence White and Larry Perrault, both important figures in Houston politics and thought, not to settle for a pro-life position that is little more than an assertion of moral superiority. Frankly, people who are against MOST abortions, and I'm one, shouldn't be pro-life for the sake of being pro-life. We need to get beyond extremist rhetoric (e.g., comparing the U.S. to Nazi Germany and calling embryos "infants"). Those approaches exacerbate the problems involved with abortion.

If you haven't read Dr. Laurence White's letter to Mike Huckabee (and Larry Perrault's comments), please take a look at: http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Blogs.View&Blog_id=350

If you're deeply interested in this issue, please read the following (plus the footnoted material if you have time), which is authoritative: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States

If you want to see Biblical references RELATED TO ABORTION, the pickings are rather lean. The key passages are in Exodus: "22: And if two men strive and smite a woman with child, and her child be born imperfectly formed, he shall be forced to pay a penalty: as the woman’s husband may lay upon him, he shall pay with a valuation. 23 But if it be perfectly formed, he shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." This text, the Septuagint. written around 250 B.C., which is even before my time.) On the subject of abortion, Jesus left no recorded words. The New Testament of the Holy Bible is silent on the issue

In the History of the West -- and especially in the important writings of early (18th century) legal scholar William Blackstone -- the concept of "quickening" (the first detectible movements of the embryo, which occur about midway through a pregnancy). In discussions of when (and if) abortion should be permissible, quickening plays an important role.

If you'd like to stay away from ancient philosophical questions regarding quickening and go the more contemporary discussions, take a look at: First Fetal Movement : Quickening, from the American Pregnancy Association, as well as Fetal movement: Feeling your baby kick, babycenter.com.

Someone's going to ask me something like the following: "You say the Bible is mostly silent on abortion, but what about the admonition "Thou shalt not kill?" The idea that abortion (after quickening) might be homicide is an old one, but murder is a legal question. Some of my fellow Christians tell me that capital punishment is murder. However, our legal system does not in any sense defense the execution of people who commit murder as in any way itself "murder."

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has indicated that abortion is not murder. Also, Justice Blackstone said in the 18th century that in modern society (he meant Great Britain) abortion (after quickening of the foetus) is not viewed as murder, but rather as what he called a "heinous misdemeanor." The passage from Exodus seems to foreshadow Blackstone's view.

Frankly, discussing abortion as murder is a great way to make rhetorical points that help ensure the problem will never get solved. Moreover, half the people in America who regard abortion as a form of manslaughter (or even murder) believe it should be permissible in almost all cases.

At some point, I'll put up a link to a blogger called "The Libertarian," a Ron Paul-site that has an excellent debate between pro-choice and pro-life people (including yours truly). The exchange is intense, but highly civilized, and points up the divide between social conservatives and libertarian conservatives. Basically, the libertarians say abortion should be none of the government's business, while the conservatives say it is society's moral duty to protect the unborn.

The overall goal -- the humane approach -- should be to reduce the number of abortions and, relatedly, increase the number of adoptions. It should not be to make debating points.

More to Come . . .

It's fascinating to me to see the people who visit this site. In the last 24 hours, I've had visitors from Boulder, CO; Washington, DC; Orange, TX (twice), Rockville, MD; Elizabethtown, PA; Waianae, HI (twice, hi Sanity); Port Angeles, WA (a frequent visitor); Detroit, MI (twice); Branch, MI (twice); Atwood, IL; New York, NY; Caldwell, NJ; Ventura, CA; Nothridge, CA; Portand, OR; Anchorage, AK; Little Rock, AR; Colorado Springs, CO (hi Adam); and Austin, TX (twice); among many others, including several locations overseas. You're all very welcome here. Please feel free to leave comments and suggestions. Please note the comments to my columns on abortion and the one on gays and evangelicals.

PALIN FOR VP (AND PALIN FOR PRESIDENT)

IMPORTANT NOTE: I'M PROUD OF THE FACT THAT I'VE HELPED BRING DOZENS OF SUPPORTERS TO THE DRAFT SARAH PALIN EFFORT. HOWEVER, I WANT TO WRITE HARD-HITTING MATERIAL ON CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES -- AND CONTROVERSIAL CANDIDATES -- AND THAT CAN SOMETIMES CONFLICT WITH ADVANCING THE BLOGGERS-FOR-PALIN EFFORT. I WILL CONTINUE TO WRITE ABOUT SARAH FROM TIME-TO-TIME, BUT I'D LIKE TO DIRECT ALL ENQUIRIES ABOUT LEARNING MORE ABOUT HER -- OR ABOUT JOINING THE BLOGGERS' GROUP -- TO ADAM AT HTTP: //PALINFORVP.BLOGSPOT.COM. HE STARTED THE PALIN EFFORT AS A "COALITION" OF ONE, AND ITS SUCCESS IS LARGELY A RESULT OF HIS EFFORTS. SO, PLEASE CONTACT ADAM ABOUT ANY IMPORTANT PALIN MATTERS. I UNCONDITIONALLY SUPPORT SARAH FOR VICE-PRESIDENT, AND I SUPPORT THAT REMARKABLE WOMAN FOR EVEN HIGHER OFFICE AS EARLY AS 2012, AND NO LATER THAN 2016. THE V-P MOVEMENT WILL BE IN GOOD HANDS WITH ADAM. -- STEVE (AS YOU'LL NOTE, I HAVE CHANGED THE FOCUS AND MY PROFILE SOMEWHAT. )


The following is a long and thoughtful comment by Larry Perrault (also part of a Larry-Steve exchange in the comment section). Larry, a brilliant guy with a background in theology, philosophy, and politics blogs at http://larryperrasult.blogspot.com. I urge you to visit Larry's staunchly pro-Huckabee site and, recognizing that he has MS, also say a prayer for him. As I've also had some significant health problems, I assured Larry that when we both got to Heaven, I was sure that there would be a question period. As one of my friends, also a philosophy major, put it: "Life is sure a silly puppy, ain't she? :-) My response to Larry follows.

Steve:We've disagreed and been nearly diametrically opposed on some matters. Yet, we've done so without flapping our wings and getting our feathers up. I wish a lot more disagreements were handled that way. People have visceral reactions, and calling their character into question when they do, usually exacerbates the discomfort. However you judge the prudence of a response, tread softly on the toes. Encourage, don't discourage.Now, speaking of all that, I had some responses, reading your post:First I want to say that I know it can be taken for granted in politics, but I shrink from ascribing political calculation to Mike Huckabee's actions.Call me naive, but I think he does those things because they are the right and Christlike thing to do, though he may rightly feel that that often turns out to be the most effective way to deal with them, too.Mike Huckabee didn't propose statehood for Washington DC, and I don't think he would. That would require an overt defiance and amendment of The Constitution. There goes the 2 senators. But he did say that voting rights for all of those citizens merited consideration, and I think he's right. Some special innovation would have to be designed for that.He didn't say he'd sign a ban on smoking in public places. He said he'd sign a smoking ban for workplace safety, like an OSHA regulation.I think what he said about immigration was just RIGHT: seal the borders (and filter dangerous people), but don't resent or restrain people who want to come to the US to work, as immigrants always have. My sentiments, exactly.He addressed groups like unionists and The Urban League and The National Education Association because its the right thing to do. But, he wouldn't support a government enforced closed union shop, endorse the withholding of merit pay, or government-enforced affirmative action.I think his statement about broadening perspective on the right to life is just that: get a wider angle lens on protecting and nurturing human life.It cheapens those things to distill them down to just politics. Will these things startle or frighten nervous people? Yes. I told you, I got outright reamed on a conservative blog, this week. And in the past, people have called ME extremist and jihadist and such. I can't change my beliefs, but I can and should work diligently on my tone.And speaking of immigration, I'm not or never was a McCain supporter. But he responded correctly: sealing the border was in the bill, "but the people didn't believe us." That's right. I didn't. Why should people believe them? They're going to enforce the new law, but not the old law? McCain got the message: We have to prove ourselves by sealing the border, first. DUH! Huckabee's position, BTW.Even if I thought I was right on the facts, I would go to the Romans bearing flowers. In fact, as a Huckabee supporter, I may do it, myself.
September 8, 2007 1:08 AM

My response: Larry, first of all: you, Treva, MassforHuckabee, and one or two others are convinced I should "apologize" to the Romans. Okay, here's one (of many) of the comments made by the Romans -- who seem to live a tandem life conjoined at the soul. This piece on Rudy Giuliani is by the "missus," but any differences between the two are impossible to detect:

"Giuliani - The Death Of The Constitution Tonight's [September 5] debate has definitely done at least one thing; showed how wrong Giuliani really is and that he is willing to lie and twist the truth to steal votes and cover his record. This man could not speak straight or keep a promise if his own life depended upon it. I am tired of people tip-toeing around calling the skunk for what he is. I have never embraced political correctness, I believe that is part of what is wrong with our society today, and I am not going to start now. This man's record speaks for him. This man does not believe the Constitution or Bill of Rights are practical or relevant any longer. He feels he has the right to decide who they apply to and who has lost the right to them. No matter how you wash that it will always come out a dictatorship." -- S. Roman

Attention Larry, Treva, MassHuckabee, and anybody else who has eyes to see: this statement does not in any sense represent Christian behavior. As Christians, you have an obligation to communicate to the Romans that their behavior -- their words -- are unacceptable. Rudy Giuliani is an authentic American hero, based on his exemplary performance on-and-after 9/11. That doesn't mean you or anyone else has to agree with him on gun control or right-t0-life or the War on Terror. But to call him an enemy of constitutional government or a proponent of dictatorship is absurd -- and just plain sinful behavior.

Frankly, if we want decent people (or anybody) to stand for national office, we have to speak about them with some degree of respect. One Huckabee backer (still visible on the Bloggers for Huckabee site and not named "Roman") says that if Hillary Clinton is elected President, which she probably will be, it would lead to the "persecution" of "hundred of Christians." From every bit of evidence I know of, that statement is totally false.
It is your obligation, and Treva's, and other Huckabee supporters to chastise that person. For Catholics (and Christians generally), it is a moral imperative to inform the person that he is in a state of what's historically called mortal sin.

Some of my fellow evangelicals (people who publicly proclaim and practice the Gospel of Jesus Christ, even when it's inconvenient to do so) believe it's okay to libel or slander people who not on their "side" politically. They ared dead wrong, as the Romans (either or both) are in their totally unproven allegations against Giuliani.

When our "friends" tell us what appear -- by any objective standard -- to be falsehoods about another human it's not our duty to nod our heads in assent. It is our obligation to say: Stop! Gov. Huckabee has done that repeatedly in his career, as he did with the Rev. Rude's unforunate anti-Catholic remark.

Sinful behavior by our "friends" is not something to praise -- or even to ignore. Larry, that's something I'm afraid you've fallen into. The statements by the Romans speak for themselves. I submit it's now the time for you, Treva, and others to speak for YOURSELVES. "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men (and good women) to do nothing."

I also submit it is Larry Perrault's (and Treva's) responsibility NOT to ask someone (who happens to be me) to "apologize" for chastising the Romans and asking how their behavior reflects their purported Christian beliefs. Smugness, hatred, and libel are NOT Christian behavior.

I criticized the Romans for removing their support for Mike Huckabee. It took them approximately one day to reverse that decision -- to decide the Huckabee they criticized so severely was actually the candidate they would support strongly. What exactly is the matter with these people? Perhaps we all crave attention to some degree, but this is ridiculous.

They have also withdrawn their support from Gov. Sarah Palin, one of the shining lights in the Republican Party, the conservastism movement, and Christian evangelism. Here's what they (he? she? both?) had to say about Gov. Palin on August 3, 2007:

D.Roman said... "Thanks [Steve], we are very excited about supporting Sarah Palin. I think a Huckabee/Palin ticket would win over a lot in independents and moderates and truly show what a big tent party we are without giving up any of our conservative ideals. For example Gov. Huckabee won over 48% of the African American vote in Arkansas and I believe this is one of the constituencies that the Republican Party, in general, has not shown enough attention to. Though I am very excited that Lynn Swann maybe running for the House. I was a supporter of his when he ran for Governor. Also, Michael Steele says that he may run for elected office again; I was also a supporter of his during his Senate run. I think with a President and Vice President who relate so easily with everyday men and women of this country we could really get a lot accomplished."

Gee, what exactly did Sarah Palin do to lose the support -- such as it is -- of D. Roman (although not of S. Roman? Relax, I jest)? The obvious answer is that these people are not exactly models of consistency or loyalty. No candidate, including Mike Huckabee, can conduct an effective campaign if his "strongest" supporters are changing their commitments on a daily basis.

As I've suggested, this is a challenging time for Mike Huckabee. He's trying to become something more than the champion of the evangelicals and the darling of the (tiny) homeschool group. As Larry suggests, he is not deviating from Christian positions, but he is trying to apeal generally to the American people (whom our government is "by and for"). As Larry also suggests, Mike's stances are drawing fire from a segment of the candidate's base. They presumably want Mike to be a "lovable loser," a situation he properly finds unacceptable.

If Mike Huckabee takes Christian positions on issues, including immigration and full voting rights for African-Americans, then people who are Christians should not denounce him. Also, if a person is a walking monument to adultery, such as Newt Gingrich, then it's not appropriate to compare him favorably to Rudy Giuliani, whose personal life is admittedly far-less-than-perfect.

It's extremely hard to get some people's attention. My chastisement of two people was justified, and I ask all Huckabee supporters to join me in encouraging these people not to take actions and make statements that are harmful to Mike and others.

Stephen R. Maloney
Ambridge, PA
Supporter of Sarah Palin for President no later than 2016 (and maybe before)

P.S. I'd like to write more in coming weeks about evangelicals, which I realize is a much more diverse group than we urban-Yankees-types sometimes think. In 2004, people identifying themselves as evangelicals voted for George Bush by nearly 4-to-1. Of course, that means more than one-in-five self-described evangelicals voted for John Kerry. Apparently, in 2006, evangelical support for Republicans eroded significantly.

Also, there's a disturbing tendency for younger evangelicals -- concerned more about things like war, poverty, and climate problems -- to move toward the Democrats. As with nearly every other group in the nation, the older the (evangelical) voter the more likely they are to vote Republican. Clearly, as Republicans die off, the Democrats take greater and greater percentages of the votes. We desperately need to fix that.

I mentioned evangelical diversity: There's some evidence -- and I'd love to see more poll data on this if you have it -- that Rudy Giuliani, the supposedly "liberal" Republican is getting more evangelical support than Mike Huckabee, who's a former Baptist preacher. As one official of the Southern Baptist Convention put it, "These people want a winner, and they see Rudy Giuliani as tough enough to beat Hillary Clinton." (That's a paraphrase but it reflects closely what I heard him say.) There's little evidence evangelicals truly see Fred Thompson as "one of them," mainly because he's not.

Some supposedly "conservative" (social values) candidates aren't. I keep hearing how Fred Thompson is big on traditional families and has a great family life, etc. Tell that to his first wfe of more than 20 years, whom he dumped like a sack of kitty litter. Other people who criticize Giuliani for having one or two too many wives for a single lifetime actually salute the (unlikely) candidacy of Newt Gingrich, who may show up at any moment with wife number four.

Fred also supports (or doesn't support, depending on the day) a constitutional amendment making the Ozzie-and-Harriet variety the only permissible form of marriage. Of course, such a constitutional amendment might get enough votes to pass about the time Chelsea Clinton becomes a great grandma.

You'll find a lot of social values candidates (who really aren't such) proposing various constiutional amendments. None of them has even a chance of passing. A Senate vote in 2009 -- the next time big issues will get raised -- on such matters might produce 37 votes in favor (if that), well short of the 67 votes needed for passage. So, why do candidates -- most of them -- say they favor such an amendment? Social values voters can guess the answer to that one.

In other words, some people are reaching out with social values proposals designed not to make policy, but to get votes. I think Mike Huckabee (and one or two others perhaps) really would like to get rid of Roe v. Wade. But at the same time, they realize it may be impossible -- for at least a decade -- to do so via a constitutional amendment. On the Supreme Court, there MAY be four votes to overturn Wade (Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas). Judge Kennedy has somehow morphed into Sandra Day O'Connor

Where is the fifth vote going to come from? Note that John Roberts, who personally is opposed to abortion, is not a man who looks to overturn important precedents, which Roe is. There is no fifth vote, or maybe even a fourth.

When Miit Romney recently said it was time to return abortion to the states (where it was before Roe), supporters of Huckabee and Brownback (if he has any supporters left) jumped all over him.

But what if Mike got his wish -- a big one -- and pased an amendment overturning Roe? Then, the issue of abortion would return . . . to the states. This is basically what Rudy Giuliani is indicating as he indicated wildly to conservative about "appointing strict constructionist judges" -- that is, judges who would overturn Roe.

A good online friend of mine reads such comments and agrees with them but says this, "Steve, don't say it even if its' true. It would completely discourage social values voters."

However, I don't agree that it's best to let people rest in a kind of splendid ignorance of reality. If we can't accomplish everything we want, how can we achieve some things?

I want to write about what politics is -- and what it isn't. Politics is like marriage -- rarely if ever perfect.

I debate that issue regularly with my friend Larry Perrault. Politics can't make everything good. Politics can't act as if we live in a Christian theocracy rather than a largely secular representative democracy.

After the carnage at Fredericksburg, Robert E. Lee said to his generals: "It is a good thing war is so terrible, else we should love it too much." Sometimes I feel the same way about politics.

Yet, politics can make some "bad" things better. Also, with the wrong leadership, it can make bad things much worse. Without politics, there would be no Social Security. Without politics, John Roberts and Samuel Alito would be judges you'd never heard about.

So, politics can do some real good. However, it can't make everything as good as you'd like.

One of the great things about my new role in relation to the mechanics of the Palin Campign is that I can speak the truth exactly as I see it. I don't have to worry about offending some rabid supporter of Ron Paul or Tom Tancredo. Instead, I can be in my usual position of saying some things -- at some times -- that will offend nearly everyone.

What a joy!

Seriously, my emphasis on any problem we face is: how can we make it better? How can we build the coaltions necessary to improve things? Ultimately, how we make our government increasingly one that's "of, by, and for the people? "

Stephen R. Maloney

NOT "THE NOBLEST ROMAN": PORTRAIT OF A HUCKABEE DEFECTOR

TOMORROW (FRIDAY) I'M GOING TO DISCUSS RECENT EXAMPLES OF PEOPLE HURLING SLIME AT RUDY GIULIANI, REGARDED AS AN AUTHENTIC HERO BY MOST PEOPLE WHO RESIDE OUTSIDE THE POLITICAL FEVER SWAMPS. GENERALLY, HEROES ARE IMPERFECT BEINGS, BUT AT LEAST THEY'RE NOT "AVERAGE."

I urge everyone to read Adam Brickley's superb essay on how he originated the Sarah Palin Movement and how fabulously it's succeeding (also on blogroll): http://www.uccs.edu/~scribe/index.php?article=opinion-3

This morning (Thursday) on CNN there was a story about a 12-year-old Anglo-Hispanic boy who has leukemia and has started a very successful national campaign to find bone-marrow donors. He said, "As human beings, it's our responsibility to look out for others." (Out of the mouths of babes)

Yesterday, D. Roman of Wisconsin, a person who masqueraded for a few months one of the strongest Mike Huckabee backers (see comments at http://themaritimesentry.blogspot.com defected, apparently to support someone else. If Mother Theresa converted to Lutheranism, the surprise could not have been greater. I believe D. Roman represents the sickness -- moral, intellectual, and political -- that infects a small portion of the Republican Party, and I'll have much to say about him and his ilk over the next few days.

With his new-found political independence, Roman spent the post-debate period denouncing Mike Huckabee and Rudy Giuliani. The latter is justifiably an American hero to most people, and the former is on his way to becoming one. Roman is one of those moral and ideological sad-sacks who believes that disagreeing with a candidate on one or more issues means the subject of his venom must be "lying."

On Roman's site, I questioned his Christianity, something I do about once a century. Being a Catholic Christian (or a Protestant Christian) means fulfilling many obligations that we'd rather avoid. It doesn't mean manifesting a kind of "Church-Pew-Piety" apparently designed to make one feel good about himself. Also, it doesn't mean making malicious allegations about people (Huckabee and Giuliani) who hold views other than your own.

Christians are under a strict obligation (Commandment not Suggestion) to love their neighbors, all six billion of them, including "illegal" immigrants and the children (often American citizens) of those illegals. People who hate the Second Great Commandment are free, in a sense, to hate their neighbors, whether that neighbor be Mike Huckabee, Rudy Giuliani, or a Guatemalan scaling a fence to get into the land that historically welcomes the "huddled masses yearning to breathe free."

D. Roman is now denouncing me on various sites, pointing out that MaritimeSentry is one of those "his-and-her" operations and that I mistook S. Roman (his helpmeet) for him. Of course, he ascribes malice to my confusing his wife's screed about Giuliani with one of his. Frankly, he (or she) originally talked about removing "our backing" from Huckabee. I wondered if that "our" was a modern version of Queen Victoria's "royal we," as in "We are NOT amused."

My inference is that the Roman household is not one where spouses or children are encouraged to demonstrate a whole lot of intellectual or spiritual diversity. "We" would not be amused by such deviations.

D.R. takes issue with my view that they (he? she? bicycle built for 2?) "trashed" Mike Huckabee. Here's what they (the "I" version) said about the debate:

"I felt this was Mike Huckabee's worst debate. He struggled in the beginning and topped it off by insulting citizens who want a secure border, but he was extremely strong on Iraq and very articulate on that point. Ron Paul had some extremely good points, but came off as naive on foreign policy. Overall I think that Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo had their best performances and belonged on stage.

Tom Tancredo, a thoroughgoing nativist who once announced he was against "legal immigration," had a "good performance?" Rep. Tancredo is now getting 4% of the Republican vote and is getting a good chunk of his money from organizations that are rather virulently racist. (Note: I have a lot of admiration for Duncan Hunter, but his candidacy seems to have escaped the attention of the American people.)

One of the Romans mourned the lack of an appearance by Newt Gingrich, who campaigns in 1974 and 1976 I supported with money and time. My "break" with Rep. Gingrich reflected in part the fact that his first wife (of many), Jackie, and I were phone friends. Jackie is the one that Newt, after an apparently serious affair, approached in the hospital (where Jackie was being treated for cancer) and asked her to sign divorce papers. Later, of course, the second wife went the way of the first. One of the Romans (both?) denounced Rudy Giuliani for failures in his "persoanl" life. On that basis, they might well reconsider their admiration for "Newt."

Why "their" dismissal of Huckabee? Because he's not conservative enough on immigration or on the possibility of voting rights for the District of Columbia (which would add two Black Senators and a Black House member, presumably all Democrats). Also, strangely and almost comically, because he would sign congressional legislation banning smoking in public places. Personally, I smoke but if I were President I might well sign such a ban.

Most sane people agonize over the issue of "illegal immigration." In the Bible, Jesus doesn't seem to be strong on the issue of border security. Also, which of us -- if we lived South of the border and were facing a bad life for ourselves and our children -- wouldn't choose to climb over the fence?

To D. Roman, enforcement of "border security" -- something apparently only enforced when it involves brown people -- is a case of "rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's." Of course, under Caesar it was illegal to be a Christian, a point the Romans apparently haven't reflected on sufficiently. The line from the Bible goes on to say "render unto God that which is God's.

I've always had the uneasy feeling that God didn't give me any extra points for having the luck to be born in America. Somehow I don't believe God thinks more of me than He does the Hispanics who constitute our modern day "huddled masses yearning to breathe free." Living a Christian life is sometimes, as T. S. Eliot said, sometimes "hard and bitter agony."

From everything I see, Mike Huckabee --a Christian who talks the talk AND walks the walk -- agrees with me. In fact, the Family Roman's other bete noire, Rudy Giuliani, also seems at one with with us.

The Huckabee Movement, a strong one that's getting stronger, is lucky to be without the dubious "services" of D. Roman/S. Roman. They'll be much happier with another candidate, but I doubt the reverse is true.

(Note: This is not the last word on this subject.)

Take a look at larryperrault.blogspot.com for the YouTube video of the exchange between Mike Huckabee and the occasionally daffy Ron Paul.

Note: I was extremely impressed as I said yesterday by the marvellous response Sarah Palin made to a question about the supposed need to cut ehtical corners. She said:

SARAH PALIN: "Right. Well, that's why I think we need more real and normal and hardworking and blue-collar Alaskans to want to run for office and serve in these positions that are making decisions. Again, I will personalize this. I am not from that other world. My dad as a school teacher wasn't a mover and shaker developer making big bucks in the state of Alaska off of property development. My husband [a commercial fisherman and oil field worker] isn't that way. I am not raising my kids to be that way.... If you want to be in public service, it is being willing to serve Alaskans for the right reasons. It is having to have a servant's heart when you come into these positions. It's not to get rich."

Of course, some conservatives -- such as The Club for Growth types who also vilify Mike Huckabee and probably now feel the same about Sarah -- believe (wrongly) that it's better to have many servants than to be one. They're wrong. "As for me (and her), we shall serve the Lord."