Dr. Dobson: Say No to McCain

Important information on McCain:

Then he asked Dobson to listen to a statement from McCain and respond.

"I think, uh … I think that gay marriage should be allowed if there's a ceremony kind of thing, if you wanna call it that … I don't have any problem with that," McCain says.

"Dr. Dobson, would you be comfortable with someone like John McCain as the … conservative or Republican candidate for president?" Johnson asked.

"Well, let me say that I am not in the office. I'm in the little condo so I can speak for myself and not for Focus on the Family," Dobson said in rejecting McCain's leadership.

He noted that legislation he'd just been discussing on the program, regarding an attempt by Democrat leaders in Congress to create obstacles for ministries such as Focus to reach constituents with action messages about pending legislation, is being supported by McCain, too.

"That came from McCain, and the McCain Feingold Bill kept us from telling the truth right before elections … and there are a lot of other things. He's not in favor of traditional marriage, and I pray that we won't get stuck with him," Dobson said.

The provisions of the new congressional proposal, hidden deep inside a plan to reform lobbying rules to eliminate the many recent scandals involving members of Congress, would require pro-family groups to provide documentation of their actions to the government any time they try to spark any "grass-roots" action.

Phone calls, personal visits, e-mails, magazines, broadcasts, phone banks, appearances, travel, fundraising and other items all would be subject to government tabulation, verification and audits, Dobson said during a recent program. "On and on it goes."

"Clearly, the objective here is to hide what goes on from the public and punish and silence those of us who would talk about what our representatives are doing," Dobson said of the plan by Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev. American Family Association Chairman Donald Wildmon, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins and American Values President Gary Bauer joined Dobson in urging listeners to flood Capitol Hill with phone calls demanding those speech limits be removed.

Bauer said the telephone number to call is: 202-224-3121.

Focus also has begun an online petition, at Focuspetitions.com.

Wildmon characterized the Washington proposal as a message to the American public: "We don't want to hear from you, and this is the way we're going to handle it."

Dobson also earlier scolded Republicans for blaming the 2006 election victories by Democrats in many races across the country on conservatives.

Original story here.

Define Conservatism Please...

Every once in a while, something happens that causes us to wonder why in the world we're doing what we're doing. Why is it that someone like Mike Huckabee is being so strongly attacked by the "Reagan coalition"? Perhaps the conservative movement has lost their way and has actually left the principles that Reagan operated by. The following post takes the debate into a philosophical level and challenges the current politically correct way of looking at conservatism and defining what it stands for and how it is applied.

True Conservatism
This is a guest post by MWS, a frequent poster of valued comments on Race42008.com

Limbaugh or Burke?

“There is but one law for all, namely that law which governs all law, the law of our Creator, the law of humanity, justice, equity - the law of nature and of nations.”
-Edmund Burke

Much has been made on this board of what a “true conservative” is, and is not. Generally, people will either compare a particular person to a laundry list of positions deemed conservative by prevailing sentiment, or worse, will simply defer to what self-appointed sentinels of conservatism profess. Recently, I have suggested in several threads that conservatives would be well served if they spent less time listening to Rush, and more time reading Burke. I would like to briefly make the case why.
Conservatism in modern America has become uprooted. Too often it has become a series of policy proscriptions; big military, lower taxes, less government spending, assertive and unilateral foreign policy, etc…. Sometimes these policies can be good and proper manifestations of conservative principle, but they are not- as is often mistaken- the essence of those conservative principles themselves. The essence of conservatism is not found in a random litany of policies that necessarily vary in time and place. It is not dictated by terms such as “increase, decrease, cut, raise, limit, grow.” The essence of conservatism is found in the acknowledgment and preservation of transcendent truths. Policies are the seasonal leaves, which come and go as the manifestation of the life of the tree. But they should not be mistaken for the life of the tree itself. Conservatism is a philosophy, even a sensibility. I would offer the following as some of the enduring principles of conservatism:

Conservatism recognizes a hierarchy of value. Not all goods are equal, and some must be subordinate to others.

Conservatism has the human condition as it’s ultimate concern, and not the mechanics of political process or economic theory.

It recognizes that markets exist to serve people, and not people to serve markets.

It seeks stability and continuity in economic as well as social policy, as these are the prerequisites for passing on traditions and heritage.

At root, it recognizes that man is created in the image and likeness of God. As such, it is anti-utilitarian. People are not fodder, either for the government, or the economy.

It is anti-Utopian. Its principles can be manifest in republics or monarchies, under capitalism or manorialism. It can exist in a variety of economic or political systems because...

True conservatism, in the Western tradition, is rooted in Christianity. Let me say that again. Our culture, traditions, sentiments, and mores in the Western world are rooted in the culture, traditions, sentiments, and mores of Christianity. As such, it is impossible to understand conservatism without a healthy appreciation of how Christian tradition informs our culture. One of the most significant (and radical) among these truths is the inherent dignity of man. Conservatives believe in teaching a man to fish, so that he may be as self-sufficient as possible, but will, in times of dire need, help unconditionally. Too often, the self-professed guardians of conservatism espouse a law-of-the-jungle mentality that is rooted not in Christianity, but in Social Darwinism, which is completely antithetical to our Christian heritage.

With such an understanding of traditional conservatism, we should fully expect for a true conservative to speak out for the poor. We should expect such a conservative to recognize the inherent dignity and worth of all of God’s children, even those here illegally. We should not reflexively dismiss his calls to preserve and protect the earth our Creator gave us in trust. We should understand that even raising taxes and spending more is not beyond the realm of possibility, if it stabilizes families, protects communities, and helps secure the common good.

I’m not against economic growth, but I am against the notion of economic growth at all costs. I am not against low taxes, in fact I prefer them, but I am not in favor of lower taxes at any cost. A true conservative should recognize that the essence of the good is not defined in relative terms such as raise, lower, increase, decrease, more, less, but rather in the acknowledgement of the transcendent order, created and sustained by the living God.

I would encourage each reader here who is interested in understanding the core principles of conservatism to put down the newspaper, turn off the radio, and set aside the position papers (if just for a moment) and pick up the works of men such as Edmund Burke, Christopher Dawson, GK Chesterton, and Hillaire Belloc. Let us not confuse particular policies for universal truths, seasonal conditions with transcendent realities, or even the fizz and froth of talk radio for the substance it tries to ape- but has long forgotten.
by Brett Passmore

Original article is posted here.

Since true conservatism is rooted in Christianity, Mike Huckabee, being a devout Christian is the only true conservative running for president right now.

Huckabee on School Choice

K Street Mole for Huckabee has the following to say about one of the latest hot topic attacks of Mike Huckabee:

Huckabee's position on school choice appears to be the latest hot issue in the debate over whether Huckabee is "conservative" on anything other than moral issues. The anti-Huckabee right has taken to claiming that he "opposes school choice." Yet Huckabee has strong backing from homeschoolers and frequently says he strongly supports a parent's right to choose their child's education. So which is it?

Before I go any farther, a personal interest disclaimer: school choice is the main issue that first got me interested in politics. I am the product of 16 years of Christian education, and I have never been enrolled in a school financed by taxpayers. My parents sacrificed a lot to give us a faith-based education, even while living in a town with extraordinarily high property taxes to finance best-in-state, gold-plated local public schools. So naturally, they complained about paying twice for education, and I started following the school choice issue before I even entered high school. An essay I wrote in college on school choice landed me my first real job, and I've continued to be active on the issue ever since. So this means a lot to me.

On the other hand, my husband is the product of 20+ years of public education, and he feels it served him quite well, while enabling his parents to still retire early even while none of their four children who all have graduate degrees have ever incurred student loans. Today he is a public school teacher, though his main motivation for teaching in public school is that it pays nearly twice as much as private school would. But he's not a member of any teacher's union, and his experience teaching in the brave new world of "Standards of Learning"-focused education (i.e. the focus of teaching is now on getting the maximum number of students to pass a standardized test) has convinced him that's not what he wants for our children.

Clearly, public education serves some people very well, like my husband and his siblings. But it leaves a lot of families in the cold: residents of bad school districts, average students (nowadays) who slide by because they'll pass the test but there aren't any resources dedicated to challenging them to achieve their true potential, and families who believe that faith should be an integral part of the education experience... and numerous other categories.

So what's the solution? "School choice" is the obvious answer, which generically means allowing families to enroll their children in the school of their choice (or homeschooling) with some form of financial assistance to do so. But not all school choice programs are created equal.

Article continues here

Michigan State Rep. Withdraws Support for Romney

A Michigan State Rep. Pulls support for Romney and switches to Huckabee

Michigan state Rep. Fulton Sheen announced at a rally today that he is officially withdrawing his endorsement of Romney to endorse Huckabee. Sheen, who said he had served as a Michigan state chairman for Romney, pointed to the FairTax and his support of the Michigan FairTax ballot proposal as the main motivator for his decision. Romney does not support the FairTax and Huckabee does.

NBC/NJ's Erin McPike notes Romney walks a fine line on the Fair Tax. He's careful not to alienate these voters by saying, "it's not part of my presidential platform, but I'm willing to look at it because I think there are some good ideas there."

Huckabee crowds swell
After reports that Romney attracted crowds in the low hundreds yesterday while campaigning in Michigan, Huckabee's evening event seems all the more noteworthy. Although no news was made, and he played bass with another local band, the difference was in the crowd. More that 500 very enthusiastic supporters filled the upstairs of the Expo Center in Birch Run, forcing the planners to set up an overflow room on the first floor. The overflow room quickly filled with roughly 300 people, forcing the planners to set up a TV in the lobby. That's a fairly large crowd for four days before the primary.

Original story here

A Big Night

I watched the debate last night and it was pretty amazing. Huckabee did a great job and I know that my prayers where having an effect as I prayed almost every time he got a question. The following quote from Dean Barnett is a good example of the challenge that Huckabee as the front-runner is going to pose to the other candidates. Expect the attacks to come in faster and harder than ever before!

Huckabee deftly parried Thompson's aggressive and spirited attacks early in the debate. It was a battle on terrain that was unfriendly to Huckabee, and Thompson attacked with skill. And yet Huckabee got out of the exchange unscathed.

The exchange with Thompson came early in the debate, and Huckabee was just getting warmed up. For the first time in this campaign, Huckabee looked like a credible commander in chief when the conversation turned to those Iranian speedboats. His normal joviality vanished, replaced by an appropriate gravity.

Then he got even better. He seized on a characteristic piece of Ron Paul idiocy to give a spirited speech defending America's commitment to Israel. Again, he looked credible as a commander in chief. But this was also an extremely shrewd piece of politicking. Conservative foreign policy types obviously loved it as did pro-Israel people. But Huckabee's core audience of conservative Christians, a much larger segment of the society than either of the other two groups, adored it also.

Mike Huckabee's an exceptional politician whose package of skills is often sold short. He's a lot more than an affable dispenser of one-liners who only knows how to play to the home crowd. For people who might be inclined to dismiss Huckabee, compare his response to Thompson's adroit offensive with McCain's blundering into the climate warming thicket. These two are the likely finalists, and one of them is much better at politics than the other.

Here's what I said on November 28, the night of the YouTube debate, the night that catapulted Huckabee to his huge lead in Iowa: "Was this a seismic night? I'll give that one a big yes. Tonight heralded the arrival of Mike Huckabee as a force in this race. Not a spoiler, not a wildcard, but a force."

Although fewer people watched last evening's festivities, tonight was even bigger for Huckabee. For the first time, it was not only possible but easy to imagine Huckabee as the leader of 300 million people. He combined this newfound authority with his old standbys of off-the-charts likability and a deft way of tapping into aspirational politics.

In the race for the Republican nomination, Mike Huckabee is going to be tough to beat.

Original article here.

Is "Old-School Conservatism" a Dying Breed?

I'm a conservative. Or so I thought.

I listened to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and the likes.

Didn't really care much about any of the candidates running for president. I guess I figured it didn't matter since whoever had the most fame and wealth would get chosen on the Republican side by the Washington elites anyway, so my opinion didn't really matter. I would vote for the Republicrat who was chosen because I didn't want to vote for the Democrat chosen by the other side.

But then along came Mike Huckabee. Something about him struck a chord with me. Yes he's a Christian, but that wasn't really it. Yes, he's a good communicator, but there was still more to it than that. Yes, he is pro-life, pro-family, but supposedly all the others are too.

Lately I've been realizing what it is about Huckabee that I like--and I feel the same thing is what is drawing people towards Senator Obama as well--he's unique, not from Washington and he's not clouded by the rhetoric that is in a constant battle there.

So there it is... a streak of libertarianism is running through my blood. When Rush Limbaugh started attacking Huckabee, I forsook Limbaugh. There was something about Huckabee and the momentum that built around his campaign that caused me to forget some of my former hard-line conservative stances and look beyond some things that I previously disagreed with Huckabee (such as ever raising taxes even if the people approve of it).

I want to believe these conservatives; I want to think that Rush is right and that lowering taxes and decreasing the involvement of government is always a good thing. But Huckabee's support of policies like the FairTax, and a constitutional amendment protecting marriage are really attractive to me. Doesn't eliminating a huge overbearing part of government called the IRS line up directly with the conservative principles of the government not being so deeply involved in my life by taking out their portion of my paycheck before I even see it? I also feel that Huckabee could actually get things done. The more Mitt Romney talks, the less I like him. The opposite is true with Huckabee. The more he talks the more my like and respect for him grow.

Huckabee may not be a Rush Limbaugh conservative or a Reagan conservative in the strictest sense of their definitions. But Huckabee understands the most important aspects of conservatism (freedom of religion, the original intent of the Founding Fathers, etc). He wants to turn health care back over to the individual and return the power of what taxes people pay back to the taxpayer. He makes an awful lot of sense if you ask me.

Huckabee is a conservative. A common sense conservative that realizes that ideologies only work in a perfect world and they're just guidelines for operating Government.

Huck gets it.

If he can't win in Iowa or New Hampshire, why would he win in November?

Mitt Romney has already lost two key battles for which he faught long and hard. He was defeated, in both cases, by two people who spent less and were seen as "Davids." The common wisdom that you win by spending tons and tons of money was hosed.

Mitt has now decided to focus all efforts on Michigan and he might be able to eek out a win there. However, even if he does win there, then somehow manages to win in SC, what are the chances that he will in in Nov 08? He's begun a losing streak and soon he'll be conceding everything.