Between Two Worlds: A Mix of Theology, Philosophy, Politics, and Culture



Thursday, October 25, 2007

Our Conservative Choice: An Endorsement of Mike Huckabee

123 comments | Permalink

[Note: This post is co-authored with Joe Carter and Matthew Anderson.]

When it comes to politics, we three are pragmatic idealists. We are dedicated to the pursuit of noble principles and goals while never forgetting that politics is the "art of the possible." Because we are idealists we are choosing to endorse a candidate who most aligns with our principles and values and is most worthy of our sacred trust. Because we are pragmatists we are choosing to endorse the one candidate who we believe is most capable of defeating Sen. Hillary Clinton.

Because we are pragmatic idealists we are endorsing Gov. Mike Huckabee.

For several months we have admired the scrappy campaign of Gov. Huckabee but believed it would be a wasted effort to support him with our time, energy, and finances. We bought into the notion that he could never get the GOP nomination since conservative voters would not support him. And the reason we were told conservative voters would never support him is because he could not get the nomination. To quote John Piper (from a different context), "It’s like the army being defeated because there aren’t enough troops, and the troops won’t sign up because the army’s being defeated."

We can no longer sit idly by and allow the campaign of a worthy candidate and an honorable man to flounder for lack of support.

Only after prayerfully considering the issues, the candidates, and the electoral calculus have we decided to settle on this joint endorsement. We hope that you will join us in careful deliberation of Gov. Huckabee's candidacy and that you will join us in pledging to cast a sacred vote for the office of President of the United States. Our army may go down in defeat, but it won't be because we refused to enlist in this worthy cause.


Addendum: We hope to persuade other conservatives that Gov. Huckabee is capable of not only appealing to the three legs of the conservative coalition—social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and defense conservatives—but to a broader confederation of Republicans and independents. The following is our reasons and rationale:

Social conservatives. Gov. Huckabee is by far the most socially conservative candidate running for President. He supports passage of constitutional amendments to protect the right to life and the definition of marriage; he opposes embryo-destructive research and promises to veto any pro-abortion legislation; he supports policies that ensure children receive "a quality education, first-rate health care, decent housing in a safe neighborhood, and clean air and drinking water"; he proposes a nine point Veteran’s Bill of Rights; and he emphasizes that there is a religious and moral imperative to conserve resources and protect God’s creation.

Defense conservatives. Gov. Huckabee vows to remain vigilant in the "world war" against Islamic extremism and says that "this threat is one that we cannot negotiate, accommodate, or placate—it is one which we must eradicate"; he supports the Powell Doctrine of using overwhelming force to accomplish a mission; he believes that "Iraq is a battle in our generational, ideological war on terror" and is committed to defeating Al Qaeda there in order to bring stability to the country; he supports a regional summit so that Iraq’s neighbors become financially and militarily committed to stabilizing Iraq now rather than financially and militarily committed to widening the war later; he is a strong supporter of Israel, "the only fully-functioning democracy in the Middle East, and our greatest friend in that region"; he believes that securing the border is a national security measure and must be done immediately.

Fiscal conservatives. Gov. Huckabee is a candidate that should appeal to fiscal conservatives. He has signed the Presidential Taxpayer Protection Pledge which binds the signer to "oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rates for individuals and/or businesses … and oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates"; he supports the FairTax, which would abolish the IRS and replace the Internal Revenue Code with a consumption tax; he believes in free trade (that is, fair trade) and claims that "globalization, done right, done fairly, can be the equivalent of a big pay raise by allowing us to buy things more cheaply."

Some of us were initially duped by the white paper on Huckabee that was released by the Club for Growth. Even though the CFG is slightly outside of the mainstream on conservative fiscal policies (CFG is to fiscal conservatism what the Christian Coalition is to social conservatism), we respect the organization and appreciate their valuable work. Nevertheless, we were dismayed by their report that was at times misleading, if not outright dishonest.

We acknowledge that the Club for Growth believes that state sales taxes should never be increased to pay for such entitlements as education, Medicare, highways, and economic development. We understand that this is the reason that they oppose Gov. Huckabee’s record. But we believe that most Americans—and most conservatives—are not minarchists. We do not think the fiscal conservative bona fides of a man who cut taxes and fees almost 100 times, saving the taxpayers almost $380 million, and left a surplus of nearly $850 million should be denigrated because he took such actions as implementing a 1/8-cent sales tax hike. Although we respect the CFC, we are dismayed at the disingenuous means that the group has used to smear the Governor’s character. (We plan to issue a point-by-point response to the white paper in a future post.)

Of course, Gov. Huckabee is not a perfect candidate. No candidate ever is or ever will be. But we believe that he possesses qualities that should be appealing and encouraging to all branches of conservatives.

Just as importantly, Gov. Huckabee has the ability to appeal to non-conservative voters. He’s charming and charismatic, a gifted speaker with a quick wit and disarming sense of humor. He is the anti-Hillary.

In many ways, Gov. Huckabee is also an antithesis of President Bush. He has a real chance of being the successor, at least in one aspect, to the Great Communicator, Ronald Reagan. Conservatism—and the country—have been deeply hindered by President Bush’s inability to communicate the conservative vision. "Huckabee is something that the party needs," noted David Brooks of the New York Times. "He is a solid conservative who is both temperamentally and substantively different from the conservatives who have led the country over the past few years."

As Jonathan Alter, senior editor of Newsweek, recently wrote:

The GOP is in a deep hole and keeps digging. Even after Mike Huckabee won big among attendees at last week’s "Values Voters Convention," many evangelicals have been telling the former Arkansas governor—and onetime Baptist minister—that they like him but won’t back him because he can’t beat Hillary Clinton. They have it exactly backward. He may be the only Republican candidate with a decent chance to beat the Democrats next November.
Some of the reasons include the weakness of the other candidates, especially Rudy Giuliani: "[The Mayor's] positions on Iraq, S-CHIP and the need for anti-abortion Supreme Court justices are all deeply unpopular in Blue States and would be hung around his neck next fall." He is also unacceptable to social conservatives and other religious voters. Mitt Romney is considered too slick, too corporate, too calculating, and too Mormon. And Fred Thompson, as Alter notes, "is not ready for prime time."

Huckabee also has an engrossing personal story. Alter continues:

Voters in general elections are less ideological than in primaries and more intrigued by a compelling personal narrative. Huckabee’s story hits closer to home than any other. After chest pains and a diagnosis of diabetes, he lost more than 100 pounds with diet and exercise. He tells the story with wit and grace (as well as the one about his wife’s cancer diagnosis many years ago) and would kill on Oprah. When Huckabee talks about broader health-care issues he does more than brag about Arkansas’s success under his leadership. He speaks in a folksy and comprehensible way that would match up well against Hillary’s facts and figures or Obama’s abstractions. The same holds true on education; his support for large-scale federal support of art and music programs to improve creativity (and thus competitiveness in the global economy) would resonate with millions of voters.

Even on faith and politics, Mike is easy to like. From afar he seemed extreme because he raised his hand in a debate when the candidates were asked en masse if they believed in evolution. But when Bill Maher pressed him to justify that view on his HBO show, Huckabee responded with a nuanced and presentable discussion of the origins of the universe that seemed to pacify even the atheist host. (I found this as well when we discussed the subject some months ago.) He has surely said some wacky right-wing things that could be used against him, but no more than any of the others in the Republican field.

For these reasons and more, we have become persuaded that Mike Huckabee can indeed win the general election for President of the United States. Again, quoting Jonathan Alter of Newsweek: "He may be the only Republican candidate with a decent chance to beat the Democrats next November."

But he cannot win the general election if he does not first win the Republican nomination. Up until now, there have been few who have believed this is possible. But this is starting to change. David Brooks recently wrote, "It’s quickly clear that Huckabee is as good a campaigner as anybody running for president this year. And before too long it becomes easy to come up with reasons why he might have a realistic shot at winning the Republican nomination."

Gov. Huckabee cannot win the nomination without our votes and without our support. Now is the time to act. If you care about the three legs of the conservative stool—social conservatism, fiscal responsibility, and strong defense—and if you do not want four (or eight!) years of Hillary, then you should join us in supporting Mike Huckabee for President.

Make a donation to the Huckabee campaign.


123 Comments:

Blogger Matt said...

Thank you Justin, Matthew, and Joe.

I agree wholeheartedly.

-Matt Mitchell

10/25/2007 07:20:00 AM  
Anonymous radish said...

Thank you gentlemen for clearing up some of my confusion regarding Gov. Huckabee.
I, for one, promise to take a much closer look at his candidacy.

10/25/2007 07:53:00 AM  
Anonymous Doug said...

I think you make a compelling case for Huckabee also.

10/25/2007 08:02:00 AM  
Blogger MichaelJJ said...

I must admit I once had the same "he's good but can't get elected" mentality, but after further research and then hearing him at the resent debate in Orlando, I am convinced I could wholeheartedly support this man for President. JT, I am pleased to see that you are supporting him. I think it speaks well of you. Please continue to provide whatever information about him that you can.

Regards,

Michael

10/25/2007 08:39:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks for supporting Mike,
As a social conservative he is the only one that has done the work to really show that he is.

He isn't into band-aid solutions on policy we have had for years. Which is a GREAT THING.

I have some bumper stickers and yard signs for those interested at
www.MikeHuckabeeStuff.com

10/25/2007 08:48:00 AM  
Blogger DJP said...

You've seemed to be heading that way for some time, and I appreciate your coming out and saying that you are, and why you are.

But did Huckabee stop being completely lame and unprepared at some point? He certainly was lame on this occasion, and on this occasion. Those were sufficient to convince me that Huckabee was, at that point, completely unprepared and unable to face the blistering, merciless, deadly-earnest and no-holds-barred dirty campaign the Clintons and their allies in the MSM will certainly wage. He seems like a sitting duck.

And Newsweek's "endorsement" persuades you? You did hear the one about "oh please don't throw me in the briar patch," right?

And on immigration, the buzz is that he's just George "Open Borders" Bush, all over again. Plus I've heard him proposing big-government initiatives. Check here and here, and here, for starters.

The fact that you like him so much makes me think I should reconsider him... but what I already know about him, doesn't.

10/25/2007 08:50:00 AM  
Blogger DJP said...

(BTW and FWIW, I wanted to like Huckabee, and I don't really have a candidate who's impressed me favorably yet with the right combination of good-ideas + good-odds. So I'm not "dissing" Huckabee because someone else has won my heart. Yet.)

10/25/2007 08:52:00 AM  
Anonymous Jesse Gardner said...

I couldn't agree more with this post. How frustrating is it that evangelicals are distancing themselves from Huckabee because he doesn't have "rock star" status. That's like saying we hate the system and then killing anyone who opposes it.

http://ihearthuckabee.com

10/25/2007 08:56:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here the top 5 GOP in their own words and you decide.

A great video about Mike everyone must see.

Also videos on Romney, John, Fred, and Rudy

www.itsaboutideas.com

10/25/2007 08:57:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you so much for stepping up for America! Everyone wants to be on the winning team. Some don't do what is RIGHT inorder to be on the winning team. I have supported Huckabee for months. Infact, we contributed (for the first time ever) several months ago. I talk to everyone who will listen. I plead with anyone who wants to make a difference in the future of our Great Country. Join this team financially and we all will be on the winning team. God bless America. Thank you.
Lori from Georgia

10/25/2007 09:10:00 AM  
Anonymous Alex Chediak said...

Great point by Jesse Gardner. I'm with you guys. Go Huckabee!

10/25/2007 09:22:00 AM  
Blogger metanoia said...

djp:

I followed all of your links and didn't find anything that I could reject outright. But thanks for the info.

I am a Huckabee late comer. The more I research, the more I like him. I appeciate Joe's and Justin's endorsement. They are men I admire and respect. I can sense the balance in me shifting in Huckabee's favor.

I am convinced that Rudy or Mitt can't beat Hillary. Huckabee seems to be the best chance conservatives have of a bonafide candidate.

10/25/2007 09:22:00 AM  
Blogger DJP said...

So (judging by the previous behavior I cited), he becomes the candidate, the press pounces on him with 57 hostile questions about his being a Christian and a pastor, he gapes at them slackjawed as if nobody ever told him such a thing could happen, manages a pathetic non-reply, or one that succeeds in dividing his Christian base... and you're happy? Eek.

But from this blog, it does appear he's got the Anonymous vote sewed up!

(c;

10/25/2007 09:30:00 AM  
Blogger Dale Tedder said...

djp said,

"And on immigration, the buzz is that he's just George "Open Borders" Bush, all over again."

I've heard the same thing. Have I heard correctly? I know a perfect candidate doesn't exist. But some issues carry greater weight than others. I would love to get this clarified before I make a decision.

Thanks for the great post. I have lots to think about.

10/25/2007 09:32:00 AM  
Blogger Micah Caswell said...

Great post. I am a 30 year old pastor who grew up in a home where my father started Crisis Pregnancy Centers. I am a political junkie but have never given money to a candidate. I gave to Mike Huckabee this year and my hope is that he continues to move up in the polls or ends up our next Vice President. Well said gentlemen.

10/25/2007 09:37:00 AM  
Blogger James Anderson said...

Justin, you need to fix the FairTax link in the post.

10/25/2007 09:37:00 AM  
Anonymous Chris said...

Yes! People must not sell out to the ideas of who is "able to win" or "who has the money to win." The way we root for sports teams, feel-good life stories, and the underdog in general reveal we CAN support anyone! This is not about being naive, but being firm in one's convictions. After all, if no one votes for a candidate because "he can't win" of course he won't...

and why not give financially to support his candidacy if you are concerned he doesn't have enough money. If it is ultimately about money- we might as well sell the presidency on EBAY- but it is not. This is about ideas and the direction of our country. I am praying more Christians will have the backbone to stand up. Last I checked, votes are what wins the White House.

10/25/2007 09:59:00 AM  
Blogger Ben Stevenson said...

What do people think of the critical article in the American Spectator, and the response from Mike Huckabee's National Campaign Manager?

10/25/2007 10:01:00 AM  
Blogger Matthew said...

Interesting.

10/25/2007 10:05:00 AM  
Blogger Ben Stevenson said...

Matthew,
Completely off topic comment - I noticed that your Blogger profile displays your astrological sign and Zodiac Year (because you entered your birthday in your Blogger profile).
If you disaprove of horoscopes, complain to Google.

10/25/2007 10:13:00 AM  
Blogger Pastor Jamie said...

Guys:

Thanks for the endorsement of Mike Huckabee. I'm hoping that it continues to help build support for him.

I'm also glad to see more people begin to more away from the "I can't vote for him becuase he can't win" mentality.

Vote your values!

It's great to see Huckabee on the rise. I'll never forget the feeling I was left about him (his humbleness and God-centered-ness) after he preached in chapel at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary one day. He's a man that let's his faith drive his convictions and this convictions drive this politics.

I Like Mike!

scc-blog.com

10/25/2007 10:22:00 AM  
Blogger Jim said...

Glad to see the endorsement on the best candidate out there. We all need to be talking to everybody at church about Huckabee so we can unite around him. We need to make sure that no Christian gives in to supporting a pro-abortion candidate...pastors have a huge responsibility before God to lead their flocks in this matter.

10/25/2007 10:27:00 AM  
Blogger Chouser said...

Is Huckabee
saying different things about illegal immigration now that he's a national candidate than he did when he was "just" a governor? Or am I somehow misinterpreting his earlier statements?

10/25/2007 10:31:00 AM  
Blogger tnhuck said...

This is a pleasure to see. I hope that things like this will persuade Dr. Grudem that he spoke too soon. I have begun to grow frustrated with the folks who dismissed Huckabee because he is not electable. When I began to look at it, I believe he's the only candidate who actually is electable.

10/25/2007 10:33:00 AM  
Blogger Heather said...

Thanks for writing this, especially the brief dismantling of the Club for Growth's report. As a 20something who'd been disenchanted by politics since 2004, I am energized by Huckabee's positions, his charisma, and his rocksolid values. While some of his positions may not be clear yet (immigration, for one), if people only look at what he's saying -- the entire sections not soundbites (see his Washington Values speech and the candid interview with Glenn Beck -- they will discover a candidate who doesn't sway with the polls or the focus groups or the criticism. He's rocksolid, what this country needs. He has ideas, not soundbites, not "I have a plan that's better than candidate xyz and the other party."

I like Mike!

10/25/2007 10:41:00 AM  
Anonymous Bethany Miller said...

Thanks for a thoughtful summary of Huck's positions.

I'm concerned about how his "fiscal conservatism" squares with supporting "policies that ensure children receive 'a quality education, first-rate health care, decent housing in a safe neighborhood, and clean air and drinking water'." That sounds like soft socialism to me. We don't need a literal Nanny-State. Government should empower/get out of the way of parents so they can provide education, health care, housing, and sustenance to their own children. Right?

10/25/2007 11:13:00 AM  
Blogger Ben Stevenson said...

Bethany,
I think Mike Huckabee supports parental choice in education. See his video on homeschooling.

10/25/2007 11:26:00 AM  
Blogger milk said...

This posting was fantastic! However, someone needs to write postings or papers on the subjects of: "Why Christians, who are of Generation X and younger, should care about the next Presidential Election and must vote for the next President." And "Why every voter eligible Christian and Conservative should and must vote for the next President."

10/25/2007 11:31:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow, if it is true that Gov. Huckabee is just another "President Bush" when it comes to securing our borders and STOPPING illegal immigration, if he is just another "open border" guy, if he is not going to either build a wall or create a new branch of the military dedicated solely to Boarder Security or something of that nature, if he is not going to stop the nonsense of the football field wide-international super highway that is currently being built from Mexico through the heart of the US up to Canada, if he is for Mexico, America, and Canada becoming one Country even to the slightest degree he will in NO WAY nor should he have a chance of being the Republican Nominee let alone the next President. His position on this needs to be clarified quickly.

10/25/2007 11:48:00 AM  
Blogger dmichaelclary said...

Thank you for articulating this brief endorsement. Its helpful to have such a succinct presentation of a candidate.

10/25/2007 12:22:00 PM  
Blogger MichaelJJ said...

Go to: http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Blogs.View&Blog_id=617

if you would like to see his position on several o the issues mentioned in the comments.

10/25/2007 12:24:00 PM  
Blogger Amy said...

I was pretty much sold on Huckabee until I checked out the links Ben Stevenson posted. Now I'm feeling somewhat hesitant/alarmed. Thoughts? Justin? Anyone else?

10/25/2007 12:37:00 PM  
Anonymous sherri Eaton said...

Thanks so much for endorsing Mike Huckabee publically! I and my husband read your blog often and enjoy it! to those wondering about Mike Huckabee's stance on immagration here is the link to his official page what he thinks needs to be done. Oh by the way, he does want to build a fence. that is his first priority. He says it is no good trying to deport all of the illigal immagrants if there is nothing stopping them (i.e. border fence) from coming right back. that makes alot of sense to me.

10/25/2007 12:41:00 PM  
Blogger MTR said...

Nice work, JT!

A worthy use of your influence.

Now let's get after Dobson and Perkins to do the same ... or at least pray that they'll go this way.

10/25/2007 01:02:00 PM  
Anonymous Anne Hamlin said...

Since the first time I heard Mike Huckabee speak I was impressed with his commitment to godliness without fear of man. I plan to vote for Mike Huckabee for president. God ordained governments to rule the peoples not man.

10/25/2007 01:09:00 PM  
Anonymous Sherri Eaton said...

sorry, I forgot to post the link in my comment. Mike Huckabee's Immigration views.

http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=4

10/25/2007 01:21:00 PM  
Blogger Nathaniel and Emily said...

How about this for idealistic pragmatism:
-I believe Mme. President is unstopable
-I believe that Huckabee must get the Republican nomination if the Republican party is to remain any kind of viable alternative to the Democratic party.

10/25/2007 01:35:00 PM  
Blogger SK said...

I'm still waiting to make my final pick, but I greatly appreciate you applying your Christian worldview politically. We need more Christians involved in politics, not less. Thank you for helping toward that end.

10/25/2007 01:55:00 PM  
Anonymous Joe said...

Ben and Amy: Thanks for bringing up the American Spectator article. It's really surprisingly similar to the CFG's attempts to slander Huckabee on his stellar record as Governor of Arkansas.

Anyone who lives in Arkansas will tell you that those stories are nothing but the result of a bitter grudge against Huckabee held by long-time Arkansas Times editor Max Brantley. He even took the time (or had his staff take the time) to transcribe his old newspaper articles from the mid-1990s into Word documents so he could slam Huckabee again.

In fact, every story (with one exception) mentioned in the AS article was based on just two people -- a disgruntled former state employee and Max. When the Ethic Commission actually looked at the complaints listed in that article, they dismissed them. It's a non-story, except to prove that people are starting to get afraid of Huckabee.

Anonymous: Huckabee has repeatedly voiced his support for the immediate securing of the border -- including the completion of a fence. He has condemned the SPP, the NAU, and the Law of the Sea Treaty -- all of which give away American sovereignty. In fact, of any of the candidates running, he has been the strongest on those issues.

10/25/2007 02:32:00 PM  
Anonymous Jason S. said...

Hey chouser, on immigration, what that article you linked at failed to clarify is that what Huckabee was opposed to (and what he called un-Christian and anti-life) was the denying of prenatal care to unborn children. Whether you agree with him entirely or not, his stance was rooted firmly in his commitment to the sanctity of human life.

10/25/2007 02:36:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

mtr: Why do you want Dobson and Perkins to use their influence in the same manner that JT has done? Are you and other Christians at a loss as to whom to vote for until these men speak? Why can't we simply let Christians use their best judgment in matters of Christian liberty?

Nathaniel and Emily: If the Republican party is to remain any kind of viable alternative to the Democratic party then it must STOP spending like Democrats and engaging in public scandals. Currently, the difference between the parties is miniscule.

sk: How exactly is JT's endorsement evident of the application of his Christian worldview? (And since Grudem and BJIII disagree with JT, does that mean that they did not employ a Christian worldview?) Whether they meant to or not, JT et al. (unlike Grudem) stated that Huckabee was the choice for Conservatives, not evangelical Christians. Unlike many that read this blog, I still think it is possible to be a Christian and not a political conservative.

John Piper's army illustration is an interesting and good one. But I'm not sure that JT et al. really believe it. I suspect that the reason they "can no longer sit idly by" is because Huckabee, like a horse trailing in the Kentucky Derby early on, has finally pulled within striking distance. In any event, the army illustration could just as well be applied to Ron Paul (whom JT has mocked), Duncan Hunter, or Alan Keyes.

Lastly, since when did voting become sacred?

10/25/2007 02:57:00 PM  
Blogger David said...

Thank you anonymous (whoever you are!)for bringing sensible thoughts to the table. Though I agree with most people on here that writing off a candidate because he is not the conservative "celebrity" it sounds like we're trying to make him one by calling for Dobson(yikes!)and others like Dobson to endorse him. Doesn't endorsing any candidate (which I found to be disturbing!)recreate this very problem? Furthermore, I think the church needs to reevaluate its relationship with politics. Honestly the two have become way too close over the last 50 years. It is wrong for a church or any pastor to endorse a candidate, not only by law but biblically. I strongly believe the Evangelical tendency to do what we have seen here (endorsing candidates) is unbiblical and also destroys any possibility of reaching the liberal/democratic camp with the gospel. Borthers and sisters, Jesus is on the throne! Do not fret over who gets elected! He is sovereign over the matters and we should merely encourage one another to think biblically, be personally informed about the candidates and vote with our Christian consciences. Finally, I would also like to know what makes voting sacred?

10/25/2007 03:47:00 PM  
Blogger Joshua said...

Earlier in this discussion Bethany Miller mentioned Hackabee's "soft socialism." This is a big deal.

If Huckabee were the only candidate with a conservative position on life issues, then we would have to overlook his desire to expand government's role.

But there are still other candidates who are strong on life -- and a couple of them have coherent, conservative views on the role of government.

He may be winsome and sincere, but there is nothing significant from a policy standpoint that distinguishes Huckabee -- except his view of government, which is a negative for consistent conservatives.

10/25/2007 04:21:00 PM  
Blogger gawcards said...

Thanks for a terrific analysis and for your endorsement of Governor Huckabee. We as believers need to be salt and light in a world that is decaying and dark. Governor Huckabee clearly and articulately expresses his pro life pro marraige and pro family beliefs. They are not election season add ons but the very reason why he got into politics in the first place. Why wouldn't we support someone who is championing these values? AS believers we should do as our founding fathers did- risk our lives, our fortunes, our honor do stand for that which is good and right and eternal. I believe we need to stand up As Esther did come to government to protect the innocents.

10/25/2007 04:39:00 PM  
Blogger John H. said...

I attended the Washington Values Voter Summit and witnessed this - When the MC said that the next candidate is Mike Huckabee, the entire crowd rose to our feet, shouted, whistled and yelled until he had to ask for quiet so he could introduce Mike!
I LIKE MIKE !
John Hunter

10/25/2007 04:46:00 PM  
Anonymous JSN said...

I like Huckabee and Ron Paul.

They are both pro-life and pro small government.

They disagree on the war and their difference came out during this lively debate.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=u9sA5FQfE1E

I wonder if we'd still be fighting in Vietnam to save our honor. We lost our honor in Vietnam but saved many lives by just coming home.

My vote is for Ron Paul but my heart, soul and faith is in Jesus Christ.

Thanks JT and everyone.

10/25/2007 05:18:00 PM  
Blogger Chad Vegas said...

Thank you guys for endorsing Mike Huckabee! I am also endorsing him. As a pastor, school board member, and the vice-president of California Republican Assembly, I am always trying to keep abreast of the candidates. Your posts on Huckabee and others have been extremely helpful in this regard. Thanks for the work you are doing! Go Mike!

10/25/2007 05:36:00 PM  
Anonymous Doug Richards said...

In thinking about what David [#42] wrote, I wonder if we do a diservice to the real task we have as believers of being a witness of the Gospel to all by advocating publically a choice for the president. For example, if a visitor came into our church and everyone was wearing an "I Like Mike" button, and if that visitor was a liberal Democrat, or of some other party affiliation,would we lose the opportunity to be a witness to them?

10/25/2007 06:34:00 PM  
Anonymous Jay said...

Why are evangelicals so slow to throw their support behind Ron Paul? The guy is a true constitutionalist and has a track record in DC to prove it.

10/25/2007 07:34:00 PM  
Blogger Jim said...

If a liberal democrat comes into a church where everybody is wearing Huckabee buttons...a witness has already been started. The Christians are pointing out the truth and standing up for life. Supporting a pro-life candidate is a necessary thing for Christians who are called by Scripture to speak up for those who can't speak for themselves (prov 31:8). When the lost see a passion for following Christ's commandments to the point that they play out in politics, the lost get convicted. Those churches that fail to engage in politics fail to stand up for defenseless babies. Christians often try to justify their lack of desire to vote and influence our govt, but this is simply hypercalvinism.

10/25/2007 08:22:00 PM  
Blogger Jim said...

Ron Paul supports legalization of porn...this is why Christians will not and cannot support him. (and yes, I do understand his constitutional issues with such laws, however the Bible stands higher as an authority than the Constitution.)

10/25/2007 08:23:00 PM  
Anonymous JSN said...

Jim said: " Ron Paul supports legalization of porn"

Isn't porn already legal?

Does Mike Huckabee want to make it illegal?

I truly don't understand what you mean. Is this the position of Bible loving/Reformed believers? (Wanting to make pornography illegal.) I think I missed that meeting or maybe I wasn't invited:-)

If it is access to pron. It is my job to keep myself from porn and keep it from my children. Not the village as proposed by Hillary.

Sorry for keep beating on this Ron Paul horse. He has cured me of my apathy towards politics/politicians and hence my excitement.

10/25/2007 08:56:00 PM  
Anonymous luke s. said...

A view from an outsider, with no vested interest in either side of politics, merely an observer:

It's sad to see 'evangelicals' still so in bed with conservative poiltiics. Have you learnt nothing over the past ~7 years? Your support for the "conservatives" last time 'round got you a bunch of guys so scared they contravened your own War Crimes Act they have attempted to write their own immunity into law, a massive, massive explosion of national debt from the most 'fiscally irresponsible president ever', a quagmire in Iraq & the authorization of torture.

Speaking of torture, how can you have a discussion about the best >Christian< candidate without talking about issues of morality and justice such as the use of torture, the suspension of habeas corpus, and the talk of more war? (You did notice diplomacy was actually effective with North Korea right?)

Christians getting in bed with politics doesn't clean up politics or protect your "values", it just divides people around arbitrary, nonsensical, binary labels like "conservative" and "liberal" rather than "someone who believes in Jesus", and makes Christians look very grubby indeed when the dirt of politics (as above) rubs off on them. The whole torture, secret prisons, kidnapping foreign nationals, belligerent talk of war etc isn't a good look for Christians to be associated with.

My 2c anyway!

10/25/2007 09:09:00 PM  
Blogger dbonhoffer said...

Great post, glad to see you join the ranks of Huckabee bloggers. I just put you on my blogroll.

10/25/2007 09:15:00 PM  
Blogger David said...

Jim said: "If a liberal democrat comes into a church where everybody is wearing Huckabee buttons...a witness has already been started." Yes - a political witness for a candidate, not a witness for Jesus. I am not saying we should ignore or cease from speaking as Christians about things like injustice, abortion, and the like. I am saying that church and politics should not be sleeping together. Furthermore, we should not look to politics to end abortion or any other problem in the world. Jesus will do just fine - he is all the world needs. When we look to politicians to make it happen we make politics a hindrance to the true unadulterated gospel and lose Jesus in the process which also means we have lost the gospel. What then is our message to those liberal democrats who stumble into our church building??? Vote for [fill in blank] because he is "moral"?

10/25/2007 09:46:00 PM  
Blogger Jon C said...

Glad your onboard with Huckabee. I think he's the best we've got in the Republican camp.

10/25/2007 09:54:00 PM  
Blogger Ian said...

Mike Huckabee is an adroit public speaker. He communicates his message in life-like, cogent terms, with compelling examples like the story he told (at the Ames Straw Poll) of what his then-11-yo daughter entered into the "Comments" section of a Visitors Book after visiting the Yad Vashem holocaust museum: “Why didn't somebody do something?” Very effective.

Huckabee is all about calling his listeners to "do something," to awaken them to their own empowerment, and summon them to action in order that "Main Street," and not "Wall Street," will prevail in guarding the values and beliefs upon which the Republic was founded.

Huckabee puts his listeners at ease, and reassures them, articulating clear concepts in a natural, easy style (no doubt something well-cultivated as a pastor). He’s not angry or demanding, like a Ron Paul, nor is he as “rigidly-scripted” as Romney, and his large brown eyes peer through a humble demeanor, drawing a striking contrast to a somewhat mechanical-squinty Brownback. One can easily imagine sitting comfortably with this man over a cup of coffee at the Main Street Cafe.

Most importantly, perhaps, Huckabee convinces many that he is ONE with the FairTax grassroots movement. While many - like Romney, and others, who are invested in the current income tax system - seek to demagog the well-researched FairTax plan, its acceptance in the professional / academic community continues to grow. Renown economist Laurence Kotlikoff believes that failure to enact the FairTax - choosing instead to try to "flatten" what he deems to be a non-flattenable income tax system - will eventuate into an irrevocable economic meltdown because of the hidden aspects of the current system that make political accountability impossible.

Romney's recent WEAK response to FairTax questioning on “This Week with Geo. Stephanopoulos” drew a sharper contrast between Huckabee and all other presidential front-runners who will not embrace it. Huckabee understands that what's wrong with the income tax can't be fixed with "a tap of the hammer, nor a twist of the screwdriver." That his opponents cling to the destructive Tax Code, the IRS, preserving political power of granting tax favors at continued cost to - and misery of - American families, invigorates his campaign's raison d'etre.

Of the FairTax, Huckabee asserts that it's...

• SIMPLE, easy to understand
• EFFICIENT, inexpensive to comply with and doesn't cause less-than-optimal business decisions for tax minimization purposes
• FAIR, FLAT, and FAMILY FRIENDLY, loophole-free, and everyone pays their share
• LOW TAX RATE is achieved by broad base with no exclusions
• PREDICTABLE, doesn't change, so financial planning is possible
• UNINTRUSIVE, doesn't intrude into our personal affairs or limit our liberty
• VISIBLE, not hidden from the public in tax-inflated prices or otherwise
• PRODUCTIVE, rewards - rather than penalizes - work and productivity


A detailed benefits analysis of the plan (from The FairTax Book) explains Huckabee's ardent advocacy:

For individuals:
• No more tax on income - make as much as you wish
• You receive your full paycheck - no more deductions
• You pay the tax when you buy "at retail" - not "used"
• No more double taxation (e.g. like on current Capital Gains)
• Reduction of "pre-FairTaxed" retail prices by 20%-30%
• Adding back 29.9% FairTax maintains current price levels
• FairTax would constitute 23% portion of new prices
• Every household receives a monthly check, or "pre-bate"
• "Prebate" is "advance tax payback" for monthly consumption to poverty level
• FairTax's "prebate" ensures progressivity, poverty protection
Finally, citizens are knowledgeable of what their tax IS
• Elimination of "parasitic" Income Tax industry
• NO MORE IRS. NO MORE FILING OF TAX RETURNS by individuals
• Those possessing illicit forms of income will ALSO pay the FairTax
• Households have more disposable income to purchase goods
• Savings is bolstered with reduction of interest rates


For businesses:
• Corporate income and payroll taxes revoked under FairTax
• Business compensated for collecting tax at "cash register"
• No more tax-related lawyers, lobbyists on company payrolls
No more embedded (hidden) income/payroll taxes in prices
• Reduced costs. Competition - not tax policy - drives prices
• Off-shore "tax haven" headquarters can now return to U.S
No more "favors" from politicians at expense of taxpayers
• Resources go to R&D and study of competition - not taxes
• Marketplace distortions eliminated for fair competition
• US exports increase their share of foreign markets


For the country:
• 7% - 13% economic growth projected in the first year of the FairTax
Jobs return to the U.S.
• Foreign corporations "set up shop" in the U.S.
• Tax system trends are corrected to "enlarge the pie"
• Larger economic "pie," means thinner tax rate "slices"
• Initial 23% portion of price is pressured downward as "pie" increases
No more "closed door" tax deals by politicians and business
• FairTax sets new global standard. Other countries will follow


Passionately supporting FairTax, Huckabee understands that, if elected President, Congress will have to present the bill for his signature. His call to action goes beyond his candidacy: Main Street will have to demand that their legislators deliver the bill.

(Permission is granted to reproduce, in whole or part, provided snipurl.com links are preserved to measure message efficacy. - Ian)

10/25/2007 09:54:00 PM  
Anonymous Matthew R. Perry said...

Thank you for letting us know more about Huckabee. I find myself intrigued and persuaded by Ron Paul more than any other at this point. Paul is a Christian and a consistent constitutionalist who is very much on top of the issues. While he may be more libertarian than most, and many may disagree with his stance on the war, I contribute to his campaign because he sticks with the Founder's ideals of the Constitution.

I blogged a bit about him at my blog recently. I will say, if Paul refuses to run for President, I will support Huckabee. But at this point, he seems to have bought into a number of stances with the GOP (big-government, problematic war stance, etc.) that I have just had enough of. We'll see how things shape up.

10/25/2007 09:58:00 PM  
Blogger Polarbear said...

I have liked Huckabee, but I was one who did not think he could actually win the nomination, let alone the election. I was all about Fred, but Fred has been a huge disappointment and Huck has gained strong, broad appeal. We need a President that is not only guided by his faith, but can communicate a vision of hope to the people.

10/25/2007 10:02:00 PM  
Blogger Burns said...

I think that there is a generation gap in how older and younger evangelicals view politics. Especially many young Reformed guys are quite repulsed by the Replublican mainstream. I get sick when I go home and hear my father talk about how great a guy President Bush is. I don't know how old you guys are, but this is just my anecdotal observation. In my opinion, the decisive issue of the day is the war. And it is both the most important moral and fiscal issue. Most non-Christians can see the obvious inconsistency is being pro-life and supporting a failing and unjust war at the same time. I'm sure that Huckabee means well, but I can't endorse another status quo neo-con. Please prayerfully reconsider your endorsement. I'm not going to mention whom I support, because there has been such an unfortunate outlash against his youthful supporters on the internet recently. But seriously, he's our only option. Huckabee would continue our disasterous progession in foreign policy, and as an American living in a foreign country, I don't want that to happen. He might as well be George Bush III.

10/25/2007 10:38:00 PM  
Anonymous EconAndre said...

Ron Paul is electable and soundly beats Mike Huckabee on all three counts--social, fiscal, and defense conservative.

Social issues--because our culture resembles more of New Testament Greece than Old Testament Israel. Imagine what the Apostle Paul would counsel some Greek Christian politicians and philosophers hanging around Mars Hill. Liberty erases much hypocracy. If we want our religious freedom, we have to be fair to allow others the same freedom, all under the Constitution.

Fiscal issues--do you realize that monetary problems such as inflation are moral issues that primarily hurt the poor and middle class? Again, Ron Paul beats everybody with undisputed consistency and constitutional logic. Just check out his long voting record. Huckabee is quite socialistic, believing the state can make better economic decisions than millions of individuals acting in voluntary, non-coercive economic agreements.

Defense conservative--Check out Ron Paul's Augustinian theology regarding war. The power of the state is great and dangerous in the hands of sinful people. Don't get sucked into the "God is on (fill in your country)'s side of the war." Look at history. Consider the Spanish-American War--a terrible idea that sucked in many of America's Christians. Or consider Nazi Germany where many German Christians were deceived by things such as a photo of Hitler in front of a church holding a Bible.

You theologians should carefully examine the interaction of Christ and cultures over history and then compare your findings with the positions of Ron Paul. Remember, we live in a pluralistic age, like Greece, whether we like it or not. Under this situation, the constitutional liberty of Ron Paul is the best way for everybody.

Ron Paul is America's best hope--he's consistent and constitutional, and corageously stands up against all who want to use the power of the state for their selfish purposes. Just ask yourself why the Republican establishment is so afraid of him.

More and more voters are realizing that Ron Paul best protects Constitional liberties, according to the intent of the Constitution. He also is the only true anti-war candidate, a feature that will deflate the democratic retoric about the war. Ron Paul appeals not only to the Christian community, but also to all others who don't want the omnipotent state telling them what to do.

God gave you a brain, so use it and think through the issues. For more information on historical, economic and political power issues, check out www.mises.org.

Go Ron Paul, hope for America!!

10/25/2007 11:39:00 PM  
Blogger Colin said...

After going through his issues page, I've come to the following conclusions:

Huckabee is weak on Iraq, Israel, and Agricultural Policy. To not qualify support for Israel is foolish, but he "will always ensure that Israel has access to the state-of-the-art weapons and technology." Though he claims he will decrease social spending so he can lower taxes and increase defense funding, he "support[s] a more flexible counter cyclical revenue program that makes payments based on low yields and/or low prices rather than the current program, which is based only on low prices." (Not only incorrect, but a foolish policy.)

On the other hand, he is overbearingly strong on Education, Marriage, and Energy Independence. Federal intervention in these areas will set a dangerous precedent of allowing Big Government to set our personal agendas. Ironically, he quotes Ronald Reagan saying, "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction." If we elect Huckabee, freedom may not last even a generation.

10/26/2007 12:03:00 AM  
Blogger Shane Trammel said...

We stand united with you guys for Huckabee.

http://blog.shanetrammel.com

10/26/2007 12:57:00 AM  
Anonymous Bruce said...

Since when does supporting "a quality education, first-rate health care, decent housing in a safe neighborhood, and clean air and drinking water" for all children make someone a social conservative? Remember when the Republicans wanted to abolish the Department of Education? Providing "Decent housing" was the mantra of liberals from Johnson onward, so it's a social conservative idea?

I can grant Huckabee may be the pragmatic choice, but I would also second other comments that Ron Paul is the true conservative.

While Huckabee supports a flat tax, Paul support the ending of all income taxes (like the way the country operated from its founding through the early 20th century". Ron Paul is completely pro-life. And Ron Paul wants the US out of the UN.

Justin, Matthew and Joe all believe Huckabee was hurt by early beliefs that he was unelectable. And that is Ron Paul's biggest hurddle. He's wildly popular across the nation, but people think a vote for him is throwing a vote away.

But remember, when you vote for the lesser of two evils, you still end up with evil.

10/26/2007 04:45:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Many concerns arise with Mike H and his record in Arkansas. From John Fund's column today at opinionjournal.com:

"Rick Scarborough, a pastor who heads Vision America, attended seminary with Mr. Huckabee and is a strong backer. But, he acknowledges, "Mike has always sought the validation of elites." When conservatives took over the Southern Baptist Convention after a bitter fight in the 1980s, Mr. Huckabee sided with the ruling moderates. Paul Pressler, a former Texas judge who led the conservative Southern Baptist revolt, told me, "I know of no conservative he appointed while he headed the Arkansas Baptist Convention." "

My two cents: Mike H's Biblical foundation looks weak here.

"Mr. Huckabee's reluctance to surround himself with conservatives was evident as governor, when he kept many agency heads appointed by Bill Clinton. Zac Wright, a spokesman for incoming Democratic Gov. Mike Beebe, was asked this year why 15 Huckabee agency heads had been retained. Most of them were "Clinton people," he replied, not "Huckabee people." Mr. Huckabee told me many of his agency heads had "apolitical" responsibilities."

My two cents: Keeping liberal appointees in power is not a good thing, even in apolitical offices. Better to appoint and train conservatives.

More from Fund's aticle"

"Only he and John McCain have endorsed the discredited cap-and-trade system to limit global-warming emissions that has proved a fiasco in Europe. "It goes to the moral issue," he told an admiring group of nvironmentalists this month. Alan Greenspan blasts cap-and-trade in his new book as not feasible, noting that "jobs will be lost and real incomes of workers constrained." Mr. Huckabee defends his plan as n "innovative" way to attain complete energy independence from foreign oil by 2013."

My two cents: Global warming is liberal alarmism, used to push big government and destroy freedom. Sad to see Mike H. following that line.

SO, hardly a great candidate, more like George W warmed over. Also weak on enforcing immigration laws I have heard.

Fred Thompson looks much better to me now.

by Bob S in Maine

10/26/2007 05:25:00 AM  
Blogger centuri0n said...

It's always risky to make an endorsement, especially early in the race. Here's a counterpoint to Justin's endorsement.

10/26/2007 06:49:00 AM  
Blogger Gary said...

Bravo Polar Bear! AS Huck as reached 10% nationally the attacks have begun but the truth remains- Mike Huckabee is the strong conservative - more importantly, the strong Godly man- that America needs

10/26/2007 07:45:00 AM  
Blogger D.J. said...

I'm a guy who's fairly disenchanted with politics because of how much the church seems to have invested in politics at the expense of the gospel. However, after reading the discussion here I must say that I'm quite intrigued by Huckabee and Paul, and I'm interested to learn more about both of them. Interesting sidenote, I was at a Derek Webb concert Wednesday night and he said he is very excited about Paul.

10/26/2007 07:52:00 AM  
Blogger Jim said...

Huckabee supports a "fair tax" not a "flat tax"...a fair tax does completely eliminate the income tax.

10/26/2007 08:00:00 AM  
Anonymous Frank W said...

Recently in a discussion with others (all Christians), I asked the question. "Who would you vote for if your choice were between Guilliani and H.R Clinton?" To my dismay a good number said, "we may have to take the lesser of two evils". I was struck with the idea of praying in that manner. "God give us the least evil President".
It was my decision to say "if those were the choices, I cannot accept either". Your posting has encouraged me to put some dollars together with some prayer and trust that God ultimately knows what this country needs, and it isn't the "lesser of two evils"!

10/26/2007 08:11:00 AM  
Anonymous Doug Richards said...

How does wearing an "I Like Mike" button translate into a witness for the Gospel such as; "Jesus said, 'Repent and believe?'"

10/26/2007 08:14:00 AM  
Blogger steveprost said...

centurion says you've been premature...

I think, as rare as we should be as giving Christian purported 'endorsements', your timing was perfect.

centurion mentions Fund's article, but Fund's article is misleading...
Thanks for taking this stand Justin, Matthew, and Joe

The rebuttal can be found below or here:
http://roebuckreport.blogspot.com/2007/10/funds-column-assassination-of-huckabee.html


Funds’ verbal assassination of Huckabee misleading

By Lucas Roebuck

Manhattan myopia fueled by the natural tension between fiscal and social conservatism seems to be the modus operandi of the assassination piece against former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee in Friday’s Wall Street Journal, penned by John Fund, one of the Journal’s leading editorial voices.

Fund attempts to make the case that Huckabee is “not the ‘consistent conservative’ he claims to be.” However, instead of constructing a well-researched case of examples of Huckabee’s supposed conservative inconsistencies, Fund strings together a handful of individuals who simply accuse Huckabee of being liberal with little or no factual support. Furthermore, what little evidence Fund does present is skewed by critical omissions of relevant fact.

Huckabee is obviously a stronger conservative on social issues than on fiscal ones, which is the opposite of Mayor Rudy Giuliani, hometown favorite of the Manhattan GOP crowd. The Journal, based in New York City, values fiscal conservatism over social conservatism, so the worst kept secret is the group-think going on among the opinion writers at the Journal favors Giuliani.

Fiscal conservatives have become frustrated with their weakening influence in the GOP (not that I blame them) and have grown to resent social conservatives reign over the Republican party since President Bush took office in 2001. Also, the elite in the GOP have always looked down on their mostly Southern social conservative allies, and this is particular true for the Journal, which often, like much of the mainstream media, can’t see very well beyond the shores of Manhattan. Fund’s column against Huckabee embodies this frustration. Huckabee’s gaining in Iowa polls, and he is the strongest social conservative hands down among GOP candidates, so naturally he is drawing fire from the GOP elite.

The strongest case against Huckabee’s fiscally conservative record in Fund’s column is Fund’s implication that Huckabee raised the gas tax in Arkansas to pay for road repair for Arkansas dilapidated interstate system. (I would argue, even on a philosophic level, that raising gas taxes to pay for roads is not necessarily contradictory to fiscal conservatism.*)

I say that Fund implied Huckabee raised the tax, because Fund knows saying outright that Huckabee raised the tax would be inaccurate. Fund refers to Huckabee’s “efforts to raise taxes to repair roads” and cites a state senator who said Huckabee urged him to “back a gas tax increase.”

What Fund omits from his column is that this tax was a referendum in 1999 put out to be voted on by the people of Arkansas, not something imposed by a state legislature and signed into law by a governor. The people of Arkansas spoke at the ballot box, and through direct democracy, imposed the tax on themselves.

If you want the bottom line on Huckabee’s tax policy, as Fund points out, Huckabee has signed the Americans For Tax Reform no new tax pledge. Rudy has not signed the pledge.

As an Arkansas journalist for nearly a decade, I had a unique opportunity to observe Huckabee’s character. I believe Mike Huckabee is a man of his word and if elected president, will not raise taxes.

Fund, quoting Arkansas Business scribe Blant Hurt, points out that Arkansas spending rose faster than the inflation rate and sales taxes were raised during Huckabee’s tenure. Both of these facts are true, but the tax increase was the result of an Arkansas Supreme Court order in the Lake View school funding lawsuit that Huckabee fought, but lost – another fact Fund failed to mention.

Education eats the lion’s share of state expenditures, inflating the rate of increase of state spending. Lake View was a horrible court decision, and I fought it on the editorial pages at the time as Huckabee fought it in court. To use the results of the forced tax increase (and forced spending of that new revenue) as proof Huckabee isn’t really fiscally conservative is erroneous at best, if not deceptive.

Fund also trots out Huckabee’s enemies in the Eagle Forum, who take the opportunity to blame Huckabee for the Arkansas Republican Party woes. This statement is patently ridiculous. While Huckabee was governor, Republicans gained ground in the state house up until 2006, which as we know, was not a banner year for Republicans nationwide. When Huckabee was on the ballot, Republicans won more offices than they had since Reconstruction. Huckabee was always one of the most popular politicians in office, according the the University of Arkansas’ Arkansas Poll, conducted annually.

The Eagle Forum doesn’t like Huckabee because he doesn’t take the hardest line against illegal immigration. He specifically earned the groups ire when he supported a bill (which failed) that would have allowed children of illegal immigrants who were applying to become citizens access to merit based state scholarships.

If an absolute hard line on immigration is more important to you than say, ending abortion, then Huckabee isn’t your candidate. Huckabee says on immigration, “My number one priority is to secure America’s border” and “those caught trying to enter the country illegally must be detained, processed and deported” (as opposed to catch and release). Still, Rep. Tom Tancredo is farther to the right than Huckabee on immigration, so send your donations to Tancredo if this is your primary voting issue. Of course, Huckabee is as conservative or more conservative on immigration than former Mayor Rudy Guiliani, Sen. John McCain and former Gov. Mitt Romney.

Fund is either ignorant that the immigration issue is at the heart of the Eagle Forum opposition to Huckabee or disingenuous. Fund and his fellows on the Wall Street Journal are well known for being centrists on immigration reform. The Journal certainly is as centrist or even more so on immigration than Huckabee, which is probably why Fund didn’t give context to the Eagle Forum comments.

As far as blaming Huckabee for the GOP woes in Arkansas, the Republican Party in that state stared unravelling in 2004, when the social conservatives turned on Sen. Tim Hutchinson, largely because of his divorce and remarriage to a former staffer. This gave rise to pure ideologues like Jim Holt, who twice was able to win the GOP nomination for statewide races (once for U.S. Senate, once for Lt. Governor), but was unable to assemble a winning general election campaign. Don’t get me wrong, Holt worked hard and was more conservative, both fiscally and socially than President Reagan, but lacked Reagan (and Huckabee’s) communication skills. Unfortunately Holt, who managed to alienate nearly every Republican in the state legislature, was not savvy enough to beat the persecution of the Arkansas press.

Tim Hutchinson’s fall from grace also tainted (unfairly) his brother, Asa, who was the Republican who ran to replace the term-limited Huckabee. (Asa, whom I supported, was uncontested in the GOP primary, because of the sudden death from cancer of Lt. Governor Win Rockefeller, a moderate Republican who was as popular as Huckabee statewide.)

In considering Huckabee’s social conservatism, Fund either is talking out of both sides of his mouth or implying Huckabee is hypocrite. In one sentence, Fund describes Huckabee as “running hard right” on social issues, but then cites one of Huckabee’s fellow seminarians, Pastor Rick Scarborough, saying that Huckabee “never appointed conservatives while he headed the Arkansas Baptist Convention.” Fiscal conservatives? Theological conservatives? Social conservatives? Those who like conservative hymns instead of guitar-led worship? In his weak attempt to discredit Huckabee, Fund doesn’t say — another omission.

At any rate, Huckabee’s social conservative track record is unrivaled by any one else in the GOP field. Front runners Romney, Giuliani, McCain and actor Fred Thompson don’t even come close to the consistency of Huckabee’s social conservatism, which is ultimately where Fund’s analysis of Huckabee falls apart. When Huckabee is talking about being consistently conservative, he is talking about the promotion of the sanctity of life, opposition to gay marriage and other core social conservative values that his opponents have flip flopped on enough times to rival John Kerry.

Every year while governor, Huckabee led the line in Arkansas’ annual Right to Life march. Huckabee also led efforts to pass a state constitutional amendment recognizing marriage as a bond between one man and one woman. Finally, Huckabee was proactive in helping to strengthen marriages in Arkansas by promoting “Covenant Marriages” as an option in Arkansas, where couples must see counseling before a judge will grant a divorce on grounds of convenience.

Huckabee is not the perfect candidate. HIs flirting with carbon credits and his weak stance against SCHIP expansion, both noted by Fund, don’t thrill me.

But who can I count on to strongly oppose the infanticide going on in this country? Not Giuliani, who is self-described as pro-choice, nor Romney, who flips on issues like abortion for political expedience. Who can I trust not to raise taxes? Not Giuliani, who won’t sign an anti-tax pledge, nor Romeny — again, whose flip-flopping ruins his credibility.

Contrary to Fund’s assertion that Huckabee is an inconsistent conservative, Huckabee is a social conservative I know I can count on.


* Even hard core fiscal conservatives agree that the government must be involved in some public works projects — like roads. Few people — if any — would argue that creating a healthy system of roads is not one of the government’s primary responsibilities. I would also argue that if you are going to have a tax, making those who directly benefit from the service the tax will provide, i.e. those who drive on roads (or rather, who buy gas), pay for the tax is also fiscally conservative — as opposed to some “progressive” income tax or universal sales tax.

Lucas Roebuck is the former opinion page editor of the Benton County Daily Record, former assignment editor for KNWA-NBC, and former managing editor for the Northwest Arkansas Times and Siloam Springs Herald-Leader.

10/26/2007 08:27:00 AM  
Blogger DJP said...

Dozens of comments, but not one response to my counterpoints from the pro-Huck camp. I remain where I was.

10/26/2007 08:30:00 AM  
Blogger tnhuck said...

Seeing as how folks have questioned Huckabee's position on immigration, I gathered a few of his public statements and put them in a youtube video.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ji1DUperkmA

10/26/2007 08:36:00 AM  
Blogger Gary said...

Thasnks Steveprost for the excellent rebuttal by Lucas Roebuck. "The rest of the story" was certainly needed. Mike Huckabee continues to be the social conservative we can trust

10/26/2007 08:40:00 AM  
Blogger steveprost said...

DJP,

Did you read the comment I put up 3 min. before your comment that there is "no response to (your) counterpoints"... please consider that there has never been a single finding that Huck has ever rec'd a single illegal, nor have other prominent candidates like Guiliani (who has a far more liberal tax and spend record) been willing to sign the pledge not to ever raise a tax as President. Do you question Huckabee's honor in making that signed promise?

10/26/2007 08:42:00 AM  
Blogger Joe Carter said...

I've appreciated reading the comments and want to add a further clarification (speaking only for myself, but I think Matt and Justin would agree).

An endorsement of a political candidate is similar to a letter or recommendation for a job applicant. Saying that someone is the best candidate for the job is not saying that they are the perfect candidate or the only person worthy. It simply means that if you asked our opinion, we would say--based on our judgment--that Candidate X is who we would hire.

Dig around long enough and anyone can find a reason to dislike Huckabee or any other candidate. We have our issues with him too. But my standard is to consider which candidate is most in line with our Biblical values and will champion them in a pluralistic society in a reasonable and God-honoring way.

I think Huckabee meets that standard. Obviously, if you think his raising gas taxes to pay for highways is a disqualifier, then you will disagree. But I believe that the single most important issues is the protection of human dignity. And that is why Huckabee is my candidate.

10/26/2007 08:53:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Joe Carter said: "But I believe that the single most important issues (sic) is the protection of human dignity."

Joe, could you please flesh that out a little more? What exactly do you mean by "the protection of human dignity"?

Also, I don't recall any mention of "biblical values" in the original endorsement. I thought Huckabee was the conservative choice, not the biblical choice. In your mind, is conservative synonymous with biblical?

10/26/2007 09:03:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Are you guys familiar with any of the arguments against Huckabee mentioned in this article? I was starting to lean towards him after reading your post yesterday, but now I'm not so sure.

http://opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110010782

-Chris

10/26/2007 09:28:00 AM  
Blogger DJP said...

Steveprost—"Did you read the comment I put up 3 min. before your comment...?"

The post that is a response to Centurion, not me? The post that may be tangentially germane to one sentence in mine, but says nothing to the more important reservations I expressed?

Yeah, I looked at it. Why?

10/26/2007 09:28:00 AM  
Blogger steveprost said...

Huckabee has been steadily rising in polls while Romney slowly falling so that today in national polling by Rasmussen, who many insiders consider the most reliable, for the first time Huckabee (12% nationally) passed Romney (11% nationally)... and has done so spending astronomically less than Mitt... so much for the argument 'he can't win'

News article here http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

10/26/2007 09:33:00 AM  
Blogger Gary said...

More on Rasmussen--- Huck has passed Thompson in New Hampshire! Go Mike Go!

10/26/2007 09:51:00 AM  
Blogger steveprost said...

djp,

I'm trying to take your comments seriously since you write for the influential pyro blog, and not giving up on winning you over. Since you did not give the substantive comment to your two first linked objections to Huck in your comment above, I respond more substantively at your personal blog you link to; Suffice it to say here that the fact that you did not like the fact that Huck did not come out stronger than he did on womens' ordination or did not in an interview come out and say that Roman Catholics are decidedly NOT Christian brothers in ref. to Brownback is proof of his ABILITY to answer questions prudently with integrity, not the opposite as you claim that he is "completely unprepared and unable to answer" media questions... of all the attacks I've heard on Huck, this is a first that he can't handle himself well in answering questions on his feet.

As far as your "open borders" complaint and your fiscal concerns, do you still consider that "no one has responded" to you as you claim a few comments above? I see multiple responses in the comment string to those comments, outstanding among them the long article I posted by L. Roebuck and the outstanding youtube clips on immigration, where he is at least as tough and loud and conservative in position at this point on the stump as any candidate other than the now irrelevant Tancredo.

Let's cut to the chase. Do you think there is another better candidate with an even outside chance of winning for an evangelical conservative to support, and dare you name that candidate?

10/26/2007 09:58:00 AM  
Blogger Joshua said...

The dismantling of Fund's piece (above) failed to address the central and determinative argument against support for Huckabee: He takes an expansive view of government's role -- and in this, he is out of step with the Constitution and with a large swath of the Republican Party. Right now the cohesiveness of our Republican coalition (political/structural conservatives and social conservatives) is weak. Supporting Huckabee could further weaken that coalition, leaving us with no leverage at all on social issues. Please consider a candidate who is conservative on social issues and on the role of government.

10/26/2007 10:03:00 AM  
Blogger steveprost said...

Huckabee Answers False Claims Made Against Him About Smoking Ban:

djp alludes for proof of Huck as another "big govt." candidate linking to mischaracterizations of his comments on cigarrettes. He has not supported a ban on smoking in all public places, has not supported a ban in bars and restaurants, and here he answers in a bloggers conf. call exactly what his record has been on the issue in his decade as a governor of Ark. and what he'd favor as Prez available at http://onemom.wordpress.com/2007/09/06/huckabee-blogger-conference-call-september-6-2007-the-truth-squad/

"There’s some concern about your statements regarding tobacco regulation from the Lance Armstrong forum. As a Public Health Professional, I fully support any and all tobacco regulation, but others felt your comments meant you would be building big government and forcing behavior on individuals. Could you clarify your views on tobacco regulation.

Huckabee: "Certainly, I don’t believe that we as a govt have a right to tell people what to do or not do. The issue is one of workplace safety … the same reason that the govt regulates the exposure of radon and other toxic gases in the work place. In AR I signed a bill that banned smoking in certain public areas and businesses, but not in bars/restaurants, because those were places consumers could more easily choose to go to or not. So, in the work place, if we regulate smoking, it is an issue of worker safety. Even though I think it’s an unhealthy habit and is terribly expensive to the country, but when that smoke reaches my nose, that right ends. The responsibility initially lies with the states of course. The only way this would be a federal responsibility is for it taking on that roll as part of OSHA as it regulates other work place safety."

10/26/2007 10:16:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Joshua said: "[Huckabee] takes an expansive view of government's role -- and in this, he is out of step with the Constitution and with a large swath of the Republican Party."

Joshua, surely you must be kidding! An expansive view of government is out of step with the Republican Party?! What country have you been living in for the past 7 years?!

10/26/2007 10:21:00 AM  
Blogger DJP said...

Steve, you completely misunderstood both my posts in your retorts, and so did not really speak to my reservations.

I don't know what to think of his position on borders. But he could have the best position in the world, and if he keeps getting caught on simple and easily-anticipated questions, it won't matter.

Just as I said above (still unresponded-to), as a Christian pastor he is the ruthless Clinton machine's (and the MSM's) dream-come-true. Every sermon, every newsletter, every Bible study, ever letter to a church-member will be reviewed. He struck me as being completely unprepared.

No, honestly, I don't have any candidate that I both like and think can win. I've liked a lot of what I've read about Duncan Hunter's positions. I have both hopes and reservations about Fred Thompson. My only hope about Romney is the same I have for McCain, Giuliani, and nutcase Paul: that he'll drop out soon.

You'll look in vain for any agenda or anything beyond what I wrote. I wanted to like him, but the lame way he let him be blindsided, and the absurd priority he freely picked to talk about, alarm me.

10/26/2007 10:27:00 AM  
Blogger Joe Carter said...

***Joshua: He takes an expansive view of government's role -- and in this, he is out of step with the Constitution and with a large swath of the Republican Party.***

That's incorrect. I'd really recommend looking at his record and what he says rather than how everyone else tries to paint him.

View the interview Huckabee did with Glen Beck and then try to tell me he that he is "out of step with the Constitution." (Out of step with the GOP might be correct, though, since they are for more central federal control, and he is not.)

Seriously, I think the more people look at Huckabee for themselves rather than just taking the claims of others at face value they will see that he is the most conservative candidate in the race.

Here is the link to the Beck interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvsf8uCcYxI

10/26/2007 10:30:00 AM  
Blogger Ekklesia said...

This just in at the Wall Street Journal countering your case for Huckabee:

http://opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110010782

10/26/2007 10:36:00 AM  
Blogger metanoia said...

Excellent debate with point and counterpoint. It has been remarkably civil even when confronting an opposing view. I think this is as Christian as you can get when discussing something as potentially volatile on this side of the Great Divide.

I appreciate my brothers and sisters passion and willingness to share their opinions.

I remain committed to reminding those in my circle of influence that the race for conservatives will be won or lost in the primaries. We'll worry about the big dance after March.

Peace

10/26/2007 10:38:00 AM  
Anonymous Tamara said...

I completely agree with EconAndre.

I'll be honest, I have respect for Mike Huckabee and I think he brings an interesting perspective to the political arena. There was a time when I said that if Ron Paul were to pull out or not do well (thankfully neither are true) I would likely support Mike Huckabee.

I feel convicted now for ever considering it.

I don't know when "conservative" began meaning only "social conservative," and frankly I don't know when "social conservative" came to mean the promotion of legislation of Christian morals.

Huckabee is not conservative in the true sense. He is pro-life. He supports banning gay marriage. These are the two main things that people use in their arsenal of "Huckabee is the most conservative" arguments. I honestly don't get it. The term "conservative" means much more than being pro-life and anti-homosexuality.

Huckabee recently said he would support a federal ban on public smoking. I don't smoke. I think it's disgusting. His ban won't affect my smoking habit. But it is NOT a conservative move. It would hinder business to a huge degree that would affect real wallets in American pockets. But worse, it is a terrible loss of personal liberty and is nothing more than big government telling individuals how they can live their lives. This is not liberty, this is not conservative, it is an egregious affront to personal liberty and our constitution.

Huckabee recently stated that he would not have vetoed the S-CHIP program bill. He would not have vetoed a huge entitlement program that even our spend-happy sitting president vetoed? And this is conservative? This is not conservatism, this is socialism.

Huckabee makes a big deal about being "pro-life for all of life." But apparently that extends only to American lives. Because his policy on Iraq would continue the bloodshed of innocent lives that George Bush has been party to. His "you broke it, you bought it" policy on Iraq is ignorant at best. Once you've broken something, you don't continue breaking things in an attempt to fix it. You stop breaking things, you apologize, and if at all possible, you make restitution. And you live with the consequences. To continue promoting death and destruction on foreign soil in any way is not "pro-life." The term pro-life has a meaning: preserving and respecting ALL human lives.

When questioned on torture, Mike Huckabee stated that "mistakes" made at Gitmo were better than innocent lives being lost on American soil. Torture is not a "mistake." There is a reason the United States has taken a stand against torture in the past: because it's wrong. Moving them off shore and doing it doesn't change the morality of it. And any man who could suggest that it might be a "mistake" but the outcome is what's important is not worthy of my vote.

Mike Huckabee is a "chicken in every pot" guy who has successfully bent the ear of some social conservatives. I wish I had seen it sooner. With a little eloquence, he convinces people that he is conservative and promises them flowers and rainbows and a lovely place to live, all the while endorsing the steady stripping away of personal liberty.

Huckabee did very well at the Values Voters (that term irritates me, honestly) straw poll. That is because those who typically support those efforts are those who want to see immorality outlawed so that there are certain sins it's simply not possible to commit without consequence, certain sins they and their children won't have to be exposed to. It's too bad God's plan is different, eh? God's plan is that sin would dwell within, so that His grace, not legislation, is our only hope.

No, thank you. Instead, give me a country where a I am free to teach my children well the principles of hard work, God's provision, and His plan of redemption, where I can fully practice His commands of community and charity. Since Thomas Jefferson isn't up for re-election, I'm voting for Ron Paul.

10/26/2007 10:47:00 AM  
Blogger Ben Stevenson said...

"God's plan is that sin would dwell within, so that His grace, not legislation, is our only hope."

The Bible teaches that government has a role with restraining evil. What about Romans 13:4 and 1 Peter 2:13-14?

"For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."

"Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, 14or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right."

10/26/2007 10:54:00 AM  
Blogger Gary said...

Queen Esther came to government and saved the innocents. Yes it is the Lord alone that brings salvation. Not governments or politicians. But in our country as in every civilization the Lord has used government for his purposes. Mike Huckabee is willing to come to government to speak for the unborn innocents as well as those of us who are post birth. For this we should applaud him. For this we should support him. This is our call to be salt and light in a dark world.

10/26/2007 11:05:00 AM  
Blogger Shamgar said...

Justin/Matthew/Joe,
Obviously, I disagree with your choice - and I hope people will not just take your word for it and will evaluate the options intelligently for themselves.

However, I do thank you for taking a principled stand for a candidate you believe in, rather than falling for the fearmongering of so many in their foolish and simpering attempts to scare people into voting for a bad candidate out of fear that Hillary might win some future election.


Ben, Gary,

You're missing the point. Historically baptists were aware that our job was not to reform the government into forcing a 'christian-like' morality on everyone on an external basis.

Yes, Esther was used to save her people. I hardly think you can equate Esther petitioning her husband the king to prevent the mass-murder of a people group under his rule with Huckabee wanting to ban smoking nationwide.

Further, in Esther's situation it created a net good. That is not the case with such foolish social policies. Instead, it'll just create another massive black market, a big jump in crime, and a lot of (civilly speaking) innocent people going to jail. That's just stupid.

Second, I skimmed through and I saw no real discussion of the fair tax. I just want to note that it sounds good on paper but it is utterly garbage if you actually read it. First, they are using funny math to make it "23%". It's not actually 23%, in reality it is closer to 30%. They're just measuring the tax rate creatively because polls show nobody will support anything higher than 23%.

Further, it includes the purchases of the government in the tax profits. This does not accurately reflect reality. The government doesn't pay taxes, even if it is /charged/ taxes. It just means we have to pay more taxes if they do.

Then you have the conflict between state and local sales taxes. There is little to no incentive for retailers to collect this tax, and lots of incentive not to. Of course, the feds will try to enforce so they'll need someone to do that...someone like...the IRS. Gee, yeah that's not going anywhere.

I'm not going into all the details out there (detailed economic analysis of the bankruptcy of this plan is readily available with some searching) but I do want to warn that ANYTIME the government wants you to approve some new tax on the promise of eliminating the other one you should head for higher ground.

They never repeal the other tax. Once this tax gets in place there will be continuous reasons why they can't repeal the income tax and we'll then be stuck with an income tax AND a sales tax. Yes, I know they'll put it in the bill that they have to do it. And heaven knows, those kinds of things can't be, and never are, changed by later legislation right?

Right.

10/26/2007 11:25:00 AM  
Blogger Gary said...

Shamgar My reference to Queen Esther had nothing to do with a smoking ban. It has to do with the horrific slaughter of innocent unborn children in our country. As Esther was willing to take a stand to change what her government was doing regarding the innocents, I believe Mike is taking a stand to protect the endangered innocents of our day. I say again, for a cause this noble we should do all we can to aid this cause from prayer to blogging, to spreading the message, to giving financial support.

10/26/2007 11:37:00 AM  
Blogger Ben Stevenson said...

Shamgar: "Historically baptists were aware that our job was not to reform the government into forcing a 'christian-like' morality on everyone on an external basis."


The 1689 London Baptist Confession contains a clear reference to the Bible passages I quoted:

"For this purpose He has armed them with the power of the sword, ... for the punishment of evil-doers." -- LBCF (1689) Chapter 24

Given that we live in a democracy where we choose our leaders, and they can change the law, what Biblical reason could there be for not wanting the laws of the land to not reflect Biblical law - so that what the Bible says is wrong is what governments bear the sword to punish.

10/26/2007 11:43:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ben,

How about John 18:36-37 and 1 Corinthians 5:9-13?

And do you really want to the U.S. government to punish those who say to their brother "Raca (you fool)"; lust in their hearts (masturbation); divorce their spouse; swear by heaven; refuse to give up their tunic, turn the other cheek, or go the extra mile; withold love from their enemies; give to the needy so as to be seen by men; pray like hypocrites; fast so as to be seen by men; store up treasures on earth; and worry about tomorrow? What should the legal punishment be for those who commit such evil and disobey the law of Christ? Fine? Imprisonment? Capital punishment?

10/26/2007 12:03:00 PM  
Blogger Ben Stevenson said...

Anonymous,

"Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place." -- John 18:36

I don't know how this contradicts the Bible verses I quoted.

The government cannot make a person a true believer - that is God's work. But the government does have a role in restraining evil.

The government can only punish sins it can detect. Some things are impractical for the government to punish. For example, in the Old Testament, the death penalty existed for some crimes, such as murder, but I am not aware of there being any punishment for covetousness.
The government needs evidence to punish crimes - see Deuteronomy 17:6 and Deuteronomy 19:15.

"One witness is not enough to convict a man accused of any crime or offense he may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses." -- Deuteronomy 19:15

10/26/2007 12:12:00 PM  
Blogger Shamgar said...

Gary,

Ah, Ok. Well, that is a separate issue - but I am not sure who you were arguing against then. I didn't see anyone saying that the government shouldn't protect the life of the unborn.

JT said,
(Out of step with the GOP might be correct, though, since they are for more central federal control, and he is not.)

I really don't know how you get this. I've watched him in the debates, and in interviews - I'm not talking about other people's opinions. He may not be as bad as some of the others, but that's faint praise.

Seriously, I think the more people look at Huckabee [...] they will see that he is the most conservative candidate in the race.

Look, like I said, if this is where you are, that is fine. I can certainly respect your support for Huckabee in a way I could not for the so-called top-tier. However, this is a blatantly false statement on its face.

You may even like some of the things Huckabee has said and/or done that are most definitely NOT conservative, and that's fine. But your liking them doesn't make them fit with the historic definition of conservative thought and policy.

10/26/2007 01:35:00 PM  
Blogger David said...

All I think Burns was on to something. The generation gap may explain why some of us look at church and politics differently. I am 33 and I know that my father thinks I am un-american because of some of my statements of apathy towards politics and my refusal to boycott he new $1 coin that does not say In God We Trust. Anyone else find this interesting other than me and Burns? I think it is worth exploring.

10/26/2007 01:49:00 PM  
Blogger Shamgar said...

Ben,

What you're not getting, imo, is that there is no evidence in Scripture or history that the church trying to encode what only grace can give into the national law is a good thing.

Scripturally we can see no efforts whatsoever to try and reform the government of its time. It was extremely hostile to the church, making that really difficult, but aside from Paul preaching the gospel to them as he was given opportunity there is nothing. There is no indication they thought that was a good thing or in any way something that should be the goal of the church.

Fast forward a couple hundred years and observe what happened when they did anyway. Heresy was established as truth, and true christians were persecuted for holding to the faith.

Fast forward a bit more, and you see borne out of this the Roman Catholic Church.

Forward some more and observe the Protestants and Catholics taking turns persecuting each other with the government.

Forward some more and see the way baptists came to this country and (in particular) influenced in favor of the basic governmental guideline of "leave us alone".

Yes, there are certain basic evils we prevent, but even those are all (ideally) handled at the state level. The Federal government's purpose is to manage interstate relationships and foreign ones. It has no business whatsoever in restraining evil in individuals - that is the job of the state and local governments in our system.

We have strayed from that, and done so to our detriment. To further centralize control as you suggest would only be to further that disaster, and set the stage for our own demise. Worse, it sets the supports in place for the power to stifle the spread of the gospel here at home.

We need not look long in the news to see where other governments have made use of this kind of power. Our own government has already made strides towards limiting our ability to speak on certain issues, and will only keep trying. The best way to prevent this is to stick to the constitutional government established so long ago. Not to give them the very weapon(s) they want and need.

10/26/2007 01:54:00 PM  
Blogger Jim said...

When a Christian visibly supports a candidate who is moral (pro-life), the witness shown to the world is that Christians care about values and life. This allows the lost to see that faith is living out in actions in the Christian when he commands the lost to repent and trust in Christ.

10/26/2007 02:43:00 PM  
Blogger Jim said...

Some of the posters here seem to make the fiscal conservative issues (where I agree wholeheartedly with men like Ron Paul) of the same weight or more weighty than social issues (primarily speaking of abortion). Some of you are forgetting that life is more important than money.

10/26/2007 02:58:00 PM  
Blogger David said...

Visibly supporting a candidate who is moral is not the same thing as visibly exalting Christ to a lost world. This is merely moralistic and fails to reach anyone because it only condemns and polarizes. A Christian can show the lost what it means to be a true disciple of Christ by his faith, conduct and love without ever getting his hands dirty in politics. Finally, the real problem as I see it is that we "conservatives" come across as "better" than the liberals which is false. It sounds good to say we are setting an example but I am telling you people can't see Jesus if all they see is "vote for Huck"! Now let me clarify that I am not suggesting we should not vote as Christians. I am only saying we must be careful lest we make politics the idol we look to believing the lie that somehow we will win America for Jesus through our "sacred" vote. It's through the foolishness of preaching and living the gospel my friends that we will bring transformation to our great nation.

10/26/2007 03:08:00 PM  
Blogger Lara said...

I didn't finish reading all the way, but I just wanted to point out that Free trade and Fair trade are very different things.
You guys seemed to have really done your homework in all the other areas. I just wanted to point out this one issue for you guys and your readers. Sorry, if this seems critical. I don't mean to be.

10/26/2007 06:40:00 PM  
Blogger Shamgar said...

Some of the posters here seem to make the fiscal conservative issues (where I agree wholeheartedly with men like Ron Paul) of the same weight or more weighty than social issues (primarily speaking of abortion). Some of you are forgetting that life is more important than money.

No, I don't think anyone is doing that. Given two pro-life candidates, the question becomes which one is better otherwise. So we turn to the other very important issues - especially issues where the candidates differ.

I would again note though that many of us have problems with Mike's purported "pro-life" position too in that it seems very specific to American life. He is demonstrably less concerned about the life of Iraqi citizens - unborn or otherwise.

10/27/2007 08:35:00 AM  
Anonymous Brother Hank said...

Hey guys-

I just wanted to thank y'all for stepping up and endorsing Huckabee like you have. The ingrained American political ideal of "viability" is so overblown today that we've come to a point where people won't even speak out in support of someone who they believe is not "viable" -- when the very reason he is believed not to be "viable" is because people won't speak up for him. We've gotten rid of the horse, and have tried to strap the cart on the back of the media establishment. We've got to remember that candidates just don't wake up one morning "viable" - its a journey of countless "Have you heard of..." conversations that propel them on to center stage.

thanks again for a little common sense...

gig'em,
W.Hank Balch

10/28/2007 04:08:00 PM  
Blogger Chris said...

I cannot support Huckabee because of his defense position.

The War in Iraq was sold on lies and Huckabee still supports the lie that is Iraq. It has nothing to do with the War on Terror.

I believe Ron Paul is a better choice.

10/29/2007 12:37:00 PM  
Blogger matthieu said...

A Christian Votes for Ron Paul in the Primary
Matthieu Bernard Nov. 16, 2007


It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. Gal.5:1

Sometimes I don't vote because I find myself compromising values for "the lesser of two evils." However as a Christian I am compelled to vote for Ron Paul because he is NOT a Christian politician. Now when pressed about it he will say that Christianity is his religion and you can see his ethical system follows suit. But he doesn't pander to that to try and win votes from "Christian Voters." I like this because if there is one thing that instantly zaps the Church it is looking to the government for power. Also when we focus our efforts on moralizing society through government laws and injunctions rather than prayer, testimony and acts of compassion and charity we tend to forsake the "inner cleansing" effect of the gospel. (Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law. Romans 3:31) I believe this is injurious to spiritual health on a personal level and at large. Lastly, the general awareness of the populace today is that Christianity is a militant religion. We have to acknowledge that TV-fueled, money driven, false teaching has made it so. With respect to your opinion of President Bush's leadership and faith, all Christians can agree that Jesus Christ, not the President, is our example in life. Yep, as a Christian I love separation of Church and State. That's an issue of Freedom.

Now as an American, I really like this guy because he brings it back to the Constitution. One thing we've all forgotten is that the Constitution holds the key to our national identity. It is the tender yarn that knits our vast and diverse congregation of souls together in the union we call a Republic. Freedom is a radical idea in every sphere of life and it is from God. True Freedom is exclusively God stuff. We say it all the time as Christians but sometimes we limit it to the context of theology, worship, and church-oriented settings. Where Freedom meets government or commerce or artistic expression or a context where the world can get a taste some Christians back off and call it secular and treat it as "unclean" or beneath them and God to interest themselves in the affairs of man. It implies that unbelievers can't enjoy the common grace of God or worse yet, that God is small. But it really reveals how little we enjoy God. Now as a Christian I don't want to have small or weak faith in God. No, I desire to see God glorified and enjoyed for His benefits by every man, woman and child in every sphere of life, including politics and government.

Our Founding Fathers loved Freedom. They brooded long hours over it and they found that Man's Government is naturally tyrannous and corrupt. What a surprise. This is stirring because the conclusions that they reached are the ones we were all raised to respect but forgot about. Let me say, The Republic is NOT expressed in the individuals' subjection to government. The Republic is found in the government's subjection to the individuals. True Patriotism therefore values the interest of the individual and not government. The USA does not belong to the President but to the People! This talk is common sense but out of place today. Why?!

Freedom is wonderful to celebrate. As a boy I loved the 4th of July, not just for the pyro-fun of it but for how it made me feel as an American celebrating Liberty with my fellow man in the land of the Free and the Brave. Not because we are all the same but because we are all free! Government off our backs! Some might think this is rebellious but the great thing is, it isn't! We are all honor bound by the writings of those who founded this nation to celebrate freedom from government interest. American government is, "of the people, by the people, for the people." It is not the body of government which is sovereign, but the people who are sovereign. ("People," referring to the body of individuals, not mob rule or rule of the masses.)

Liberty can be such a blessing in America. But it's not like that now and we have to put our house in order and honor the traditional American principles of individual freedom and responsibility or suffer in poverty under certain tyranny.

So I am voting for love of America and all her inhabitants and all their livelihood invisible to me with the prayer that their lives would be free and happy, that we may all dwell in peace with our neighbors.

If you are a Christian concerned with love for your family, neighbors and troops please consider registering right away as a Republican and voting for Ron Paul in your State's soon approaching Republican primary.

for more info about Ron Paul please visit www.ronpaul2008.com, www.ronpaulforums.com, and www.teaparty07.com
You will find him to be empassioned, principled, humble and genuine.

11/21/2007 03:46:00 AM  
Blogger Ian said...

Day by day, increasingly, Mike Huckabee is what Leadership looks like.

11/21/2007 02:58:00 PM  
Blogger MLM said...

Justin Taylor,

Just wondering how you feel now that Huckabee is on Kenneth Copeland's TV broadcast all week?

11/26/2007 08:26:00 AM  
Blogger jdcole82 said...

I don't understand my fellow Christians who have no problem with a candidate that clearly doesn't respect God's ordained role and jurisdiction of government. Huckabee sees the government as a nanny state that takes away the role of the church. It's not only completely unconstitutional but it is most definitely not Biblical. Brothers, let us unite around God's Word to see who we should vote for and not around a quick witted candidate who although may be a sincere Christian, has so many errors in his view of governments God given role.

12/22/2007 10:36:00 AM  
Blogger Gary said...

Gov . Huckabee is not a nanny stater. He believes in small government. Because he spent money to fix roads and improve education doesn't make him a nanny stater, it makes him a good governor. His vision for being a president does not include higher taxes but rather, as he has said, states that the problem is that we have been spending too much. Please don't believe the koolaid. Check out the facts. Christians need to unite around this godly man who is in fact one of us. We have for too long accepted those who pander to us while something else is their main issue. We may not all agree on every policy but what really matters is a man who stands for the unborn, who stands for the traditional family , and who , when he is in the White House, will turn to the one true God in times of trial.

12/22/2007 12:18:00 PM  
Blogger jdcole82 said...

I'm sorry brother, but you are wrong. The President takes this oath...""I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." The man has one job, protect and defend the Constitution. He puts his hand on the Bible and makes this oath to God. You will not find in the Constitution a majority off the programs that Huckabee supports. He may want Children's Healthcare out of the kindness of his heart, but in doing so he is violating his oath to God. Those programs are paid for not out of generosity, but our taxes which are taken from people by force of the law. The government is an agency of coercion by force, and therefore needs to be limited to the role God gave it. The more "good intentioned" programs you give to government the less of the role there is for the Church. We must not only preach the Gospel, but live it out in our serving and giving to others. We must never let the government hijack the Church's role and rob the glory only due our Savior. We must never promote a False Messiah vie government compassion. The Constitution limits the government to it's Biblical role and therefore needs to be taken seriously by Christians and not trampled on with good intentions. Huckabee might have better ideas to abuse this power than Hillary, but it is nonetheless an abuse of power. We don't elect kings to life terms. We elect presidents to 4 yr terms and the power and growth of government that Huckabee supports may one day be wielded by someone who in no way worships our God. We will wish in that day that we had elected leaders that would have restrained the growth of government and not expanded it with good intentions.

12/22/2007 01:52:00 PM  
Blogger Gary said...

While I would disagree with your position, you seem very set in it and I wouldn't want to argue. I stand firmly committed to Mike Huckabee as our next President for the reasons I've already stated. However I would want to agree with you that our allegiance is to our Lord and we must follow him with all we have. I hope you have a wonderful Christmas and that you might be encouraged in the wonder of His coming.

12/22/2007 02:05:00 PM  
Blogger jdcole82 said...

Thank you Gary, I wish you the same. I pray that the Lord will guide us to truth and unity. Eph 4:1-6, 13-16 Therefore I, the prisoner of the Lord, implore you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love, being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.
13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ, from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.

12/22/2007 09:29:00 PM  
Anonymous Nathan Talbot said...

jdcole said,

"The man has one job, protect and defend the Constitution."

That is not true. You overlooked the very first part of the oath which is "faithfully execute the office of the President".

While he is to protect, preserve, and defend the constitution, the executive branch is only one branch of the goverment with that charge. It is not his ONLY job. Their are many other facets of his job that are vitally important as well. In fact the courts take a much weightier position in that regard.

Mike Huckabee is not a big govn't, taxer.

I won't get into all the arguments for and against him, but I will say that he has my vote and he has it because as I weigh the candidates he is the most viable conservative who I can with a clear conciensce vote for.

12/27/2007 08:35:00 PM  
Blogger jdcole82 said...

My good man, with all due respect, have you read the Constitution recently? If you do read it, you will see that Article II lays out all the guidelines of the executive branch. By following those guidelines he will "faithfully execute the office of the President". By what other standard can he faithfully execute his office other than the standard, which he took an oath to defend? Are the courts the law of the land now? I thought they were just supposed to declare wether or not something was Constitutional. By what standard can they do this other than the Constitution?

12/27/2007 10:08:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gentlemen, I greatly appreciate your blog and perspective on many things, but I am sad to say that you have made a terrible error endorsing Mike Huckabee. You know as well as anyone should that human nature is corrupt. Our Founding Fathers created many checks and balances and established the Constitution based upon Federalism to guard against the corruption of Man. Mr. Huckabee has demonstrated that he either does not understand or does not have the self-control to govern as a Federalist. We are in a war of ideas, and it does no good for the Republicans to win the election if we must do so at the cost of our principles. Enumerated powers, that's what the constitution says - that's all we need from the Fed. My vote is with Fred Thompson.

12/28/2007 12:11:00 AM  
Anonymous Nathan Talbot said...

My good man jdcole, don't patronize me. I have read the Constitution. As a matter of fact I am holding it in my hand right now. Just going over Article II once again. You originally stated IN ERROR that the president's one job is to protect and defend the Constitution. You got called on that error and arrogantly asked if I had read the Constitution.I guess you figured I wouldn't have read it, but I have.


Simply because the outline of the executive branch of government is in the Constitution does not mean that upholding said Constitution is his only job. In fact the very Article II you mentioned outlines many other duties of the president.

To answer your question of the courts, no they are not the law of the land. However, in today's political climate they are carrying more and more weight because it is their INTERPRETATION of said Constitution which determines so much law in our country.

Ideally the main branch of government concerned with the law is the legislative branch, but I don't think either of us really needs a lesson on the branches of government.

Now, I will grant you some leeway because I actually understand where you are coming from. In fact I think your ideology is sound and I wish there were more candidates running for public office that would meet your litmus test, but unfortunately there just aren't and we as voters have to vote for who we think is the best candidate and most suitable for the office they are running for. We can preach ideals and grandstand about how the voting in of a particular politician will undermine the core ideals of the constitution, but then who would we vote for? I submit that there is no one. I am not ready to stand idly by and let those who are political active (the left) determine who my representatives will be. No, I will take a hard look at all of the candidates actually available to me and vote for the one that best represents my ideology even if I don't agree with every little thing about them.

So my good man, unless you have an argument for who would be a better candidate and why we have nothing further to discuss.

Anon, while I too like Fred Thompson, his lack of viability is troubling to me. I also have to consider whether a vote for him is essentially a vote for Romney?

12/28/2007 09:30:00 PM  
Blogger jdcole82 said...

Nathan,

I do apologize for having a condescending tone in my last post. I just find it frustrating that so many of my fellow Christians have very little understanding of the Constitution and God's ordained limitation on government. My frustration sometimes shows in my words and for that I am sorry.

I don't lump you in that category of ignorance or naivete. You clearly show that you do have a basic grasp of these truths. It seems that we differ in our approach, you being a pragmatist and I being an idealist. I don't condemn your pragmatism. I understand it very well and in this day in time we all must be pragmatic to some extent.

In regards to your comments I would like to respond. You said...

"You originally stated IN ERROR that the president's one job is to protect and defend the Constitution."

In my understanding, if the President is following the duties outlined in the Constitution then he is thereby protecting and defending it. If he is not following them, then he is abusing and disregarding it. I think perhaps we were just using different words to describe the same thing. I don't consider him holding the Constitution in his hand and punching anyone who tries to take it away from him as "protecting and defending". I think the best way to protect and defend it is to follow what it says. So yes, his specific duties are broader than watching the document like a hawk being ready to swoop down and attack anyone who comes too close to it, but in following the specific duties that are outlined in it, he is protecting and defending it and therefore fulfilling his oath of office. For instance, if the congress passed a bill like No Child Left Behind, I would expect a president who has taken his oath seriously to veto that bill because it in un-Constitutional. Also, if the president thinks we should go to war, he should have enough knowledge of the Constitution to realize that it is the job of the Congress to declare war. Does that make sense? If so, do you agree?

In regards to the courts, I hear where you are coming from, but my hope is that we can elect men who understand, like you rightly said, the Legislative branch can limit the jurisdiction of the courts.

Article III Section 2 Clause 2 - In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

It is high time Christians stand in unity on these issues and vote for men who stand for truth. If we were truly unified and active we could win. However, if we keep being pragmatic and wishy washy there will be noting but a continual slide to tyranny.

In all seriousness, what is your opinion of Ron Paul? All of the other candidates seem to have no problem with the continual growth of government and encroachments on freedoms. I am curious as to what you think.

Regards,

Josh

12/29/2007 04:55:00 PM  
Blogger jdcole82 said...

BTW, any relation to Dr. Kenneth Talbot?

12/29/2007 04:57:00 PM  
Anonymous Nathan Talbot said...

Jdcole,

Talbot is a family name (not my actual name), but there is no relation that I know of.

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I too must apologize as I did get a bit aggravated and snapped back.

Like you I think we see things pretty closely, but take a slightly different approach.

I do get what you are saying about the Constitution. I just believe that there are other duties of "faithfully executing the office" and thus why the word and is used in the oath, "fathfully execute...and..protect, defend.."

Again your argument certainly has merit, if he is faithfully executing, he is doing both. I get that.

Yes your examples do make sense and yes I agree.

As for Ron Paul I like his ideas of small limited government and less taxes. I, however, think he woefully misses it on the defense of this nation and foriegn policy. Just this Sept he was one of only 16 votes "against" putting economic sanctions on Iran. He was also only 1 of 2 votes "against" condeming Iran's pres. The other vote was Kucinic. That is very scary to me.

Also, his personal pork projects seem to seriously contradict his platform.

I think we need a president who can unite and not divide, but also has a starting place from which he will make decisions. A president that will not base decisions off of the political winds of the day. We need a candidate that is strong in platform, but also strong in character.

I really see only two viable choices for myself to choose between. It is either Fred or Huck. What I like most about Huckabee is his strong stance on right and wrong and the fact that he makes no bones about the fact that his definition of right and wrong comes from the Bible. He believes we have been given an outline for how to live and what to base our decisionsn on. I like that about him.

Now I don't particularly agree with his ideology 100%, but I don't agree with any of them 100%. I see a need for this country to return to the moral character that made us so great. We don't need just another party line toting president from either side in the white house. We need something fresh and new, someone with a hope and vision for the future of this great nation based on Biblical principles and I think Huckabee is that man.

I like Fred's politics, I do, but I don't know how viable he is, and I also feel he is more of the same when it comes to being "political" if that makes sense?

Regards,

Joshua

1/01/2008 12:11:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home