Mr. Martin,
Voting for a 3% tax verses a 7% tax is still voting FOR a tax. The only way to not vote FOR is to vote NO! Your defense of the compromise shows me your a sell out and obviously Mr. Duggar is too! Shame on both of you! It just shows me you will sell out home schoolers as well.
I can see the argument, and if this were seriously the only mark against Huckabee, I wouldn't be concerned. Assuming that it is true that Arkansas homeschoolers supported this compromise, I do not mind that the governor listened to the homeschoolers in his own state as opposed to HSLDA.
His homeschooling record, however, is the least of my concerns. It is perhaps odd that his support of a nationwide smoking ban would be the first flag I really say that his philosophy of government is wholly different to my own. But that is so far removed from a power we can give the President, I don't rightly know where to begin.
And now it comes up again. Does he support a nationwide smoking ban? He seems to be backing away from it. In fact, his strong stances on a few different issues have switched, leaving me suspicious of what he actually would do if he gained power. I hate to say this, but the "flip flopping" reminds me of other candidates I held in much lesser regard.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/...al-smoking-ban/
This is only one issue, but I think it is representative.
Spunky,
Again, you've been "picking the meat off the bones" (I don't know why this comment humorously sticks in my head - I keep thinking about the 4# Rotisserie chicken from Costco I de-bone to make 4-5 meals out of...I guess!), and I don't know how much "substantial meat" is left that is worth picking. So, what about the other "remaining" candidates. Since Thompson is out...you made statements that led me to believe that you were undecided, leaning towards Ron Paul. So, why the hesitation in picking apart his campaign, or better yet...Romney! Or is this strictly anti-Huckabee?
I agree with the previous poster about this not being the only issue with Huckabee. Still, I'm bothered when I hear Christians talking abou the lesser of the evils when it comes to compromising a principal. I think we have an obligation to do what is right and trust to God the outcome.
I have just been so disappointed with HSLDA for this endorsement. It really seems to go against everything they have fought for.
Mr. Martin's ramble ("He voted for the 3% [tax]. Mr. Duggar didn't support a tax and infact adamently opposed them. ") proves the old wives tale that there is inbreeding in Arkansas. JK First, Clinton doesn't even know what the definition of "is" is. Then Mr. Duggar "adamantly opposed" a tax all the while voting for it! HUUH?
James 1:8 says"A double minded man is unstable in all his ways."
Leilani,
"So, why the hesitation in picking apart his campaign, or better yet...Romney! Or is this strictly anti-Huckabee?"
I said straight up in my first post that I was going to talk about Huckabee and homeschooling. So it should be of no surprise to anyone that he was the focus of my subsequent blog posts. I came out of retirement to focus specifically on that topic.
There is no hesitation to pick apart another candidate. When I said was taking a blogging break it was in part to look at the other candidates I might consider supporting and decide how I was going to approach them and blogging in general. I just don't have the time to do the research necessary on another candidate, blog, and do what I'm to do here at home. If, after I do some more research, I feel I have substantive issues that were relevant to other canidates I will likely share them as I did Huckabee. It's not a hesitation but a time constraint. I worked on the Huckabee posts and research while I was not actively blogging.
But the blogopshere is a big place, I'm one person if others would like to do the research and dig into the other candidates, I say "go for it." Send me the link and I'll come read what you have to say. I want to learn about the other candidates too.
I had planned on ending my posts on Huckabee, but Mr. Matin's conversation was important and continues to be relevant. So I bumped it from the comments to its own posts. And I reserve the right to do so again in the future if new information and others step forward and add relevant information or perspecitives. This doesn't make me anti-Huckabee but PRO finding out the best information possible. And it appears from the response I've gotten a lot of people are interested in answers as well.
If these posts are perceived to be anti-Huckabee it's because the information itself is negative about his homeschool record and his overall philopshy of governing. As evidenced by the fact that I allow opposing viewpoints on this blog, I'm not afraid of disagreement about what I think. Not at all. I put out my thoughts to learn and get the best information possible not to prove I'm right.
Great comments Dana!
You said, "Assuming that it is true that Arkansas homeschoolers supported this compromise, I do not mind that the governor listened to the homeschoolers in his own state as opposed to HSLDA."
I agree Dana and that's why I said if Arkansas homeschoolers wanted this who am I to argue? And it wasn't just HSLDA, Jim Holt also opposed this legislation. So obviously there were other homeschoolers within Arkansas who opposed this.
Also consider that Governor Huckabee said that this law was passed because of an apparent backlash to his 1998 Smart Start legislation, did homeschoolers really have all the facts to make the best decision? Here's what Huckabee said to a pro-Huckabee homeschool supporter and blogger One Mom a few months ago,
"With the implementation and success of the Smart Start program some legislators wanted to reverse what we had done for homeschoolers in 1997 and put in place very severe restrictions."
What would education reform not directly related to homeschooling make legislators want to reverse what they had done just a year earlier? Given Huckabee's apparent willingness to compromise, one has to wonder if there wasn't already a "backroom" deal with another constiuency (teachers unions perhaps) to pass the education reform in return for some added restrictions to homeschoolers. Education was Huckabee's signature issue and clearly this reform was important to him. Was it important enough to compromise with another constiuent group that he just helped a year earlier? It's something to think about. Perhaps Huckabee listened to homeschoolers first and then listened to someone else in an attempt to please everyone. That's the "vertical" political philosophy that I mentioned in my first post. Huckabee said, "Education has to stop being a [horizontal] issue - left and right, liberal and conservative. Education must be a vertical issue - it will either move our country up or take us down."
Dana also said, "I really say that his philosophy of government is wholly different to my own"
I agree Dana and have said similar things in various comments and posts. This compromise represents a way of governing for Huckabee. His federal smoking ban represents this philopsophy along with his crticism of the Bush SCHIP veto saying there that the political fall out from the veto would be "enormous." I suspect that this could be why he didn't veto the legislation against homeschoolers as well. Huckabee appears to shy away from some stated principles or beliefs if it could cost him personally in politcial power. That's why on the illegal immigration issue he went from "we're better than that" to to deport them all, even the children who at one time he believed should not pay for the "sins of their parents." That's why he was against a life amendment, but now says he "always" supported it.
Taking the politically expedient path is nothing new for a politician, but Huckabee is campaigning as an "authentic" conservative while his governing philosophy is not to be "right" or "left" but "vertical."
I, for one understand the explanation that Mr. Martin gave of how and why certain compromises are made in politics.
I trully believe that this kind of bill wrangling that is done from both sides of the aisle is one of the pivotal causes of the mess we have in our government on all levels.
Mr. Martin, please respond to this post with either an explanation for the compromise that Mr. Huckabee felt he needed to make or a link to a site which explains it. i am still undecided on which presidential candidate to support and I would like to hear what you have to say.
I would like to note that I am not being critical of Huckabee wanting to help the public schools. That was part of his job as governor. But it appears that some in his administration worried that efforts to help the public schools was being hindered by homeschoolers who were eroding support for the schools.
Dr. Ray Simon, Huckabee's appointed head of the Department of Education, "A third of our support for schools comes from property taxes, If a large number of a community's parents do not fully believe in the school system, it gets more difficult to pass those property taxes. And that directly impacts the schools' ability to operate."
Given that Dr. Simon was very influential in Arkansas education politics it is clear that there were not just Democrats in the legislator but also some within Governor Huckabee's own adminstration that were concerned about the growing number of homeschoolers and how it eroded public education support.
I don't believe for a minute that I have a complete picture of what went on, but clearly there is more to what went on in Arkansas education policy than what is being presented by Huckabee's supporters who seem to want to blame it all on Democrats in the legislature.
If Huckabee's own appointed head of education was worried about the effect homeschoolers were having in funding it is likely that this attitude trickled down into legislation that would make homeschooling more difficult to keep more parents from choosing that option. Adding restrictions (even if they were not to the level of the Clinton years) to homeschoolers would likely help keep at least some parents from choosing that option.
But perhaps more importantly, this bill with Huckabee's signature cemented in the minds of all concerned that the state not the parent was the one calling the shots in how children should be educated - even homeschooled children.
(Quote taken from Time Magazine in their article "Home Sweet School")
Spunky,
I completely empathize with the "time" issue. (sigh) Thank you for clarifying that. Through my research, I've already found my deal breakers on the other candidates. It's just that with Thompson out of the race, we are anxious to hear your take on the remaining candidates as well and how you are going to justify back their positions over Huckabee, now that you've stated your all your opinions about him.
Thank you for posting the quote from Time magazine. I also have ridiculously high property taxes supporting our public school system. I'm sure you can imagine the magnitude of my opposition in this area. I can see how something like that could play a significant role in decision making. But again, I've never discounted that in my decision to support Huckabee.
I know this is a broad question, but when did the GOP become so compromising? Huckabee is NOT a conservative. Duncan Hunter, who was the only one to ask at one of the debates...Why are the candidates talking about the role of government in healthcare? There is no role of government in healthcare. (loosely translated)
Now Hunter is endorsing Huckabee?
Mr. Martin defends Huckabee's compromise. Mr. Duggar compromises on taxes. Mr. Hunter compromises his belief in small government to endorse Huckabee, a man who brings up 'constitutional ammendments' whenever he feels support slipping.
I'm done with Republicans excusing their compromises.
My vote is valuable to me and I won't give it to any candidate who doesn't have the courage to be a conservative.
Leilani, I share some of your concerns about Paul. But the reason I am leaning his way and not toward Huckabee, is that no President gets everything they want but I'd rather have one who errs on the caution and setting limits than just running into every conflict and crisis around the globe as its Savior.
That's the prevailing philosphy of many "new" Republicans. Read Michael Gerson's book Heroic Conservatism and you'll see that philosophy come out strongly. Gerson is a former speech writer to George W. Bush and helped formulate a lot of the the public rhetoric surrounding Bush's "Compassionate conservatism."
In Gerson's world people who believe in limited government have a wrong view of government. He wrongly asserts that we believe that government is "evil" and uses that premise to justify instrusive government as the only compassionate choice in today's world. Constitutional government and the tenth amendment are great, but appear not to work in today's global world.
Gerson was highly critical of Thompson and has had nothing but praise for Huckabee.
When Thompson made the statement, ""The government has its role, but we need to keep firmly in mind the role of the government, and the role of us as individuals and as Christians on the other."
Gerson was critical and said, "Thompson's argument reflects an anti-government extremism, which I am sure his defenders would call a belief in limited government. In this case, Thompson is limiting government to a half-full thimble. Its duties apparently do not extend to the treatment of sick people in extreme poverty, which should be "the role of us as individuals and as Christians."
Gerson, Huckabee and others seek to redefine conservativism and really the role of the federal government to be something more than what our founding fathers intended it to be. That's what Dana and I were getting at in the comment about Huckabee's support of a federal smoking ban and his desire to increase the federal role in education.
These new "conservatives" see government a greater role for the poor and downtrodden because the citizens of this great land won't do it on their own.
Huckabee was quoted by Gerson as saying ""I'm a conservative," Huckabee told me. "But if that means I have to close my eyes to poverty and hunger, I'm not going to do that." This, he said, would be to "refuse a larger allegiance, to my own soul, and also standing before God."
This is a legitimate political thought, but not one I share. I believe in limited government and that's its my role to take care of the poor not the federal government.
I don't want to Huckabee to close his eyes to the poor, but he ought to use his own money and talents as a fund raiser to create a charity we can all donate to, not force the US taxpayer to fund his charitable contributions.
George W. Bush campaigned as a conservative and we were tricked into voting for a man that allowed NCLB, perscription drug benefits and a larger federal government. I won't be tricked by another candidate who claims to be an "authentic" conservative but will govern in a more liberal fashion.
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
WOW! This is all great stuff.
Spunky, I must hand it to you...you definitely have a way of digging out those important philosophical issues that really separate a lot of political perspectives.
The terms, conservative, liberal, compassionate conservative, limited government, compromise, principle based, etc have been stumbling blocks in the political arena for some time. Everyone is trying to redefine 'conservativism' and this presidential election has really brought out many different philosophies. I am glad it has. 8 years ago I thought GWB was a 'conservative'. Well, now I know better and through the primaries we have had conservatism defined at least 8 different ways.
As human beings we want that one final definition, but obviously that isn't going to work and the challenge to dig, look deeper into candidates and really educate ourselves is important.
Thank you for the light that you are shining on the dark areas of politics.
Spunky,
Good job not falling for (and exposing) Mr. Martin's straw man and appeal to common practice.
I am disappointed in Mr. Martin's (and Mr. Duggar's) method of policy and law making. I have served a bit of time in public office and the "COMPROMISE" is exactly what bothered me during my term of service.
I am a principled based person as I believe Christ is also. I know many many Christians active in public service who all maintain that the compromise is the only way to accomplish anything in government (local, state and federal). I adamantly and strongly disagree. Compromise is the same path to degradation, it just takes a little longer.
Some of the early strong oppositions to Ron Paul contended that he wanted to return us to 18th century America and that his positions were not based in reality. Reality based on what? Based on 200 years of compromise that has accelerated rapidly in the past 50 years?
As far as I am concerned the "mainstream" Republicans have moved to compromising positions that I just can't support any longer. Mr. Martin confirms a philosophy that I completely disagree with.
Maybe this is why I would never make it in public service again.
Thank you again Spunky for recognizing the principles and defending them with truth and facts.
Dear Spunky,
I sure do appreciate all your facts on Huckabee.
I look forward to reading more of your views on the candidates.
Bush claimed to be a "compassionate conservative." I knew what that meant when I voted for him (in the general election, not the primary).
In that idiotic adjective, he alienated conservatives through insulting us, as if conservatism weren't compassionate, and attempting to separate himself from us.
Huckabee is a "principled conservative" which means what? Conservatives aren't in the habit of acting on their principles? I like this one worse.
I'm currently reading the book, The Politics of Prudence by Russell Kirk. It's interesting to read how he defined conservative and how today's politicians define it. I think they use qualifiers because they know it's really not conservative but they know they need that label to attract a certain segment of the electorate so they put the words "compassionate" or "principled" in front of it. That gives them an out when they want to enact things that are not conservative.
This book is part of a once a month class I'm taking. Sort of a Conservatism 101. The first book assigned was Witness by Whittaker Chambers. My boys are reading that one now. I'd recommend that book to anyone interested in a compelling narrative of faith in a dark world.
For those who may be interested,
Arkansas with a Democrat legislature AND a Democrat Governor failed to impose stricter regulations on homeschoolers in Arkansas in the fall of 2007. From the HSLDA website
"If passed, Arkansas House Bill 2714 would have required a parent or guardian to have a high school diploma or GED before providing a homeschool education to a child or ward. Fortunately, this bill failed to advance beyond the House Education Committee prior to adjournment. It is notable that only nine states have this requirement in their homeschool laws. Studies conducted on homeschooling have concluded that there is little statistical difference between the academic performance of children whose parents have not finished high school and those who have a college education. Home School Legal Defense Association is unaware of any problem in Arkansas this proposed law would have fixed."
While every legislative session is obviously different, I do find it interesting that a this bill failed to even make it out of committee and and no further compromise was necessary.
Someone emailed and asked about the class I'm taking with my sons.
The class is offered by the New Centurions.
Here's a curriculum description,
"Half of the curriculum will be based on Jeff Nelson's canon of conservative books (10 Books of the Conservative Tradition – www.isi.org), a well-established and widely regarded course of study. The other half of our program will be centered around communication strategies that turns theory into reality; thought into result."
http://www.conservativeinstitute.org/
Amazon has a grouping of all the books,
http://www.amazon.com/10-Books-C...m/
1F0MKT2BE3SDP
Spunky,
Thank you for bringing this up to a level where we discuss fundamental philosophy. This is where we really see into how someone would govern if elected. The promises, the sound bites, the spin...etc is not a good indicator. Just look at how Bush has governed. Look at how many other leaders have governed and compare it to their promises "Read my lips, no new taxes".
Gov. Huckabee's philosophy on the role of government is completely different from mine. I believe that the Constitution outlined the powers of Government that were given it by the people...the ONLY powers. If it is not in there, the power does NOT exist. The constitution was not written to detail all of the power's that were not given to government (other than the bill of rights - which really is a dummy-check). So by taking a power is not specifically excluded and acting as if this is allowed, they turn the document on its head and violate it egregiously.
We have a way to modify the Constitution if more power is needed. That method is not to ignore it, it is not to twist and parse it as if it were written other than with an exclusionary pre-supposition.
A national smoking ban. Where is that power in the constitution?
Federal testing of teachers and students...I'm looking, I just can't find that power?
Where does the constitution tell us that the government has the authority to have any role in what people eat and how much they exercise?...Nope that one is not in there either.
When challenged on these things Huckabee and his supporters point to the good that was accomplished, they point to the benefit to our country and the possible consequences of not making that compromise.
I recognize this type of statement as "The ends justify the means" That idea is not new at all...it is as old as humans on this planet and is just as tired as it was when other governments oppressed their people for "the greater good". Sure is is just an inconvenience now, but if there is no principal, is that how we now measure right and wrong? Is that the basis by which we defend our rights...how much good would be accomplished...and it is really not all that bad? Leaving England in charge would not have been all that bad, and look at all the good that would have been accomplished. After all the British were threatening to do far worse than pass a worse law. Why did foolishly pass up their offers of compromise and choose to fact head on the most powerful military in the world. It as principal, and faith. Where do we see that in Gov. Huckabee's actions?
The big difference in philosophy is that I believe we must elect leaders that follow the constitution. I believe that the government is not the solution to every problem.
So I am left wondering. Does Gov. Huckabee just not understand the constitution?...or does not not think that it applies to him.
Either disqualifies him to be president in my eyes. This applies to several of the candidates.
Mark Martin is not a warrior for the conservative cause. He along with Doug Matayo, and Gilbert Baker are man pleasers(Huckabee) not governed by principle. They are all still without spine. They are more concerned about favor with Mr. Huckabee. They are all in a fog and the situation appears hopeless for them ever recovering. These guys represent themselves as "conservative Christian Homeschooling Fathers" but they do not legislate that way. They make excuse after excuse for their poor policies and their lack of understanding for policy is pathetic.
Our voting in Illinois is coming. I'm more frustrated now than I have ever been. Apparently, I'm not alone. A precious vote...just one...*ugh!*
I speak via phone conference to Jonell Caldwell, a homeschooling parent who served on Huckabee's Board of Ed. for 8 years and was chair of the board for 2 years. She is the same woman pictured in the Huckabee on homeschooling video. The number of homeschoolers in AR tripled while Huckabee was governor ending with 14,000 homeschooled students. With the appointment of a homeschooling parent and the large number of homeschoolers overwhelmingly supporting the governor, I think that you are making a mountain out of a molehill. Jonell Caldwell says that anyone can contact her at jonellcaldwell@aol.com or jonathan@compwright.com and she will be glad to answer any further questions.
None of the republican candidates would have been foolish enough to hurt homeschoolers in this next term.
With the rejection of Huckabee by Rush, Sean, this blog and many of the readers, we will likely get McCain. He is much more liberal than any of the false accusations made of Huckabee.
But even if Huckabee doesn't win (and I'm still praying he does) I would be relieved to see Romney not win the nomination. He has completely changed his position on the major moral issues in the last few years. That is not a true, social conservative.
Also, having lived overseas for ten years as a missionary I know it would be harmful to millions of souls if Romney were to win. The thousands of Mormon missionaries around the world would use "the US President is a Mormon" to fool millions to open their doors and be led down the path to deception.
The pundits in the Republican party have used us and now they are snubbing us. They wanted the social conservatives to vote their way. Now that Huckabee, a social conservative all his adult life, was making strides toward the nomination, they are betraying us. They wanted our votes, but they don't want a candidate who is really and truly like us.
Enough rambling. Pray, consider all the ramifications of your vote, pray again, and vote.
Respectfully,
Ronny
Ronny said, " None of the republican candidates would have been foolish enough to hurt homeschoolers in this next term."
I disagree. Guiliani said he was for "reponsible" homeschooling in a speech. And Huckabee also called for "assistance" to homeschoolers as a way of saying thanks for homeschooling.
(see this post
http://spunkyhomeschool.blogspot...ling-in-
nh.html )
And then one must also consider what HSLDA said in 1995,
"The existence of the U.S. Department of Education is the only reason there are federal attacks on our rights as home schoolers. If we help to eliminate the federal role in education, we close down a substantial threat to our rights…. We need to show people that there really are a lot of us who believe in Constitutional government. The Constitution gives no role to the federal government in education and it is time to put a stop to this unconstitutional activity."
Huckabee has called for an INCREASE in federal activity. His actions could very well put our homeschool rights in jeopardy or at least restrict them. That's what happnened in Arkansas, and I'm thankful that enough homeschoolers have realized that he's not the best choice to protect their rights as President. Ron Paul is the only pro-life candidate who is calling for the elimination of the Department of Education.
Thanks for your thoughts. I am thankful for a country where we can talk about these serious issues, disagree, and still know that we both want what's best for our family and our country.
YOU NOW HAVE TWO DEMOCRATES HILLARY CLINTON AND OBAMA WHO DO NOT SUPPORT MARRIAGE, FAMILY, LIFE OR HOMESCHOOLING.WHO WANT UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE AND TAKE AWAY THE RIGHTS OF THE FAMILY AND MAKE IT A SPECIAL FAMILY NOW ON THE REPUBLICAN SIDE YOU HAVE MCAAIN OR HUCKABEE. OF THE TWO MCCAIN HAS NOT SUPPORTED LIFE,FAMILY MARRIAGE, OR HOMESCHOOLING. MIKE HUCKABEE HAD SUPPORTED THOSE. TEARING HUCKABEE APART IS NOT DOING YOUR HOMEWORK. WHO OUT OF THOSE CANDIDATES ARE YOU GOING TO SUPPORT? REMEBER TO LOOK AT THE VALUES OF LIFE ABORTION VS CHILD LIVING, MARRIAGE ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN, FAMILY SUPPORT AND HOMESCHOOLING SUPPORTING THEM IN SOME WAY,TAXES, IMMIGRATION, VALUES, PASTED VOTING RECORDS OF THOSE WHO ARE NOW RUNNING. SPUNKY YOU BETTER BE THINKING OF HOW THOSE THAT ARE RUNNING VOTED BECAUSE THIS IS WHO WE HAVE LEFT. TEARING HUCKABEE DOWN GETS PEOPLE TO LISTEN TO YOU BUT THEY LISTENED TO HITLER, CASTRO, AND OTHERS WHEN THEY SPOKE TO. MAKE SURE YOU ARE ABLE TO ADMIT YOU DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING. YOU SEEM TO HAVE AN IDEA BUT YOU SEEM TO COME ACROSS AS SOMEONE WHO IS NEVER WRONG AND WANT TO NOT GIVE HUCKABEE A CHANCE. LOOK AT MCCAINS RECORD HUCKABEE IS STILL MORE CONSERVATIVE THEN MCCAIN. THE DEMOCRATS DO NOT CARE ABOUT OUR RIGHTS THEY WANT TO TAKE THEM AWAY.
Thanks for your thoughts!
I appreciate you taking the time to share them with me. I readily admit I don't know everything and have done so on this blog and in these posts. If you take the time to read all the posts you will see the reason for posting them was to challenge myself and the assertions. If you have points of disagreement with my analysis of Huckabee please let me know, I am more than willing to amend and text that is factually in error and admit the mistake in the posts. If you choose to do so, please use regular text and not all capitals in the correspondence, it is much easier to read.
Thanks for your time and consideration. Blessings.
Spunky
As to your specific point,
You said,
"MAKE SURE YOU ARE ABLE TO ADMIT YOU DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING."
You will see in this post, I said,
" I then published my findings to challenge myself and my facts. I believed I was right in my asessment, but until I'm willing to submit my findings to the scrutiny of others, I would never really know if I was right. Blogging my thoughts here and in comments elsewhere provided the perfect vehicle to find out, especially since I'd received a fair number of inquiries about Huckabee and homeschooling. No one provided an substantive rebuttal to what I wrote."
So you see, I said in that post written on January 3, that I was open to considering other viewpoints and perspectives. I still am. Please feel free to read the Hucakbee posts and let me know where I have erred in my facts.
http://spunkyhomeschool.blogspot...e-vote-
for.html
At the bottom of that post, you will find links to the four part series on Huckabee. After reading them all and the comments, please let me know where I have factually misrepresented Huckabee's homeschool/education record.
Spunky, Of the candidates that are running who are you supporting? Republican or Democrate? That would be Hillary or Obama for the Democrates Now for the Republican is is McCain. We realize you do not like Huckabee. I do not believe there are any other choices esp. if you want the vote to count. Who do you want. What about their records? I do not need to go back to see what you wrote. That is why I asked Who do you now support and why?
A citizen,
You made the assertion in your first comment, "TEARING HUCKABEE APART IS NOT DOING YOUR HOMEWORK."
I encouraged you to read my previous posts to counter the assertion that I had not done my homework.
In that comment and the follow up as well you said, "Who do you want. What about their records? I do not need to go back to see what you wrote. That is why I asked Who do you now support and why?"
The link that I gave you answers that questions. That is why I linked to it. But that post will make more sense if you do take the time to read all the posts. It will provide insight about how I approached my research and the process of selecting my candidate for President.
Thanks for your time and consideration. If you have any more questions don't hesitate to ask.
Blessings,
Spunky
P.S. Thanks for revising the text format as well. My forty-five year old eyes appreciated it!
We all need to be concerned about a recent California ruling that essentially makes home schooling illegal unless you are certified. If this stands, it will have HUGE implications across the country.
Commenting by HaloScan
