You can count me among the as yet undecided who have to vote tomorrow in Michigan. Looking forward to hearing about the Summit and hope it will give me a lightning bolt idea of who to vote for... 
Sallie, I hoped to get my post together by now but the brakes went out on my van and I was stranded for part of the afternoon waiting for my husband to rescue me in a parking lot.
How are things shaping up on the west side of the state? It's a lot more conservative than the Detroit area, so I'm curious who will do better there.
I certainly appreciate the time and work you put into your Huckabee homeschooling posts, Spunky. They have certainly been informative and helpful. Understandably it is just one of several issues when it comes to choosing a candidate.
This article today gave me much food for thought on the 'war issue', another one of those very pertinent issues to consider when trying to decide on the right candidate.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Vie...ira/
edwin74.htm
I'm looking forward to reading your post on the Defending the Dream Summit and who will end up getting your vote.
The envelope please.
And the winner is...
Spunky,
Sorry to hear about the brakes. That's not fun.
You know, I haven't heard a whole lot of people talking about it. I think there is this sense of not having any idea what to do when it comes time to vote and so no one is really speaking passionately about any of the candidates.
We have received a LOT of phone calls, primarily for Huckabee, Romney and McCain. Lots of literature for Romney and McCain as well.
As you said, Grand Rapids is very conservative so it will be interesting to see how things turn out here.
Did you get the mailing from Romney that said something about if Republicans though Granholm was bad, they should see Romney? Scary effective advertising for this part of Michigan!
Keep up the good work. Many people assume that you are one dimensional when you talk about a subject that is important to you. But if you start to get into other topics they don't have time to hear it. And so it goes.
Glad I found your site,
judi
kidscattle.blogspot.com
Did you catch Dr. Paul's response to the rude question on his electablility during Fox's debate the other night? His response actually defines what true Republicanism is/should be. Here it is in case you missed it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8TkmE5t1Pk
I would venture that there is a question here that is more important than what Huckabee (or any other candidate) SAYS their posisition is on life. That question is, can that candidates word be trusted?
Huckabee has lied on several very public occasions. He claimed, on several occasions, that he had a theology degree http://www.worldnetdaily.com/ new...RTICLE_ID=59222 He doesn't. Spunky outlined some of his dishonesty in her post, "How does Huckabee define 'always'". Huckabee made Judicial Watch's 10 Most Corrupt Politicians of 2007, and according to the Arkansas Times, 1-25-07 he destroyed $335,000 worth of state property. If Huckabee is elected president he will take an oath to uphold the constitution. However, many of the things that he has promised to do as president directly violate the constituion. (Federal ban on smoking, funding for the arts in education, federal 'wellness' program to encourage good eating and exercise habits to lower health care costs, and more). He has promised to break his oath.
As Huckabee himself said, "If you can't be honest before the election, can we trust you to be honest after the election?" Exactly! Huckabee has lied and publicly brought dishonor to the name of Christ without repenting. He has made campaign promises that if he keeps them will violate his oath of office. On what basis can we assume that he will keep his word to fight to protect the lives of the unborn if that becomes politically inexpedient?
Brad,
Thanks for the You Tube, that was a very good answer and part of the reason Paul appeals to me. But I haven't voted yet, and Thompson still has some things that appeal to me as well. But his answer was very good.
Well, as far as Ron Paul goes, I can't help but agree with people that he just seems a brick short of a load, if you know what I mean. But it should be pretty easy to decide on him or not -- he's consistently for absolute, strict isolationism. He does mean to pull every troop we have stationed *anywhere* and bring them home. Either you like that or you don't -- and it's an issue a president actually has a lot of control over. (I tend to get irritable when the presidential election focuses mainly on issues that are primarily legislature issues. :D Now, granted, a lot of those issues are also judge-appointing issues these days.)
Silvermine,
I don't think you know what Ron Paul's position is on foreign policy. He is NOT an isolationist. If you do a simple search on the internet you will find that out. He is a non-interventionist. There is a huge difference. He wants to trade with other nations and be friends with them, rather then tell them what to do at the point of a gun.
And I don't know what you mean when you say "a brick short of a load". Paul is the most educated of the candidates on history, economics, and foreign policy and constantly educates both the other candidates and the public on these issues. Because he believes in constitutional government, non-interventionist foreign policy, states rights, and not building and empire at the point of gun does not make him one brick short of a load but the only candidate with any sense of reality. You can believe the big media outlets who would have you believe Paul is a "kook", who also have vested interests in America as a global empire, or you can do some research and find out that Paul does indeed make sense.
Here's another isolationist a few bricks short of a load:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S...h?
v=STLR6tFP4S4
Ahhh, the good old days, when a dollar was still worth $0.45....
So Eric, if we're looking back at history, is Ron Paul Ronald Reagan or Barry Goldwater? I think he's the latter. He's got much of Reagan's policies, but he somehow lacks something. I'm not sure how to put it without sounding like I dislike him, because I don't. But he comes across as a "few bricks short" where Reagan did not. He reminds me of some of my college math professors, I knew they knew the stuff but it somehow came across in a very ineffective way. Paul has done very well in opening up the discussion on Constitutional issues, but is he the guy to carry the banner like Reagan? Somehow I just don't see it. That's why I think he might be likened more to Goldwater.
While I am very much prolife, the prolife issue is about #5 on my "issues" list. It doesn't mean I'm not passionately prolife.
It just means it isn't issue #1 for me because, call me a pessimist, but I never see it changing in America. No matter who is in the White House.
I personally go:
1. Taxes
2. Economy
3. National Security (aka terrorism, war)
4. Foreign Policy (that that NS doesn't cover)
5. Tie between prolife & education issues.
I love John Piper's response to the charge of being a "single-issue voter." (Go to Desiring God and search for "Single-Issue Voter" to read the article.)
In a nutshell, he responds that there are certain issues (life, in his case) that are non-negotiable and that a candidate who was not prolife could never earn his vote. The flipside is not true...a candidate who is prolife doesn't automatically earn his vote. In other words, there are some issues that cause a candidate to lose the vote, but it takes more than a single issue to earn the vote.
He compares it to meeting the woman who would become his wife. If she had hated children, she would never have become his wife. But there had to be more than a love for children for him to propose to her.
Charley
HomeDiscipling Dad Blog
Life is the most important issue I consider when voting for candidates and I am voting for Ron Paul. Be careful though using NRTL as a source. They are compromised. Fred Thompson is NOT pro-life.
"So Eric, if we're looking back at history, is Ron Paul Ronald Reagan or Barry Goldwater?"
He is Ron Paul. Was that really Ronald Reagan or a Goldwater puppet? I find it humorous that the Republican "front runners" keep wanting to ride Reagan's coattails, but they sure wouldn't espouse any of his ideas/views from that speech. Of course, I don't seem to remember Reagan advancing many of them either as President (besides tax rates)- especially post-assassination attempt.
I am still waiting for social security reform (also a G.W. Bush platform in '04).
We are still policing the world - more than ever before.
The dollar is now worth $0.04 compared to the value at the beginning of the latest Federal Reserve Bank.
We have doubled federal tax revenue since 1996. We still have a budget deficit and haven't even touched the debt.
We have more government encroachment and less freedom (gun control, Patriot Act, HR1955/S1959, "hackable" voting machines, SPP, etc.).
Can anyone elected President really make a change? I believe at best, he may only achieve legislative gridlock. There are still too many of us more interested in voting ourselves entitlements than independence.
I am afraid you have it correct, Eric. The number one issue against Ron Paul is that people want to continue the system of confiscation and redistribution---continuing the illusion that there is a free lunch, made available through borrowing against the future of our children.
As regards pro-life, Ron Paul put it best: If you allow this to be determined on the federal level, you get Row-v-Wade.
Ask yourself if Bush put any dent in federally funded abortion.
Lastly, think about this: Bush was a much stronger presidential candidate than any of the so called front runners now will be (just my opinion). Kerry was a much weaker candidate than either Hillary or Obama. It was still close.
Conclusion: If you're looking at anyone but Ron Paul as the Republican nominee, you're probably looking at a Democrat in the white house.
Guess: If you're looking at Ron Paul as the Republican nominee, he will probably take enough of the anti-war vote from the Democrats to win.
Commenting by HaloScan
