Originally posted on The Conservative Front.

Why is Mike Huckabee still in the race for the nomination? There is really no way he can win the nomination–he just hasn’t demonstrated that he has the needed support. So you have to ask, what does his refusal to give up the race say about him? Although several reasons have been discussed as to why he has not dropped out yet, I think an analysis will show that Mike Huckabee is in it for his own political gain.

Some common thoughts on Huckabee:

1. He is in it because he doesn’t like Mitt Romney. There are several reports abroad about Huckabee’s dislike of Mitt. What are they rooted in? Does Mike see Mitt as a threat? That’s likely, considering that Mitt has a much broader base of support. Mitt appeals to Conservatives of all stripe (at least, the honest ones), and to moderates.

Huckabee may have inadvertently given away his innermost thoughts when he made statements disparaging Mitt’s religion. Many evangelical Christians don’t like Mormons simply because of their perceptions of Mormonism as a cult, accurate or not.

2. He is in it because he believes that John McCain is the best candidate for the position. This is what many of McCain’s supporters are saying. They believe Huckabee is in it to act as a spoiler in favor of McCain.

There are a couple of ways to look at this. Let’s suppose we poll Huckabee’s supporters and determine to which candidate they would throw their support if he were no longer in the race. If most of his support would shift to Mitt, then Huckabee is implicitly denying Mitt the support he might otherwise have had. In other words, he is toying with the voters. In my opinion, that’s not very gracious.

On the other hand, if Huckbee’s support would shift to McCain, then it makes no sense at all for Huckabee to stay in the race; McCain would have an even larger lead than before, and it would be counterproductive for Huckabee to remain. And if McCain really is the best candidate, why doesn’t Huckabee drop out and let the voters prove it?

Personally I think he has not dropped out so that he can act as a spoiler against Romney (whom both he and McCain personally dislike), ingratiate himself to John McCain, and win the nod for VP. Really, nothing else makes sense. Huckabee wants a way in, and he sees a way by throwing Mitt Romney under the bus for John McCain.

The problem with this is two-fold. First it is not very “Republican.” Many Conservatives may see it as a violation of Conservative principles. Second, he would be joining a ticket that will not lead to the White House. A McCain/Huckabee team would not be enough to overcome Hillary or Obama (or both, Heaven forbid).

After the electoral debacle of 2000, the nation joked about the ability of Florida voters to operate voting machines. Some voters in Florida were quoted as saying that they had intended to vote for one guy, and ended up pushing the button for someone else.

Then, the Supreme Court had to be called upon to put a stop to the vote manipulation being driven by the Florida State Supreme Court changing the rules in midstream. Talk about Judicial Activism. This was vote fraud writ large.

We breathed a sigh of collective relief when there were no major issues that came out of Florida during the election of 2004. We thought that maybe 2000 was just an anomaly, the expected bugs that appear when people are trying to learn a new system.

Now, I am no longer sure that it was just a passing thing. After hearing reports this morning that voters in Florida overwhelmingly voted for McCain because of the perception that he will be good for the economy, I am left scratching my head. McCain good for the economy? How did they come to that conclusion? McCain has almost made it a matter of pride that that he is not strong economically. Instead, he points to his economic advisers as his solution to that shortcoming.

He has consistently pointed out that he would be strong where the military is concerned. He would be the man that would find Osama bin Laden, destroy al Qaeda, and bring the War on Terror to a successful conclusion.

And yet, Floridians en masse agreed that John McCain's military strength would also make him the man to fix the economy. Which leaves me wondering how they imagine he will accomplish the task. McCain has made it very clear that his positions on the military lean to the right, but his positions on domestic issues lean very far to the left. If McCain wins the Presidency we can expect more government intervention in the Market, not less.

Is that really what Floridians want? 36% of them apparently do...unless of course they just got confused at the ballot again.

President Gordon B. Hinckley has died. He was 97.

More info is here.

Much more information is at LDS.org

(Originally posted at my other blog: ConservativeFront.com)

I was wondering the other day about Hillary’s choice for VP. Is there anything that would prevent her from choosing Bill as her running mate? The Constitution prohibits him from running for President again, but what about Vice-President? Is there a similar prohibition? One would think so, but we’ve never been in this situation before; I’ve never looked into it.

If no such constitutional obstacle exists, is it conceivable that they might actually do such a thing? It would certainly be historic.

I can’t imagine Bill settling for First Husband, or First Consort, or First Mate–it still has the feel of First Lady about it.

I am a supporter of Mitt Romney, but after thinking over Fred's tactics so far it has become clear that he may yet have a few aces up his sleeve.

I was listening to a local talk radio show the other night just after Fred announced his intent to campaign. The host pointed out that Fred had only announced his intent to run, and not his actual candidacy. Curious. He also said that Fred basically has no substance--he has no real positions on anything. Also curious.

That got me thinking--that really is Fred's strategy right now: to have no identifiable position. What benefit would that be to Fred? It's simple, really.

Look at the current political landscape. Mitt Romney has been called a flip-flopper by both the Left and the Right. He has been criticized for every imaginary evil the mind can conjure. Rudy has been dismissed as non-viable by the Religious Right for his more liberal social leanings, and by the Left for supporting the War on Terror. McCain has made enemies on the Right for his failure to support Conservative causes (like immigration and Free Speech) and on the Left for not becoming the guy to beat. The rest of the pack really have little chance of winning the nomination, in my opinion.

Fred, on the other hand, has no position to be attacked by the Left and no position to be held to by the Right. If he plays it just right, he may not have to voice any real positions at all until he is good and ready. He reminds me of how John Roberts and Samuel Alito fielded questions during their confirmation hearings; they refused to take a position on hypothetical cases. Doing so allowed them complete freedom to rule should similar cases come before them down the road. This strategy gives Fred a lot of room to move on his positions, and plenty of time in which to do it--benefits he is enjoying because no-one seems to be pressuring him for a position. He is getting a pass.

In the meantime, he may win the nomination solely on the strength of his folksy charm coupled with his sophisticated wit. And if he doesn't he can save his positions for next time. No harm done.

Read the latest posts on ConservativeFront.com

• Why I am not a Libertarian, Part 1
• The Warmest Year on Record

...and more.

That is the implication of an article by Travis Loller of the Associated Press today.

The article discusses how some immigrants are unable to get a marriage license in Nashville, Tennessee because of a 10 year old federal law that requires marriage applicants to have a social security number.

The article includes the obligatory complaints from people attempting to marry illegal aliens, illegal aliens trying to marry one other, and people who claim that marriage is a constitutional right (though such a "right' appears nowhere in the Constitution).

An explanation of why this constitutes important news is missing from the article, unless one assumes from the article that if only we had passed that Immigration Reform Bill, these poor people would be able to get social security numbers and would have been able to marry.

Which then logically leads to the next assumption, e.g. since it was Conservatives who blocked that bill, it's their fault these people are being denied marital bliss.

But the writer doesn't explain how said bliss is being denied to Jonadad Luque, since he is obviously already living with his girlfriend "with whom he has two children."

I don't know...maybe I'm just reading too much into this story.

Nah.

Time was, Conservatives were the people considered to be obsessed with Tradition. The Left has for years mockingly derided folks on the Right as having an obstinate attachment to what once was but is no longer.

Until now, that is. It seems the familiar roles we've played have been switched in recent days. I mean the resurfacing of interest in the Fairness Doctrine by the Democratic, Liberal Elite. This reformation on the Left is most likely the result of the failure of the Immigration Reform Bill--a failure due in large part to the success that talk radio had in energizing the grass roots and flooding--no, swamping--Washington DC with calls, faxes and email.

During the debates, Senator Trent Lott was quoted as saying that talk radio runs this country, and we need to do something about that problem. Sen. Lott made some quick clarifications of his statement that satisfied some conservatives, but the seed had been planted. In the first days following the bill's defeat, the Liberals were overheard plotting talk radio's demise. "Talk radio is overwhelmingly tilted to the right, and legislative action is needed to correct the imbalance." The Fairness Doctrine was trotted out as the solution to this "unfair" situation that has left Liberals without a viable voice on talk radio.

The Fairness Doctrine was first implemented in the 1940's as a means to ensure that no one political viewpoint dominated the time of the three networks that existed at the time. Except, that it failed to do that. The FCC eventually saw that the Doctrine was actually stifling political discussion rather than encouraging debate. The Doctrine was finally shelved in 1987, put away with all the other failed experiments.

Which must really be frustrating to the Liberals. First they are soundly defeated by Newt Gingrich and the Republicans in 1994. Now that they have again retaken control of the House and Senate, they are finding difficulty pushing their agenda through because of the influence of Conservative talk radio.

The Liberals want a return to yesteryear. They can be heard crying for the glory days when they held the reigns of government uncontested and unquestioned. "Why can't we return to that good ol' fashioned, traditional America where Conservatives had no influence over public policy?"

Liberalism is a fading thought. Conservatives have long been criticized for espousing ideas whose time has passed. But isn't it funny how conservative the Liberals have become now that they realize their political power is waning? The Fairness Doctrine may have been a good idea once but, like Liberalism, it's time has truly passed. The best direction now for Conservatives is forward.

I wrote several days ago (Why Fred Thompson?) that Fred Thompson's candidacy is an excuse for some folks to vote for him over Mitt Romney. And it appears that someone at the Kicking over my traces blog agrees with me.

So far Fred has not campaigned on a platform of policies he wants to implement. There is no statement you can point to and say, "This is Fred's position on that issue." He is a candidate without substance. It makes me very curious as to why he is getting all the attention, and why his supporters are up in arms over the straw poll that Romney won. Do they expect people to vote for a great, down-home kind of guy who campaigns solely on political platitudes?

I can't help but think that a lot of Fred's support is a protest of Romney's religion. I also can't help but wonder if Fred is banking on exactly that.

In another example of stellar fact-checking, the AP and ABC News have reported the discovery of 20 beheaded bodies on the banks of the Tigris River Southeast of Baghdad.

But as noted by the guys at Flopping Aces, the story is a hoax. The verification of the hoax came from the MNF Press Desk in this story.

The last line of the report is a gentle slap in the face for the AP:

"Ultimately, media reporting based on verifiable sources will reduce the possibility of misinformation unnecessarily alarming citizens."

HA!

Unfortunately, the ABC News website was not available at the time of this posting. Here is the story on FOXNews.

An update on the status of Baghdad. It seems the NYT isn't telling the whole truth.

Color me surprised.

Al Gore's recent book, The Assault on Reason, is aptly named only if it is understood that his claims of catastrophic global warming are what constitute the assault on reason.

James M. Taylor, writing in the Chicago Sun Times, gives us a brief overview of some of the scientific findings concerning global warming. In my opinion, Gore's hurry to end the debate over global warming is fueled by his hunger for political power. Perhaps we can channel his ambition as a new source of renewable energy.

I have always held that there should be no term limits prescribed by law. I agree with the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. Term Limits that term limits are unconstitutional, ruling that a Constitutional amendment is required if term limits are to be implemented. I have consistently resisted arguments in favor of such an amendment.

I am a firm believer in the freedom of the people to choose their own representatives. It allows for the greatest possible participation of the citizens in our system of government. I don't want to give that up; it was obtained at great cost in blood and treasure. But this week I am rethinking my position. After hearing the arrogant, condescending attitudes and comments of member of Congress and the Senate, first on the immigration bill, and then on the attempted revival of the so-called "fairness doctrine," I think we need that amendment.

For my own peace, I needed to find a way to reconcile in my mind the right of the people to choose their representatives, and the right of the people to be honestly and truly represented. Here are my thoughts.

We don't have an absolute right to anything in our society. We don't get to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, or engage in religious practices that cause harm to another person. That is part of the social compact we all tacitly agree to at every election. Therefore, we don't have an absolute right to choose whomsoever we wish to be our representatives. Even the Constitution put limits of age and residency on the people we send to Congress. Therefore, in keeping with that spirit, we can put limitations on the number of terms served by our Representatives and Senators.

The framers did not believe that anyone should spend a lifetime as a public servant. George Washington demonstrated his view on the subject by stepping down voluntarily after two terms as President. He could have been King of the Unites States, but instead he showed virtue and restraint.

Washington D.C. is now a very different place. The environment there is antithetical to virtue. Tom Delay, in his recent book, tells how that affects very many of those whom we send there. Immorality runs rampant; corruption and graft are the operative principles more often than not. Our public servants no longer deal in principled compromise. Instead they work corrupt back-room deals.

It has historically been up to the individual Representative or Senator to police his or her own actions. The presence of term limits were not there to tell them the time had come to step aside. An extended stay in the beltway environment today all but guarantees that they will not consider stepping down voluntarily. No, they must either be voted out or pushed out by scandal.

Therefore, in the interest of virtue, the People must now police the actions of their representatives. We must, for the good of our society, establish term limits to prevent the corruption of those whom we send to do our bidding.

And if the people find a good and able representative for the House or Senate, and don't wish them to leave their service? Keep in mind that we do not have unlimited rights, as I mentioned above. We don't have the right to keep anyone in office for an unlimited duration 1) because death takes us all at some point and, 2) leaving a good and able servant in that environment is certain to corrupt them given enough time. In Washington, Time equals Power. And more Time is more Power, and with more power comes the tendency to corruption. It is, therefore, in the public interest to curtail the amount of time our representatives are exposed to that tendency.

Perhaps, given enough time, Washington will revert to its former character and will be once again a safe place. Until that day, we need term limits. We need that amendment!

Before I get into this, I want to establish a couple of qualifiers. First, I like Fred Thompson. He seems to be a personable, likable guy. He doesn't seem to take himself too seriously, and he gives the impression of being very confident in himself and his abilities.

I support Mitt Romney. Yes, those of you who have run across my comments on other posts can verify that I am LDS, but that's not why I am supporting Mitt Romney. I know about Mitt's talents because he came to Utah to help bail out the Olympic Games. And he did so spectacularly. After the Games, he ran for office in Massachusetts where he became governor. During his term in office he turned a huge State deficit into a surplus without raising taxes. Yet despite his conservative record and numerous accomplishments, many conservatives, especially evangelical Christians, refuse to consider him a viable candidate for President.

Perhaps they would consider Newt Gingrich. He plays well to that demographic. He has spent a lot of time and energy promoting some really innovative ideas for the future of America. But he hasn't even said he will run yet. The only commitment he has made will be that he will look at it after the first of next year. And the charges of infidelity have left a mark on his name that has not yet faded.

Rudy Giuliani has a strong position on national security, very attractive in a candidate at this point in history. But he has very liberal ideas concerning gays and marriage that don't square with conservative Christian values. Being strong on national security isn't enough for today's voters. A candidate has to have a good mix of the right foreign and domestic policy ideas. His several divorces are also distasteful to many on the Right.

John McCain has alienated much of the Right. In fact, many commentators are calling his campaign finished already. His positions on campaign finance reform and the recently debated immigration reform bill have left a bitter taste in the mouths of conservative Christians. His gruff demeanor did not help to diffuse the anger felt towards his policies.

Fred Thompson hasn't even officially announced his candidacy yet. He has made no formal announcements, has put forward no specific plans or ideas, and hasn't really said what the theme of his campaign will be. He is only exploring the possibility. But as soon as word hit the 'net, he became the instant favorite among the conservative Christian demographic. I think I know why.

Mitt Romney would fit all their requirements for candidate if only he were not a Mormon. The attempts to label Romney a flip-flopper would get no traction among Christians if he were not a Mormon. They cannot trust that his now 13 year old change of heart is serious, because such things are usually driven by one's religion and because they dislike the religion, they will not trust the man. Ronald Reagan had a similar change of heart, but he was trusted because his religion was acceptable. Romney also has some really good ideas, but they are drowned out in the cacophonic protests over his religion.

Fred Thompson fits the southern, conservative, evangelical Christian stereotype. He looks like them, talks like a lot of them, and believes like them. He fits in. What it all boils down to is that Fred Thompson gives Christians a reason to not support Mitt Romney--he gives them a way out.

The 20th Anniversary of Reagan's historic speech is coming up on June 12th. Here is a link to a free poster offer to commemorate the event.