A Vote for Huckabee is . . .
I know all about spin. I’ve been in public relations work for some 30 years, and I know spin when I hear or see it. But in the last few weeks, the conservative talkers and others have projected Huck first as the liberal threat—with McCain—to the future of conservatives, the Republican Party, and the republic itself; and then as the strong conservative threat to the candidacy of Mitt Romney—siphoning conservative, mostly southern votes, from Mitt. Spin can work, but it’s risky to spin the same guy two different directions in the same election cycle. Huckabee is his own unique blend of faith-driven conservative populism. He had a good night, probably his last, and he represented evangelicals well. Today, I hope McCain selects him to be his vice president—but there is a lot of time to ponder that.
The Conscience of James Dobson
I continue to be disappointed in the political pouting of James Dobson, who issued a statement yesterday saying he will never vote for John McCain “as a matter of conscience.” Dobson is free to have his political opinions, of course, and McCain may not be his favorite, but to provide a spiritual flavor to his dis-endorsement by citing conscience is a misuse of his position as a Christian leader. It is an embarrassment to evangelical Christians involved in the political process.
Obama for Orator-in-Chief
Obama has been rated as the most liberal Senator in Washington, D.C., and he is the strongest peacenik to have a fair shot at the presidency since George McGovern, so I would never be able to support him—because of his political philosophy. But I love to hear him speak; there is nothing like great political oratory, and Obama is the best of our time. His speech last night was masterful.
In the aftermath of the Florida Primary, I suggested that it was time for Governor Mike Huckabee to withdraw from the race.
Good thing I have a day job.
Police question teens about nude cell pics (HT: Why Homeschool)
FARMINGTON [NM] — Police are questioning a group of teenagers accused of trading nude pictures over cell phones.
The six or so Farmington Junior High School students took pictures of themselves and traded the images, Farmington Police Lt. Shane Whitaker said Tuesday.
“They’re sharing amongst an inner circle of friends. It’s all consensual, they’re not sharing them with adults,” he said.
A parent of one of the kids found the pictures on the child’s cell phone and called police. That led police to begin investigating and start questioning the teens.
The 13 and 14-year-old boys and girls have been taking pictures of their own genitals and breasts.
“They’re taking pictures of themselves and sending it to another friends,” Whitaker said.
The kids who have been questioned told detectives they did it “kind of as a joke.” It could potentially be a crime, however. Police said they expect to take the case to the Davis County Attorney by the end of the week to decide if there will be any charges filed against the teens.
New Book “Stop Dressing Your Six Year Old Like a Skank”
Among pint-sized cheerleaders, itty-bitty beauty queens, and in the malls of America, the sassy-sexy look isn’t just for teens anymore.
Some say younger girls are going shorter and barer — taking their cues from characters like the Cheetah Girls, the Pussycat Dolls and the Bratz dolls — and some observers are saying they’ve had enough.
The Rise of the Pornogogue, III
Here in the Ocean State we’ve recently had a small parental uprising. A ninth-grade teacher at Cumberland High School assigned a collection of short stories and essays called My Life as a Loser, edited by Will Clarke and John McNally, Ph.D. I’ve searched three of our local libraries for a copy of the book, with no luck. From what I can gather, reading the Amazon reviews, the stories on the controversy in the Woonsocket Call, and the defense of the book by Clarke and McNally, it’s a book meant to elicit empathy for the loners and losers in high school, and is supposed to appeal to the teenagers because they know the difficulties the characters are going through: bad hair, a clumsy attempt to put on a rubber for the first time, and being unpopular yet running for student government. Casual obscenities and crudities abound. There’s also the obligatory snort of contempt for the “Christian” girl who uses her religion as a cloak for sleeping around. And there’s a reference to a woman having sex with a dog. This, then, is what at least one teacher thought would be just the thing to open the minds of ninth graders at Cumberland High School.
Dr. James Dobson, President of Focus on the Family, made the following statement today regarding the state of the election (Hat tip: World on the Web):
“I am deeply disappointed the Republican Party seems poised to select a nominee who did not support a Constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage, voted for embryonic stem-cell research to kill nascent human beings, opposed tax cuts that ended the marriage penalty, has little regard for freedom of speech, organized the Gang of 14 to preserve filibusters in judicial hearings, and has a legendary temper and often uses foul and obscene language.
“I am convinced Sen. McCain is not a conservative, and in fact, has gone out of his way to stick his thumb in the eyes of those who are. He has sounded at times more like a member of the other party. McCain actually considered leaving the GOP caucus in 2001, and approached John Kerry about being Kerry’s running mate in 2004. McCain also said publicly that Hillary Clinton would make a good president. Given these and many other concerns, a spoonful of sugar does NOT make the medicine go down. I cannot, and will not, vote for Sen. John McCain, as a matter of conscience.
“But what a sad and melancholy decision this is for me and many other conservatives. Should Sen. McCain capture the nomination as many assume, I believe this general election will offer the worst choices for president in my lifetime. I certainly can’t vote for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama based on their virulently anti-family policy positions. If these are the nominees in November, I simply will not cast a ballot for president for the first time in my life. These decisions are my personal views and do not represent the organization with which I am affiliated. They do reflect my deeply held convictions about the institution of the family, about moral and spiritual beliefs, and about the welfare of our country.”
While I respect Dr. Dobson I believe he is wrong to simply sit out the election because of who is going to be the Republican nominee. I agree that Senator McCain is not my first, second or even third choice for President. But if he is the nominee in November, I’ll vote for him not because he holds the same positions that I do on most issues (he doesn’t) but that he is far better than anybody the Democrats nominate due to fundamental differences on big issues. I also believe that McCain’s moral character is superior to that of Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. In the final analysis, character matters more than issues.
The Republican Party seems determine to abandon its conservative principles and focus on selecting a candidate who is most electable. Each party makes such a decision at its own peril. But the fact that one’s political party of preference is not selecting who you might be rooting for in the election as their nominee does not relieve you of the responsibility to exercise your right to vote. That right has been paid for with the blood of hundreds of thousands of Americans. I cannot imagine staying at home on Election Day because my candidate is not in the race. We each should vote regardless of what the results might be. It’s not only our right Americans but it is also our duty.
As results come in, the Google Gadget below will show the current returns. You may have to reload the page to see updates.
Of course not, you might say. No government has the right to do that. Agreed, but one particular government, of a very specific political persuasion, seems to think that it does. Read "A Libertarian Perspective on the Berkeley v. Marines Showdown", especially the part where he puts the shoe on the other foot. (I wouldn’t call myself a libertarian, but we do agree on many things.)
Finally told me, said: I don’t like the way this country is headed. I want my granddaughter to be able to have an abortion. And I said well mam I don’t think you got any worries about the way the country is headed. The way I see it goin I don’t have much doubt but what she’ll be able to have an abortion. I’m goin to say that not only will she be able to have an abortion, she’ll be able to have you put to sleep. Which pretty much ended the conversation.”
Consider and even try for a moment reading political blogs and commentary from my point of view. The thing is, I think polls are only slightly more indicative of election results then assigning outcomes to random bugs in cricket races. Now, review a few posts and articles holding in mind that polls are silly expensive noise signifying nothing. Just try this:
replace the word “polls” with “cricket races”.
Consider the thought, the pondering, the serious gazes and looks, surrounding the … cricket races.
As you were. 
You could also remember this the next time you hear the spin and explanations and excuses when the actual election doesn’t align with the predictions of the race, err, poll.
Yeah, right, this is the first thing I think about when I hear the word "freedom".
Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she might be willing to garnish the wages of workers who refuse to buy health insurance to achieve coverage for all Americans.
The New York senator has criticized presidential rival Barack Obama for pushing a health plan that would not require universal coverage. Clinton has not always specified the enforcement measures she would embrace, but when pressed on ABC’s "This Week," she said: "I think there are a number of mechanisms" that are possible, including "going after people’s wages, automatic enrollment."
I’m sorry, but that does not give me a warm fuzzy about what other freedoms Hillary might take away from us for "our own good".
Round the web:
One of the biggest issues I have with the evangelical church in America is its obsession with capitalism. Or, I should clarify, the philosophy of capitalism.
Maybe it’s my Calvinistic bent, but I cringe every time I read about church growth programs, evangelistic methodologies, and cool, innovative ways to trick reach the lost with hip sermons.
I guess that’s why, when purusing the posts at Lifehacker, I was impressed with one titled, Give a Presentation like Steve Jobs. Kevin Purdy, the Lifehacker author, links to Deliver a Presentation like Steve Jobs, from BusinessWeek, and states:
BusinesssWeek gets a communication coach to analyze Steve Jobs’ latest Macworld keynote speech and pull out 10 tips that us mere mortals can apply to our own presentations. One strategy in particular seems to be what makes Jobs’ product introductions stand out from the typical “gee whiz” events:
Sell the benefit. While most presenters promote product features, Jobs sells benefits. When introducing iTunes movie rentals, Jobs said, “We think there is a better way to deliver movie content to our customers … most of us watch movies once, maybe a few times. And renting is a great way to do it. It’s less expensive, doesn’t take up space on our hard drive…” Your listeners are always asking themselves, “What’s in it for me?” Answer the question. Don’t make them guess. (emphasis in original)
How close is that methodology to the so-called evangelistic pitch we often hear in churches today? Rather than hear the Biblical idea that we are all sinners, we’re presented a notion which purports to sell the benefit of having a personal relationship with Jesus. Rather than hearing that God commands us to repentance, we hear messages which pander to the “What’s in it for me?” question our listeners are always asking themselves.
Think about it, the next time you’re in church.
Even in the midst of an ocean of absurd statements that masquerade as political rhetoric in today’s 24/7, all news all the time media environment, attacks this week on John McCain by some convervative talkers, politicians, and pundits have been over the top. But the most ridiculous of all were comments by Ann Coulter on Hannity and Colmes, and again on the Sean Hannity radio show, that if McCain is nominated she would vote and work for Clinton because Hillary is more conservative than McCain. Conservatives are flocking to Romney as a stop-McCain effort. If the conservatives powers-that-be would have supported Romney earlier in the campaign cycle, he’d probably be on the way to the nomination. I’ve liked Romney for a couple of years, but actually preferred his more moderate persona as governor to the talking-point conservative of his campaign. But I will vote for John McCain here in Georgia on Tuesday, with apologies not to Romney but to Huckabee, who I wish was electable. Of course I’m suspect, because I also voted for McCain in the Georgia primary eight years ago.
The trashing of McCain nonsense by right wing talkers (who I usually agree with), isn’t based on his lifelong service and voting record. Jeff Jacoby provides a more sensible take on McCain in his Boston Glove column today. He writes:
The conservative case against McCain is clear enough; I made it myself in some of these columns when he first ran for president eight years ago. The issues that have earned McCain the label of “maverick” – campaign-finance restrictions, global warming, the Bush tax cuts, immigration, judicial filibusters – are precisely what stick in the craw of the GOP conservative base.
But this year, the conservative case for McCain is vastly more compelling.
On the surpassing national-security issues of the day – confronting the threat from radical Islam and winning the war in Iraq – no one is more stalwart. Even McCain’s fiercest critics, such as conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, will say so. “The world’s bad guys,” Hewitt writes, “would never for a moment think he would blink in any showdown, or hesitate to strike back at any enemy with the audacity to try again to cripple the US through terror.”
McCain was never an agenda-driven movement conservative, but he “entered public life as a foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution,” as he puts it, and on the whole his record has been that of a robust and committed conservative. He is a spending hawk and an enemy of pork and earmarks. He has never voted to increase taxes, and wants the Bush tax cuts made permanent for the best of reasons: “They worked.” He is a staunch free-trader and a champion of school choice. He is unabashedly prolife and pro-Second Amendment. He opposes same-sex marriage. He wants entitlements reined in and personal retirement accounts expanded.
McCain’s conservatism has usually been more a matter of gut instinct than of a rigorous intellectual worldview, and he has certainly deviated from Republican orthodoxy on some serious issues. For all that, his ratings from conservative watchdog groups have always been high. “Even with all the blemishes,” notes National Review, a leading journal on the right (and a backer of Romney), “McCain has a more consistent conservative record than Giuliani or Romney. . . . This is an abiding strength of his candidacy.”
McCain can beat Clinton or Obama, but a very wise choice of a running mate will help. We’ll look at that another day.
That’s what many folks think that Hollywood produces, and it’s the excuse given when others lament what comes out of the movie industry. The public wants it, and the movie houses’ job is to make money, so the produce what does it best.
If that’s so, it’s time for a change of direction in Hollywood.
Americans flock to movies with patriotic, moral content, according to a study that looked at thousands of movies released by Hollywood in recent years, but they avoid those with socialist and anti-capitalist themes in droves.
"Movies with very strong Judeo-Christian values, capitalist ideals, patriotism and pro-American attitudes do much better at the box office than movies promoting socialism, Marxism, left-wing political correctness and atheism," said Ted Baehr, publisher of MOVIDEGUIDE©: A Family Guide to Movies and Entertainment, and chairman of the Christian Film & Television Commission ministry in Hollywood.
The article goes on to note that the type of movies that Baehr supports make a lot more money, on average, that the others, and this trend goes back at least as far as 2002. If that’s the case, Hollywood would be making more of them; that’s what the public wants.
This also goes back to the fact that G and PG rated films make more money than R and NC-17 ones. Shouldn’t we be seeing more of the ones that bring in the cash? Well, we’re not likely to see that.
[Baehr] said the results also show that there are two reasons Hollywood releases movies. The first is to entertain and make a profit, while the second is to "show you’re just as Hollywood PC as the next producer."
"If you’re making a movie like ‘Redacted,’ you’re cruising for a box office failure," he said.
He said such projects will only do filmmakers good "in the small inner circle of the elite system that is contrary to the values of faith and tolerance and grace."
The results show the "average movie-goer" has more common sense than the average person who considers himself among those "elite," he said. He also noted that those are only a portion of the Hollywood industry, because "there are a lot of good people, producers, writers and directors" in Hollywood.
I think, too, that the PC ones are as much for indoctrinating and influencing the culture as they are for ideology’s sake. As such, the excuses for the Hollywood Left don’t hold water.
[tags]Hollywood,movies,Ted Baehr,MOVIEGUIDE[/tags]
