Why I am supporting Tancredo instead of Huckabee

I had originally planned to support Mike Huckabee, and was still somewhat undecided until the ICA/ITR forum on June 30, but he is kind of waffling or hedging on some of the important issues, in my opinion. A lot of what he says sounds good, especially to a conservative evangelical Christian such as myself. However, you have to listen carefully to hear what he is NOT saying, and note the questions about the issues that he is not really answering directly, even when asked directly. Some might wonder why I, as a conservative Baptist, have chosen to support Tom Tancredo over a Baptist minister (Huckabee). Here are a few of the reasons:

1) While I do appreciate some of what Huckabee has said on the evolution issue, and his boldness to say he believes there is a God who created things, and his refusal to back down, he does hedge somewhat. If he really doesn't know how long it took God to form creation, or how long ago he did it, then he apparently doesn't take the Bible literally. It seems, though, that he is trying to give a "safe" answer. No doubt he knows that, while the majority of people may not believe the literal account of creation, only a small minority believe there is no god or that God had nothing at all to do with creation. So his somewhat vague answer played to the majority, while offending probably only a small percentage.

Huckabee said he believed God "created this process". What 'process' is that? Calling it a 'process' makes it sound more like evolution than creation. God didn't create the "process", he created creation! Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but I have high expectations of him because of the fact he is an evangelical, conservative Baptist pastor. I understand that Christians disagree on this issue, but I would at least expect that--being a pastor--he would have a position on it! And he seemed irritated that the question was even asked at a debate.

2) Huckabee has refused to say same-sex marriage is wrong, saying instead that we need to fix heterosexual marriage before we talk about whether or not to change the definition of marriage. In the meanwhile, the courts ARE changing the definition of marriage.

3) He refuses to say adoption by same-sex parents is harmful to a child, instead saying that "we just don't know yet", and saying we need to look at what is best for the child, whether the parents are heterosexual or homosexual. I agree that we need to look at what is best for the child, but he is avoiding answering the question about same-sex adoption.

4) He wouldn't directly say that homosexuals serving in the military was not a good thing. When pressed with the question two or three times, he would only say that "it is already covered by the Uniform Code of Military Justice", and he didn't think that needed to be changed.

5) He does not appear to be very strong on trying to make abortion illegal, instead saying, "We need to look at changing one heart at a time, rather than passing one piece of legislation at a time". While I agree winning hearts should be the ultimate goal, many hearts will never be won. Meanwhile, thousands of babies are being killed every day.

6) Finally, although many would disagree with me, and it wouldn't be an issue for most, as a conservative Baptist Christian it bothers me somewhat that a supposedly conservative Baptist minister would play songs like "Born to be Wild" in his secular rock band. A lot of people would probably think it "cool" that a presidential candidate--especially a Baptist minister--would not be so stuffy, but instead is willing to get in touch with his "wild side" through the music he plays. However, I am ready for someone who is more interested in espousing conservative principals than embracing pop culture.

Maybe he is just being a smart politician, but aren't we ready for someone who isn't afraid to boldly proclaim their positions on the issue, no matter to whom they are speaking? Haven't we had enough of politicians who change their rhetoric to fit their audience? How do we know what they really believe? I know electability is a factor, but I believe Tancredo IS electable, AND he shares his same core beliefs unabashedly with every audience. Look what happened when Nussle was anointed our candidate for governor because of his perceived greater electability. If we would have gone with Vander Plaats, we could very well have a Republican governor now. I'm not trying to second guess, but I'm just saying that the "electability" factor doesn't always serve us well. I am looking for someone I know is a true conservative on every issue. I want someone who is not afraid to take a stand on the controversial issues. Like Tancredo says, "When conservatives run ON our principles, we win. When we run FROM them, we lose".

If Huckabee becomes the Republican candidate, I will certainly support him with passion in the general election, but he is not my first choice of candidates. From what I know of all the candidates, Huckabee might be #2, but not a close #2 at this point. I don't know enough about Duncan Hunter, but he might bump Huckabee if I knew more about him.

Tancredo Winner at ICA/ITR Forum

At the presidential forum held in Des Moines on June 30, 2007, Tom Tancredo was the clear winner, receiving two standing ovations. According to the LA Times, "Of the six candidates who spoke, Tancredo received the best reception, coming and going to standing ovations." (Full article here). I'm not sure about the standing ovation as he was coming, but I know that he received one during his speech, as well as at the end.

Tancredo, without question, energized the crowd significantly more than any of the other candidates. The rest of the candidates were Tommy Thompson, Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, and Duncan Hunter. You can watch Tancredo's speech here: Team Tancredo website.

Letters to the Editor About Danielson's March 10 Verbal Attack on a Citizen

The following links are self explanatory, so I won't add much further comment. The first link is a letter from Alvira Morris, responding to the behavior she observed Senator Danielson exhibit at the March 10, 2007 legislative forum. At the end of the letter is a response that the Waterloo Courier solicited from Danielson.

The second link is a letter from Al Manning, responding to Danielson's response to the first letter, as well as his remarks at the forum.

Alvira Morris' Letter

Al Manning's Letter

Blog Post (Including Video) About Danielson's Tirade at the Forum

Danielson Tells a Citizen He Has Hate in His Heart

This is an excerpt from the legislative forum held March 10, 2007. There is too much misinformation and propaganda in this video to address it all here, but let me hit on a couple of points:

-Danielson said there is a "whole host of enumerated traits" in the Fourteenth Amendment. There are no enumerated traits in the Fourteenth Amendment. The framers wanted the rights to apply equally to everyone, without carving out certain categories of people more worthy of protection than others. You would think a legislator charged with upholding the Constitution, and who bases his votes on the Constitution, would at least know what it says!

-Senator Dotzler's comment that an employer could fire an employee who didn't adhere to a dress code was technically right, but didn't address the specific question. An employer could have a dress code prohibiting employees from wearing dresses/skirts, makeup, etc. But if he allowed the female employees to wear them, he could not prohibit the males from also wearing them.

I would like to see more Republicans/conservatives/Christians attend these forums, rather than have 90%+ of the audience be liberal Democrats, and 90%+ of those be from the education establishment.

Bite tongue, engage brain before speaking

At a forum for Black Hawk County legislators held yesterday at the AEA 267 building, State Senator Jeff Danielson lost his cool, telling a citizen at the microphone that he (the citizen) had "hate" in his heart. What brought forth such a strong judgment from Danielson? The constituent merely asked how a proposed bill that Danielson supports would affect his business.

The bill would add "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" to the list of protected classes in the state's civil rights code. The business owner questioned what he would be able to do if a male employee decided to come to work dressed as a female. He also wondered if such a person would have to be allowed to use the women's restroom, or if a third (or fourth) restroom would need to be added to accommodate men who define themselves as female (and possibly women who define themselves as male)?

Among the several inaccurate and/or disingenuous comments made in response to the questions the business owner asked, one of the most blatant was the statement by Danielson that the Fourteenth Amendment "basically guarantees equal protection under the law for a whole host of enumerated traits". Someone needs to tell the senator that 1) "Sexual orientation" and "gender identity" are not "traits", 2) the Fourteenth Amendment has no "enumerated traits", but rather says "any person", and 3) the proposed law would actually be in violation of the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as it provides greater protection to some people than it does to others.

It is sad to think that a person with a Bachelor's Degree in Public Administration, a Master's Degree in Public Policy, and who is serving as the President Pro Tempore of the Iowa State Senate, does not have an accurate understanding of this important amendment to our Constitution, especially when it will influence how he votes on laws. He stated at the meeting that he took an oath of office to "uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America". How can he do that if he doesn't even know what the Constitution and its Amendments say?

Or, do you suppose he really does know, but assumes his constituency is too ignorant to know?

I'll write more on this issue in coming days.