Mike Huckabee Tracker

WHY MIKE HUCKABEE MAY BE PRESIDENT

J. Grant Swank, Jr.

The former governor may become President just because enough earnest prayers put him in the White House.

That means that Huckabee is the David versus Goliath GOP candidate. In other words, in human terms he does not stand a chance.

He does not have the money, first of all. His campaign coffers are not overflowing. Further, he’s not one of those names that have been carved into news granite. And remember that he’s also a Baptist preacher.

Will the other candidates’ funds smother Huckabee? Will his comparative newness to the upswing scene hold? And will those who are not evangelical / fundamentalist believers still take to Huckabee?

Those who call themselves “born again Christians” can readily read Huckabee. Why? He’s basic biblical believer. He has the biblical morals, biblical philosophy, biblical hope. He is biblical through and through. There’s not a theological liberal bone in his soul.

Genuine Christians can sense spirit-to-spirit when in the company of a fellow disciple. They don’t need a lot of evidence because there is a transparency present that communicates powerfully.

True, at times we disciples have been fooled by the con artists. The world is not perfect. But may there be enough who come to trust Huckabee.

Following the Sunday night Republican debate in Florida this kind of support hit the Internet: ‘Chuck Norris Endorses Mike Huckabee for President.’ Check it out at http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,304096,00.html

TIME web site featured Huckabee with ‘Huckabee’s Bid for the Christian Right.’ Check it out at http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1674340,00.html

Who knows? The media itself may bring this man to the front without a trainload of campaign cash.

The TIME piece was in-your-face reportage:

“Hitting his stride, Huckabee compared himself to ‘the prophets of old, the ones who spoke truth to power.’ And he set up an altar call for his audience, letting them know exactly what they could do as well to stand up to the powerful.

“In what has to be the first ever presidential candidate shout-out to Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, Huckabee made his case for the little guy. ‘It’s a lot better to be with David than Goliath,’ he declared.

“Or with Elijah than 850 prophets of Baal. Or with Daniel and the lions than the Babylonians.

“The point was not lost on the crowd of Sunday school veterans: the Bible is, after all, jam-packed with stories of the seemingly weak who triumph, heroes who shock the naysayers.

“’Don’t ever let expediency or electability replace our principles,’ Huckabee urged the crowd. ‘Come on, Mike!’ yelled a man in support. ‘That’s right!’ shouted out others.”

If the nation is ever going to return to a revival base of sane morals—individual integrity, family solidarity, and national pride—it will take a person as qualified as Mike Huckabee.

For those who say he doesn’t stand a prayer, that just might be the call to hope-filled believers to prove those negatives wrong.

So, Christians, you know what’s next. To your knees, brother. To your knees, sister. To your knees.

–

Read: http://truthinconviction.us/weblog.php

WOW i am surprised there are no comments from your millions and millions of Huckabee fans.LMFAO Your sites polls are a lie as is most of what you say.Lies lies lies and more lies.Like father like son.Your father the prince of lies.Your masters own you and we all know it.You will not beat Ron Paul and putting up fake polls wont help you either.I C the people give you a lot of $ too lol a little over a million so far (snicker)?Ron paul gets that in chump change.L8TR LOSERLIARSONOFTHEPRINCEOFLIES.

I feel better now that i told you what we all know so you wont be fooling yourself any longer.

The Problem With Pastor Mike
Foreign-policy foolishness just won’t suffice.

By Peter Wehner

Former Arkansas governor and Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee has written an article for Foreign Affairs magazine, the first two paragraphs of which are stunningly silly, misguided, and unfortunately for Huckabee, deeply revealing.

The two opening paragraphs read this way:

The United States, as the world’s only superpower, is less vulnerable to military defeat. But it is more vulnerable to the animosity of other countries. Much like a top high school student, if it is modest about its abilities and achievements, if it is generous in helping others, it is loved. But if it attempts to dominate others, it is despised.

American foreign policy needs to change its tone and attitude, open up, and reach out. The Bush administration’s arrogant bunker mentality has been counterproductive at home and abroad. My administration will recognize that the United States’ main fight today does not pit us against the world but pits the world against the terrorists. At the same time, my administration will never surrender any of our sovereignty, which is why I was the first presidential candidate to oppose ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty, which would endanger both our national security and our economic interests.

Where ought one to begin untangling this unholy mess?

Perhaps the place to begin is with his contention that America is ungenerous, which (according to Huckabee) explains the animus now directed at the United States. The fact is that the United States has sacrificed an enormous amount of blood and treasure to help other nations. Any suggestion otherwise is wrong and even offensive.

We have, for starters, liberated more than 50 million people from two of the most repressive regimes in modern history (the Taliban and the Baathist police state in Iraq). The global AIDS initiative qualifies as among the most humane and generous acts in the history of American foreign policy. We give billions in additional foreign aid, including the enormous generosity America displayed in helping Indonesia and other nations in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami that devastated Indonesia and other nations in December 2004.

The United States, while imperfect, ranks as perhaps the most benevolent superpower (to say nothing of its status as a benevolent nation) in human history. Unlike past empires, we are using American power and influence for great good instead of as a means of advancing oppression.

Beyond that, the belief that if we are modest and generous we will be “loved” by other nations, and that anger at America is based on our attempts to “dominate,” is both naive and foolish. Some nations (like Cuba, Syria, Iran, North Korea, and others) will oppose us because they are totalitarian states that hate our efforts to curb their ambitions and advance freedom and self-determination.

They are not the loving kind.

Other nations (like France under Jacques Chirac) will oppose us because they can’t stand the idea of a unipolar world and want to counterbalance it. And other nations (like China and Russia) will oppose our efforts to end genocide in Darfur and keep Iran from gaining nuclear weapons because of their economic interests.

Memo to Mike Huckabee: Sometimes we are despised for all the right reasons.

Ronald Reagan engendered anger from nations because he called the Soviet Union an “evil empire;” deployed Cruise and Pershing Missiles in Europe; moved ahead with the Strategic Defense Initiative; and supported the contras in Nicaragua. Millions took to the streets in Europe to oppose his defense build-up. Does Governor Huckabee believe Reagan’s actions were wrong simply because in many countries they were unpopular? Of course we would prefer to have universal support for our actions rather than encounter opposition. But does Huckabee understand that sometimes right and wise actions elicit opposition, and sometimes even intense and widespread opposition?

The popularity of the United States decreased in many Muslim nations in the aftermath of taking down the Taliban regime for its role in harboring and supporting al-Qaeda, which in turn was responsible for the worst attack on the American homeland in our history. Was that anger against America justified? Would Huckabee base his foreign-policy decisions on how our actions poll in Waziristan or Gaza under Hamas, or in madrasas throughout the Middle East? Based on his Foreign Affairs essay, it’s reasonable to believe he might.

Gov. Huckabee: I urge you to be sure of your facts. Gen. Colin Powell, according to Gen. Franks’s writing in his book American Soldier, did not object to the Iraq invasion ops plan, including troop strength, during the “final” briefings on the plan. Earlier, Powell’s emphasis on “more troops” dwelled on his concern with so-called “long lines of communication.” Franks addressed those concerns with him and apparently satisfied him because at Franks’ final briefing at Camp David with the national security team, including Pres. Bush, Powell “didn’t debate the brief, and he didn’t ask any more operational questions.”

Finally, I urge that you refer to Chapter 10, specifically pages 394 to 397, of American Soldier for specifics.

Regards, W.T. Olde