Tuesday, July 24, 2007

Switching Camps

I have been thinking about this post for some time now. Back on May 10 I endorsed Senator Sam Brownback. Looking back at that now I feel I made a mistake, I endorsed a candidate too early. It isn't that I don't like Senator Brownback, I do. I just overlooked Governor Mike Huckabee at the time, and made my decision too quickly. After prayerfully taking a good hard look at Governor Huckabee, I have decided to retract my endorsement of Senator Brownback, and endorse Governor Huckabee instead. He is the one whom I will be voting for at the Ames Straw Poll on August 11, and in the Iowa Caucus.

I would like to share with you some reasons why I am choosing Governor Mike Huckabee instead of Senator Brownback and the rest of the GOP field.

1. He is solidly pro-life. You can read his issues statement on the sanctity of life here.
  • Prior to being Governor, he helped pass the Unborn Child Amendment in Arkansas.
  • As Governor he pushed through pro-life initiatives through a Democratic legislature.
  • He promises to support pro-life agenda and appoint pro-life people in relevant positions.
2. He is compassionate.
  • Initiated the ARKids First program in Arkansas which provided health care for struggling families.
  • Spearheaded Arkansas' response to the Hurricane Katrina disaster which allowed Arkansas to effectively house and care for those displaced from that storm.
3. His record on education.
  • Test scores raised under his leadership in Arkansas.
  • Drawing a clear distinction between state and federal roles in education and wants to allow states to set their own benchmark.
  • In favor of charter schools and home education.
4. His stance on crisis management.
  • His record as Governor of Arkansas.
  • I especially like his idea of taking FEMA out of the Department of Homeland Security, and making it a cabinet position.
  • Tighten up the Department of Homeland Security.
5. His view on faith and politics.
  • His faith drives his decisions - he is open and forthright about that.
  • His faith makes him humble and not quick to judge.
  • I like the fact that he was a pastor (though that isn't a tipping point for me).
  • He also makes it very clear that he is running for president, not pastor.
6. I also like his positions on the Iraq war, and the war on terror.
  • It seems practical, doable.
  • It encompasses all tools in our arsenal.
  • Using diplomacy to support moderates within Islam.
  • Increase in the Defense budget so that we do not have to rely so much upon the National Guard and Reservists.
  • Focus on surgical strikes and special operations since many terrorist groups are small and isolated.
  • Away from the black and white "you are either with us or against us" and recognizes that support may come in various forms. He recognizes the complex situation that some Middle East leaders face.
7. Tax Reform and Health Care Reform
  • Get rid of income tax - go to fair tax, a sales tax with provision being made for those below the poverty line.
  • Cut federal spending - bring back line item veto!
  • His record as governor - actually had a budget surplus.
8. His view on marriage.
  • He supported the Arkansas marriage amendment that was passed.
  • Signed a Covenant Marriage statute into law in Arkansas
  • He supports a federal marriage amendment.
Some of these positions are similar to Senator Brownback, but the biggest difference is that he has experience. He has executive experience. He has a record of leadership. This is why I normally don't go for senators or representatives. In 2005, Time Magazine named Huckabee one of the five best governors in the U.S. Time called him a "second commandment Christian." His leadership exhibits that he "loves his neighbors as himself."

His communication skills are better. I was impressed with his answers in during the debates. He is persuasive. He is articulate. He is also positive. I have been disappointed in Brownback's campaign of late that they seem to spend time attacking the other candidate to show themselves to be the better conservative (ongoing sparring with Mitt Romney, and lately have gone after Tancredo). They are not helping themselves in the polls.

He has voter appeal as well. When he was elected as Governor he won 43% of the African-American vote, when he was re-elected he won 48%. That is almost unheard of within the GOP, and he did this despite the fact that President Clinton campaigned for Huckabee's opponent. Recent polls have shown a that likely voters have a positive view of him. The fact that he is a Washington outsider bodes well for him, especially when Congress' and President Bush's approval rating is in the toilet.

According to New Man Magazine, "his creativity, common sense and personal experiences in health, poverty and education are not typically Republican and would resonate with moderates and even liberal voters." His personal life speaks volumes as well. He triumphed over his weight issues loosing 100 lbs. He repeated his wedding vows with his wife under the covenant marriage statue he signed into law. His wife early on in marriage was diagnosed with cancer of the spine and how he stood by her, and would have if it ended up paralyzing her.

I believe that Governor Mike Huckabee is the best choice to be our next President of the United States. I hope that you join me in voting for him in the upcoming straw poll, the Iowa Caucus (or your state's primary) and the general election.

18 comments:

Recovering said...

Welcome to the fold...I'm glad to see you are supporting Huckabee and I will likewise be attending the straw poll to support him.

I think the only candidate I would get exciteda bout besides Huckabee would be Steve Forbes...and that is for totally different reasons.

Shane Vander Hart said...

Brownback would still be my number #2, if neither Brownback or Huckabee win the nomination, I'll probably still vote Republican (because I shudder when I think of the alternative), but I doubt I'll be active in campaigning for the nominee.

Lee said...

Glad to see you're supporting the governor. He's done some impressive things as an executive and I would love to see him on the same stage wil Hillary. When you contrast their personalities, Huckabee could really dominate that debate.

Shane Vander Hart said...

A Clinton vs. Huckabee debate would be very interesting to watch. Thanks for the comment Lee.

Anonymous said...

Nice to have you over on the side of the good guys. Not only is Brownback a mud slinger, but he's divisive, linked to Jack Abramoff, and has the personality/speaking skills of a wooden log.

Keep spreading the word of Huckabee.

Shane Vander Hart said...

Hey anonymous, while I don't like the current tone of Senator Brownback's campaign I do respect the senator. He is a great American, and he is my runner-up candidate. The primary reason that I switched to Governor Huckabee was his experience, his stands on the issues I care about, his character, and his communication skills.

You seem to be slinging some mud yourself, sooooo lay off Brownback on my blog.

daniel woodard said...

I think Mike Huckabee did many good things as Governor, but the following shows that he won't protect each and every person's right to be born. Perhaps if he instead ran against US Sen. Pryor in Nov. '08, and repudiated his support for the following, then he'd be a good candidate in Nov. '16.

In April 2005, Gov. Mike Huckabee signed legislation requiring health insurance plans to cover prescription drugs that are abortifacient. (note: the pill, morning-after pill, and IUD contain the same chemicals, but in different dosages. Both serve to thin the lining of the endometrium, so both serve to prevent the baby from implanting, thereby effectively starving the baby.)

Gov. Huckabee also favored Bush's policy of allowing federal funding to pay to do medical tests on babies in their embryonic state. "With respect to stem cells, I support federal funding of research using existing stem cell lines." (note: both you and I had to grow through that embryonic state before getting to where we are today.)

What makes it even worse is that in both cases, Gov. Huckabee favored using state and federal tax dollars which pays for the killing of babies.

Please again support U.S. Senator Brownback. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, U.S. Sen. Brownback single-handedly tore down the abysmal nomination of Harriet Miers, which resulted in a presumably solid pro-life justice in Samuel Alito, even though all the main pro-life groups gave in to Bush. The day Miers withdrew her name, Sen. John McCain surprised the mob of reporters clamoring around Brownback outside the Senate chamber by grabbing his colleague's shoulders. "Here's the man who did it!" McCain shouted in admiration, a big smile on his face.

I recently read judiciary committee transcripts where Sen. Brownback questioned Roberts and Alito, and feels them out to see whether they would support the ability of Congress to pass a law establishing legal personhood at conception thus nullifying Roe v Wade, and then stripping all federal courts from the issue of abortion altogether in order to immediately ban abortion.

As President, Sen. Brownback will try to pass such a law through Congress. I can't find any place where Gov. Huckabee would favor this approach to end legalized abortion. I can't even find any place where he favors the ability of Congress to simply pass a law that establishes legal personhood at conception. In all likelihood, he only supports a federal constitutional amendment that does this, which is overkill.

Sadly, the continued legalization of abortion is a problem for lawyers. As a lawyer who has deeply studied legalized abortion, U.S. Sen. Brownback Brownback has a more thorough understanding of how to end it. He can go toe-to-toe with anybody on the technical intricate legalities of how to overturn or nullify Roe v Wade, and what the effects would be on state and federal laws. Gov. Huckabee does not have that depth of understanding, otherwise he'd realize his support for any state or federal tax money going towards any baby killing is constitutionally inconsistent with human life beginning at conception. I just don't think as President, Gov. Huckabee will try to end legalized abortion as quickly or as thoroughly as Sen. Brownback.

Please come back to Sen. Brownback. Ending abortion asap is truly the most important task on our hands.

Shane Vander Hart said...

Daniel,

I admire your passion to see Senator Brownback become our next president. I would appreciate, however, if you make sure you tell the whole story when trying to smear somebody's record.

Regarding the health insurance bill you mentioned. I found it in the Arkansas Code, you forgot to mention section B.

23-79-1103. Parity for contraceptives.

(a) Every health benefit policy that is delivered, issued, executed, or renewed in this state or approved for issuance or renewal in this state by the Insurance Commissioner on or after August 12, 2005, that provides coverage for prescription drugs on an outpatient basis shall provide coverage for prescribed drugs or devices approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for use as a contraceptive.
(b) Nothing contained in this subchapter shall be construed to require any insurance company to provide coverage for an abortion, an abortifacient, or any United States Food and Drug Administration-approved emergency contraception.


History. Acts 2005, No. 2217, § 1.


Also mentioning Governor Huckabee's stand on the issue of stem cell research. He is all he has to say.

With respect to stem cells, I support federal funding of research using existing stem cell lines. I do not believe in creating life for the sole purpose of destroying it. I'm encouraged by recent discoveries showing that stem cells from the umbilical cord offer great promise.

He makes it pretty clear here that he will not support further funding. You have to realize this is already federal law, and with a Democrat controlled Congress it is unlikely this will be overturned.

As for his record as Governor.

No candidate has a stronger record on the sanctity of life than I do. I have always been actively and aggressively pro-life. I first became politically active when I helped pass Arkansas' Unborn Child Amendment, which requires the state to do whatever it can to protect life.

As Governor, I used that Amendment to pass pro-life legislation. The many pro-life laws I got through my Democrat legislature are the accomplishments that give me the most pride and personal satisfaction. I banned partial birth abortion, I required parental notification, I required that a woman give informed consent before having an abortion, I required that a woman be told her baby will experience pain and be given the option of anesthesia for her baby, I allowed a woman to have her baby and leave the child safely at a hospital, and I made it a crime for an unborn child to be injured or murdered during an attack on his mother.

What I accomplished as Governor proves that there is a lot more that a pro-life President can do than wait for a Supreme Court vacancy, and I will do everything I can to promote a pro-life agenda and pass pro-life legislation. If I'm saddled with a Democrat Congress, I'll veto any pro-abortion legislation they pass. I will staff all relevant positions with pro-life appointees. I will use the bully pulpit to change hearts and minds. I have no desire to throw women in jail, I just want us to stop throwing babies in the garbage.


I am firmly pro-life, as is Governor Huckabee. The issue that Senator Brownback is facing at the moment that he needs to start talking about other issues as well. Honestly the only press that I have seen on him recently is either negative or an article about him attacking another candidate. That will not win you an election.

The law you mention regarding legalized personhood at conception - you don't know for certain that he wouldn't support that. It would be great to see that passed, but as liberal as some of the Circuit Courts are it would be likely to be overturned.

Also, while I credit Senator Brownback speaking out against the nomination of Harriet Meirs to the Supreme Court. I would expect that a Huckabee nominee would have a better background than she did.

We are probably going to have to agree to disagree. But honestly if you are going to use that Arkansas bill against be sure to share section b, otherwise you are telling a half-truth.

D.W. said...

I know you intend to be firmly pro-life. So, please recognize that embryonic stem cell research does kill babies. The fact that Gov. Huckabee supports federal funding to kill babies is immoral and saddening. He feels fine that he gave those babies up for dead, supported federal funding for their murder, and they are getting killed one by one to this day. Look at his position; it’s very clever: "With respect to stem cells, I support federal funding of research using existing stem cell lines. I do not believe in creating life for the sole purpose of destroying it." He technically allows himself to support federal funding for future babies, such as IVF babies that become un-implantable. IVF babies aren’t created for the sole purpose of being destroyed. So, why wouldn't he support federal funding as President, since he does so now? If he were really against the killing of any innocent baby, he would've said, "I do not believe in creating life and then destroying it".

Just because this is already federal law and the democrats are in charge doesn't mean that you shouldn't keep trying to discontinue the research and the tax money that's still going to it to this day. All that money should’ve instead gone to find a way to do surgery on those embryonic babies in order to enable them to implant and be born. But even if no such way is ever found, nothing justifies supporting even one murder, much less paying for several murders.

Sen. Brownback has always opposed both the taxpayer’s funding for the killing and the killing itself.

I essentially said in my last post that chemical contraception serves to thin the lining of the endometrium, thereby lessening the baby’s chances from implanting, thereby effectively starving the baby. The more you take of it, the more likely it'll act as an abortifacient to kill babies.

So, this legislation that Gov. Huckabee signed requires that health insurance plans cover low-dosage abortifacients and condoms. An exception for high-dosage abortifacients doesn't take away from the fact that Gov. Huckabee still required insurance companies to pay for drugs that kill babies. And what business did he have requiring insurance companies to cover condoms, much less abortifacients? The Catholics in Arkansas and many Protestants who oppose such things don't want to see their government requiring such coverage.

By the way, if you look at what Section (b) states, the term "abortion" means surgical abortion, "abortifacient" means RU-486, and "FDA-approved emergency contraception" means the morning-after pill (i.e. high-dosage abortifacient). Gov. Huckabee should've included an exception for low-dosage abortifacients and condoms as well. Though, so doing would’ve made the law altogether unnecessary.

Perhaps Gov. Huckabee doesn't know that low-dosage abortifacients can be abortifacient, even though it’s always on the labeling. If he does know it, he shouldn’t have signed the law. If he doesn't know it, Sen. Brownback does know it.

I’m not just saying this because I support U.S. Sen. Brownback, but he’s on his way to making a good showing in the Ames Straw Poll on Aug. 11. You know how the media is, and you know how it likes to take potshots at politicians it doesn’t want to do well, and how it wants to split the pro-life vote. Sen. Brownback has publicly criticized other candidates over every other issue besides abortion, but the media knows abortion makes for great headlines, so it has publicized Brownback's action to stir up controversy. I wish Sen. Brownback would more frequently use his presidential candidacy as a stump to emphasize the horror of abortion, but he talks way more about his plan for Iraq, taxes, and being the best fiscal, economic, and social conservative. I could point to many cases where Gov. Huckabee has criticized other candidates over abortion and other issues.

Perhaps Gov. Huckabee would support the law I mentioned regarding legalized personhood at conception. But he has never talked about it so we don't know if he supports it or not, whereas Sen. Brownback has talked about it and we do know he supports it. We should go with who we know knows.

It’s possible a federal court would strike down a law stripping all federal courts (including the US Supreme Court) from abortion, but it’s unlikely a liberal federal court would strike down such a law, if the law included an establishment of legal personhood at conception. Though the liberal courts would strike down any abortion penalty, they have no ability to stop Congress from defining the term “person”. Even if they strike down the court-stripping language, once personhood is defined at conception, the liberal courts would know they’d have already lost the battle, so they’d just leave the whole law intact. (Establishing legal personhood at conception bans abortion in all 50 states. Each state would be able to pass laws penalizing abortion, but without “exceptions” since personhood would be from conception.)

Of course Gov. Huckabee's nominee would be better than Harriet Miers. But, more so than any Governor or Senator, U.S. Sen. Brownback already knows whom all the best potential Supreme Court picks are, and has the best ability to pick the most effectively pro-life ones. Other than US Rep. Chris Smith from NJ, I think Sen. Brownback has the best handle on legalized abortion of any Governor or member of Congress. Sen. Brownback has a long working relationship at the national level with such pro-life groups as FRC, NRLC, USCCB, CWA, etc.

What it comes down to is that as President, U.S. Senator Brownback will stop the baby-murder quicker than Governor Huckabee.

D.W. said...

I love your "favorite music" section. Christian contemporary music forever!

I wanted to mention the above for its own sake, but I honestly just remembered that Michael W. Smith endorsed U.S. Senator Brownback for U.S. President.

D.W. said...

I like your youtube video about "Serve Our Youth". I served in a similar program in my area.

D.W. said...

Two more notes...

Gov. Huckabee should be careful in what he says. "I have no desire to throw women in jail..."
Suppose a pregnant woman aborted her baby and sacrificed her baby to Moloch. That woman is clearly guilty of murder, and Gov. Huckabee would likely have a desire that she be thrown in jail.

Every presidential candidate has negative qualities. It's interesting the media is now highlighting Sen. Brownback's. His attacks on other candidates have been true, as Gov. Huckabee's have been true.

Shane Vander Hart said...

D.W.

Thanks again for you comments. I do recognize that ESCR kills babies. I've actually blogged quite extensively on it - check out the bioethics tag. I am opposed to the practice.

I wouldn't support the practice of continuing the funding of the existing stem cell lines. I do not believe he will approve any other funding or any new bills. President Bush who originally allowed this has vetoed every other ESCR bill that has come out of Congress, and I have no doubt that Governor Huckabee would do the same.

Also, regarding you saying that this health insurance plan requires that it has to cover low-dosage abortifacients - where are you getting your information? It clearly says that it will not require abortifacientsit doesn't distinguish between low-dosage and high-dosage. Regarding condoms... last time I checked that isn't an abortion issue. That is a Catholic theological position.

Listen, I know that Sam Brownback is a good man. I appreciate what he has done to stand up for life. We are not going to see eye to eye on this.

You mentioned that Micheal W. Smith endorsed Brownback. That's great. If Huckabee wasn't in the race I would too. Huckabee was endorsed by New Man Magazine which I would say is probably more influential.

t.s. said...

Senator Brownback is the only candidate who can unite both social and fiscal conservatives. Unfortunately Gov. Huckabee's economic record is horrendous, as outlined by the conservative group, the Club for Growth. Additionally, Sen Brownback can unite both evangelicals and Catholics, as seen by the coalitions which were recently announced in Iowa.

D.W. said...

Hi Shane,

You posted a lot of good stuff on ECSR: http://shanevanderhart.blogspot.com/search/label/Bioethics

If you want the most cutting edge stuff on ECSR, here it is: http://www.ncbcenter.org/makingsense.asp

Regarding ECSR, private research companies pay to kill embyronic babies in order to extract stem cells lines from them. Then they pay to do research on these stem cell lines. These companies want the gov't to pay for both steps. They knew it’d be harder to get the gov’t to agree to provide federal funding for the first part. So, they paid for the first part and presented 60 stem cell lines to Bush, and asked him to approve federal money for the second part. President Bush, with Governor Huckabee supporting him, approved of federal funding for the second part, arguing they were only funding research on the stem cell lines, not funding for live babies to be killed. The bills, which Congress has passed, have attempted to provide federal funding for both parts, which is the reason Bush and Huckabee have opposed them. But if Congress passed a bill that funded only the second part, then Bush and Huckabee would support it. Even if Huckabee says (which he hasn’t yet) that he won’t support the second step on any other stem cell lines, it still doesn’t take away from the fact that he supports the current research on the 60 stem cell lines. He needs to oppose research on all stem cell lines everywhere.

You may not support continuing the funding of the existing stem cell lines, but Gov. Huckabee does. So yes, while I see that Gov. Huckabee never has and never will support the killing of embryonic babies, he essentially rewarded private research companies by supporting federal funding on the stem cell lines produced from the 60 embryonic persons who they killed.

(As a side note, since the first step had already taken place, Bush went out of his way to also remunerate the private companies for the cost of the killing.)

What justification does Gov. Huckabee have for supporting the second step? All I see him saying is that he supports research on the body parts of 60 dead babies, but he has given no justification. Is it that he doesn’t want to waste the potential of the stem cells? That's a false argument. If Bush had refused, I’m sure the private companies would’ve paid to do research on them, rather than thrown them away. I simply don’t see why it was right or necessary for Bush and Huckabee to have supported this. Do you? I’ve been trying to find out for a long time.


Regarding the insurance law, I’m getting my info under 2(b)2(B) of the section after the one you posted:

23-79-1104. Extraordinary surcharges prohibited.
(a) No insurer shall impose upon any person receiving prescription contraceptive benefits pursuant to this subchapter any:
(1) Copayment, coinsurance payment, or fee that is not equally imposed upon all individuals in the same benefit category, class, coinsurance level, or copayment level receiving benefits for prescription drugs; or
(2) Reduction in allowable reimbursement for prescription drug benefits.
(b) This subchapter shall not be construed to:
(1) Require coverage for prescription coverage benefits in any contract, policy, or plan that does not otherwise provide coverage for prescription drugs;
(2)(A) Preclude the use of closed formularies.
(B) However, the formularies shall include oral, implant, and injectable contraceptive drugs, intrauterine devices, and prescription barrier methods; or
(3) Require any religious employer to comply with this subchapter.

Oral, implant, and injectable contraceptive drugs are abortifacient. Intrauterine devices are abortifacient. Prescription barrier methods are not, if they don’t contain abortifacient chemicals. This legislation that Gov. Huckabee signs acts like none of these things are abortifacient, but in fact they are. It clearly does distinguish between between low-dosage and high-dosage chemical contraceptives. Any contraception that’s chemical can be abortifacient. It’s not truly a contraceptive if it’s also an abortifacient.

In 1981, testifying about the potential impact of (personhood-at-conception) legislation, George Ryan, then president of ACOG, said, "I believe that it is realistic to assume that the IUD and the low-dose oral contraceptive pills could be considered as abortifacients and therefore declared illegal." After months of controversy, the measure was defeated by the full Senate in 1982.

The New York Times of Thursday, April 27, 1989 carried a transcript of the oral arguments in the Supreme Court case of Webster v. Reproductive Health Services. On pB13 the following dialogue between Frank Susman, lawyer for the Missouri abortion clinics and Justice Scalia appears:

"Mr. Susman: …For better or worse, there no longer exists any bright line between the fundamental right that was established in Griswold and the fundamental right of abortion that was established in Roe. These two rights, because of advances in medicine and science, now overlap. They coalesce and merge and they are not distinct.

Justice Scalia: Excuse me, you find it hard to draw a line between those two but easy to draw a line between (the) first, second and third trimester.

Mr. Susman: I do not find it difficult ---

Justice Scalia: I don’t see why a court that can draw that line can’t separate abortion from birth control quite readily.

Mr. Susman: If I may suggest the reasons in response to your question, Justice Scalia. The most common forms of what we most generally in common parlance call contraception today, IUD’s, low-dose birth control pills, which are the safest type of birth control pills available, act as abortifacients. They are correctly labeled as both.
"Under this statute, which defines fertilization as the point of beginning, those forms of contraception are also abortifacients. Science and medicine refer(s) to them as both. We are not still dealing with the common barrier methods of Griswold. We are no longer just talking about condoms and diaphragms.
"Things have changed. The bright line, if there ever was one, has now been extinguished. That’s why I suggest to this Court That we need to deal with one right, the right to procreate. We are no longer talking about two rights."


Regarding condoms, I recommend that you read “Open Embrace: A Protestant Couple Rethinks Contraception”:
http://www.amazon.com/Open-Embrace-Protestant-Rethinks-Contraception/dp/0802839738. Every single protestant denomination opposed condoms before 1930. The Anglicans led the way by being the first (in addition to being the first regarding divorce and sodomy). America's increasing permissiveness about legalizing contraception in the 1960s led to Griswold v Connecticut, which created the so-called “Right to Privacy”, and that laid the groundwork for Roe v. Wade in 1973 and Lawrence v Texas in 2003. Without Griswold, Roe and Lawrence couldn’t have happened. It’s simple: condoms are closed to life, so why not be closed off to life in other ways like abortion and sodomy?

By the way, http://www.righttolifeact.org/html/home.html is a personhood-at-conception bill introduced by Rep. Duncan Hunter. It’s HR 618 in the current Congress with 81 cosponsors.

Shane Vander Hart said...

T.S.

I just wanted to share with you some information about Governor Huckabee's record and views on taxes/economy. This was from his website.

# I support the FairTax.
# As Governor of Arkansas, I cut taxes and fees almost 100 times, saving the taxpayers almost $380 million. I left a surplus of nearly $850 million, which I urged should go back to the people.
# Our massive deficit is not due to Americans' being under-taxed, but to the government's over-spending.
# To control spending, I believe the President should have the line-item veto.
# I believe in free trade, but it has to be fair trade.
# Globalization, done right, done fairly, can be the equivalent of a big pay raise by allowing us to buy things more cheaply.

These tax cuts mind you happened with a Democrat controlled General Assembly. I think that is pretty remarkable. Also the state constitution mandates spending priorities as well, so somethings they were legally bound to budget for unless they changed the constitution. Fat chance that happening with the current General Assembly.

So, I'm not seeing this horrendous record. May I also remind you that Senator Brownback has been part of a Congress that have voted in favor of major spending increases. I do not believe he voted no on all of those, but I will spot him a few.

Also, just because he is creating coalitions doesn't mean he is uniting people. One of his last pastors' meetings attracted 16 people, not really remarkable.

Look t.s. and D.W., as I've said before. I like Senator Brownback. I just like Governor Huckabee more. It was a hard choice for me.

D.W. - You and I can go round and round. Bottom line for me. They are both solid pro-life candidates. All of the GOP candidates with the exception of Guiliani and Romney have had a long pro-life history. I'm looking at other issues. I'm looking at the polls. I'm looking at debate peformance. I'm looking at executive experience. A pro-life stance is the top priority for me, and then I look at other issues.

The fact is this. In the latest KCCI poll Brownback isn't even on the radar - he didn't even get 1%. The latest DM Register poll isn't much better. Brownback's performance in the debates did not help him.

All that to say I'm very interested in how the Iowa Straw Poll will turn out. I think we'll be seeing a few bow out after it is all said and done.

Anonymous said...

I just have to throw this in. Funding for existing lines does not mean that scientists get to keep destroying embryos on the taxpayer dollar. The "lines" discussed are lines of cells that have been produced from already-destroyed embryos. Federal funding has not supported the destruction of any embryos since the order was given. Funding has only gone to research on cells from embryos that are already dead. Support it or don't support it, but understand that it does not mean that we are "killing babies."
Jessica

Shane Vander Hart said...

Jessica,

Thanks for your comment. Excellent point.

D.W. - just thinking about your comment regarding condoms. I want you to know that I'm not in favor of condom distribution in schools, etc. I believe in abstinence only sexual education. I just do not believe that a married couple who prayerfully decide to put off having a family and then uses condoms are doing anything morally wrong. Life begins with the sperm fertilizing the egg. It doesn't begin with just the sperm.

I think this is a moot point anyway since condoms are over the counter anyway, what insurance company would cover them? Who would turn in that claim?