With Huckabee out, the official Republican nominee is an elderly white man who has zero charisma, speaks of a 100-year war in Iraq, and has yet to energize his own party's base. Now put this candidate up against a young, energetic black man whose speeches sound more like sermons and whose supporters seem more like disciples._
Get the point?
Sure, congratulations are in order for John McCain. But his nomination is ultimately a victory for Democrats... particularly, Barack Obama. If November's decision is between Obama & McCain, get used to saying, 'President Obama.' If it's Hillary (which I hope it is) Republicans have a shot. But with a war-weary electorate and a hurting economy, Republicans have a hard row to hoe. That's why the GOP candidate needed to be fresh and vibrant... two words never used to describe John McCain.
Don't get the wrong idea. Yeah, I supported Huckabee, but I'm not bitter about this. After Super Tuesday, I really didn't expect much more from Huck. I'll bite the bullet and vote for McCain. But the reality is that a Democrat will most likely take the White House in '08.
Huckabee in 2012??
13 comments:
Did you ever think you WANT Clinton to be the nominee?
i'm still supporting Gov Huckabee in spite of the McCain 'victory'
No I didn't, Jason. The Democratic party is about as far left as they can go when their more 'conservative' nominee is Hillary!
With only a dime's worth of difference now between the two major parties, isn't it time we stopped voting for the lesser of two evils. Real conservatives should be looking towards a third party now. What do you think about the Constitution Party.
fofaro... I've been to one event for a Consitution Party candidate and I really liked him. There are certain things that they stand for that certainly strike a cord in my heart (socially conservative, states rights, etc.). But I have 2 main concerns: 1- In presidential elections, CP candidates are totally unelectable and only steal votes from viable conservatives (like McCain). 2- There seems to be a tendency among CP folks that Christianity stands or falls with the government. We need not & should not to legislate Christianity. Our greatest hope for a changed America is the faithful preaching of the Gospel done through the local church (this, unfortunately, is not happening in many churches... thus, the poor condition of our nation).
JOSH!
you just called McCain a "viable conservative" I'm shocked.
I think it might be time for people who feel that McCain is only marginally preferable to the Democratic nominee to take a stand and initiate a petition pledging to vote for McCain if he will commit to a ban on embryonic stem cell research, and to not vote for him if he does not.
Is embryonic stem cell research even matter anymore? I ask this because of the new ability to turn any cell into a stem cell. That was at least Bush's argument in his Stat of the Union. Life issues have never been what bothered most conservatives anyway. McCain has a good rating on life issues.
I've been a republican since I could register to vote. I have always believed in their conservated views. I thought Huckabee was far more conservative than McCain. However, I am now stuck. You said that by "us," meaning America voted for McCain to lead the republicans that we were handing the race to the demoncrates. I do not see that as necessarily true. McCain may not be as conservative, which is what many Americans want. Here is my dilemma--even when Huckabee was in the race, I was unsure. Of course, many reasons have me go for the republicans, but now that I have a family and a job--I think a little different. More than anything I think about my child's education, health, and future. As a teacher, I really have views on the presidential nomination. Why?? NO Child Left Behind. Is it working? Should it stay, be revised or be done away with? Well--I have LOADS to say. But let's leave a few thoughts...
1--McCain (and I believe Huckabee was too, but not certain) support vouchers. They are saying that federal money can go to help families pay for private school if the local schools are not performing well. Basically--let's not fix the problem, let's add to the problem by paying for our kids to go somewhere else. Obama and Clinton both oppose vouchers.
2--As our nation begins to push education earlier and earlier, our children are falling more and more behind, unless you can afford a topnotch pre-school. Both the demoncrates want to put a pre-K plan into effect. Why do republicans not see this as necessary? Why have pre-k programs not already begun to advance?
3--NCLB--the biggy!! McCain supports the current NCBL. Huckabee believed that states had their own right to set standards and testing. Clinton wants to end it. Obama wants to ammend it. What is best from an educator and parents persepective? Ammend it. I am all for states' rights. However, NOT ON EDUCATION. Many countries out perform us on math and science. Those countries have NATIONAL standards and national textbook. America--in the same district may use different books. I can have a child move from New Jersey and be way too advanced for my class. Or I can have some one move from Washington DC and be way below my class. Every state has different standards and this is hurting our children. This is hurting chidlren who move. This is hurting children who go to college and learned completely different from those in their English 101 class. One school taught passive voice, the other did not--both students are expected to have less than 2 passive voices in their paper. Teachers should be accountable. Teachers should be rewarded for jobs well done. Parents should want to reward their child's teachers. Teachers should hold high degrees. Parents should want this. However, republicans simply want to let states decide on their own--this is clearly not working. With one state performing an average of 972 on the SAT and one performing an average of 1152. WOW--that's huge!!
So--Mr. Diehard Republicans--what can you do for the education of your children? What can you do for the teachers in your community?
Anonymous,
I appreciate your passion on the education issue. First off, I'm not a die-hard republican. I'm a Christian who believes in small gov't. Secondly, my child (we hope to have more) is not school age just yet. But when he is, we will not be sending him to public school. We intend on homeschooling by using the classical method. As concerned parents like you, that's the route my wife & I have chosen.
Now to those 3 big topics...
1 - Vouchers: The underlying assumption behind this is that parents have a right to decide their children's education. Instead of remaining in failing public schools, parents should have the ability to move kids to successful private schools. I agree 100%. Although, I'm not totally on board with the gov't paying for private school (isn't it interesting that this is the only time democrats oppose giving out money!). But I do agree that parents with kids in failing schools should have the right to move them. Why? Because our education system will never be fixed by the federal gov't -- never.
2 - Pre-K: First the gov't wanted our kids at age 6. Then it dropped to 5. Now it's 4. Why don't we just drop our babies off at school on the way home from labor & delivery?! It's a never-ending cycle. There are certain public schools that now have nurseries... I wonder how long it will take before folks want public nursery to be mandatory. Pre-K has nothing to do with our kids falling behind. The only thing they learn there is how to play well with others and to walk in a line. Doesn't sound like much of a head start to me.
3 - NCLB: I'm not a fan of this. 'Teaching for the test' is not an effective method of learning. But it's the only way a federal education program can run! How else can a giant bureaucracy examine its results? NCLB is precisely why education should be left to local gov't. And I mean LOCAL. The closer to the parents it gets, the better. If a teacher does a terrible job, the parents will make it known at the local school board meeting. If a teacher does a great job, parents will defend that teacher to the death. That's the accountability we need. And it won't come from the White House, it has to come from MY House.
How did I know homeschooling would be the reply. It is interesting to hear that because many people believe homeschooling creates an unsocialable child and it tries to hide the children from the world we live in. Do I believe this? Not at all. In fact I have fought for women to homeschool for quite a few years. it is a great joy when your child says, "My mom taught me how to read." or "I learned to add in my kitchen." How great to have prayer before starting school. How awesome to sing praises when excited with joy in learning. However, is it realistic? It is possible? It is best for that child? Homeschooling is something I could talk HOURS for at one time. I could type a novel on your blog about this topic--I have experience in it and in the educational system. So, I have a lot of opinions and biblical beliefs about it.
HOWEVER--the topic is educational issues and the presidential race. I believe you are correct that local governments should control the schools. However, I also believe that the nation should have set standards and requirements. From there, the local government can control everything. I do not agree to teaching to a test--I DO AGREE on testing what you teach. As a teacher, I do not teach to a test. I know what my students are required to learn and I teach just that--it so happens, that the test tests what they were required to learn. If the states set up their "standardized tests" correctly, that is how it works. Vouchers--you still do not have me on this one. How can I justify giving my tax money to a family because they don't like their child's school district? I would say--hey, give the money to me because I want my child to go to a Christian school. However, I cannot do that. That's not part of the vouchers. So, I can be unhappy with the teachers and such, but I cannot be unhappy with the religion or lack of religion. I want my money to go to HELP the education of my local schools. I teach at a school with 67% free/reduced lunch. For those that live in Laurens, that is far less than Laurens County's poverty level. I teach at a school with 60% blacks, 10% hispanics, 3% of our children are homeless, and 30% live with someone OTHER than a parent. Every one in this school would say, "Hey, pay for me to go to Sacred Heart." It's not fair. It's not right. It does not seem justified to me. And to Pre-K--I started school when I was 5 years old. Yes, the curriculum is getting harder and moving at a quicker pace. However, other countries are still "smarter" than us. They start at age 4. Children should enjoy their childhood. I'm all for starting at age 4, for about 3 hours a day. Age 5--about 4 hours a day until about the 3rd grade, then MAYBE 5 hours a day. 7 hours for school--where is your life??? 8-3 is school, 3-4 (or 5) is homework, 5 bath, 6 supper, then 8 bedtime. Wow--where's family time? Where's play with the neighbors? With that in mind, I still believe that children who are going to enter the public school system need time to adjust and change--they need Pre-K, especially those from "at-risk" families as well call them in America. Children in my school do not have parents who can teach them to read. They cannot help them add without using their own fingers. Unfortunately, America needs pre-k.
I'd love to hear more about how you and your wife decided to homeschool--maybe in her blog and yours. You know, a man's perspective and a woman's.
With all due respect, I think you are underestimating McCain. With Obama and Clinton beating up on each other regularly, the case for a Republican gets stronger each day.
We've got too many "anonymouses" here! Anonymous #2... I'm beginning to agree with you. (not b/c McCain is a great candidate but b/c the mud fight on the left) Especially considering the fact that Obama's church & pastor are black supremacists! So if he isn't a racist, he is at least quite comfortable with them. This needs to be broadcast!
Post a Comment