Now that Gov. Huckabee is getting up there in the polls, his past is now being reviewed with a fine tooth comb.

 

Just today, I've read/heard stories about AIDS patients who should be quarantined, him signing a document saying wives s/b submissive, and language that will scare many in the middle who are concerned about his ability to keep his religious views out of his politics. OH yeah, he also pardoned a whole lot of folks and at least one ended up committing a murder.

 

LBBC, your boy is going to feel like he's in the ring with 5 heavyweight champs.

Of course, Rudy is having to explain how so much NYC tax money was spent on his security detail while he was traveling to see his mistress and why it was billed to NYC agencies that most have never heard of before.

The thing that concerns me the most is this growing mindset that somehow voters should not considered a person's faith when making their decisions at the voting booth. It is being touted by what seems to be Democrats/liberals as the mantra of "religious tolerance."

 

While they are touting "religous tolerance," they are not being tolerant of me using my faith to make decisions in my life. They want me to believe that I can turn all decisions in my life over to Christ, EXCEPT the one I make at the voting booth.

 

Evangelicals buy into this load of crap(I like that word TD) and Huckabee could lose some support.

The thing that concerns me the most is this growing mindset that somehow voters should not considered a person's faith when making their decisions at the voting booth. It is being touted by what seems to be Democrats/liberals as the mantra of "religious tolerance."

 

While they are touting "religous tolerance," they are not being tolerant of me using my faith to make decisions in my life. They want me to believe that I can turn all decisions in my life over to Christ, EXCEPT the one I make at the voting booth.

 

Evangelicals buy into this load of crap(I like that word TD) and Huckabee could lose some support.

 

 

So people aren't considering Mitt Romney's faith?

 

Secondly, many do not care about his faith UNTIL it seeps into the political arena. Like it or not, people are hiring a Commander in Chief and not a Pastor.

 

Lastly, who says they're not being tolerant of you. No one is going to stop you from pulling the lever. They just might disagree with your choice.

 

That's the beauty of the system.

http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Newsroom.Article&ID=130

 

In fact, Mr. Reeves completely corrobates Mr. Huckabee's account of the meeting.

 

As background to the controversy, in 1985, Wayne DuMond was convicted of raping Ashley Stephens and was sentenced to life in prison. Subsequently, in 1992 then-Governor of Arkansas, Jim Guy Tucker granted executive clemency for DuMond which commuted his sentence to 39.5 years. This act made DuMond immediately eligible for parole.

 

In 1996, Mike Huckabee became Governor of Arkansas. That August the Post Prison Transfer Board reviewed a request for a pardon from DuMond and decided to recommend to the Governor that the request had "no merit." That decision was sent to the Governor. The Board's decision is a recommendation and not binding on the Governor.

 

When the Governor received the file with the recommendation from the Board, his review of the case led him to issue an "intent to grant" the clemency. There then followed a mandatory period for the Governor to receive comments from the public.

 

In fact, just the opposite is true: Mr. Chastain attempted to dissuade Governor Huckabee from his intent to grant clemency to DuMond.

 

"They are saying that the Governor was trying to persuade them to grant parole," said Reeves, "it was the other way around, they were trying to persuade him not to grant clemency."

 

At the time Mr. Reeves served as chief counsel to the Governor and attended the October meeting with Governor Huckabee in his official capacity.

 

"This stands in stark contrast to Huckabee's assertion, repeated at a press conference today that he "did not ask [the board] to do anything." When asked directly about trying to influence the board, Huckabee responded: "No. I did not. Let me categorically say that I did not."

"He never mentioned parole at that meeting," says Mr. Reeves. "The Governor was talking about clemency."

 

On January 16, 1997 the Board took up a reconsideration of DuMond's parole request and voted to grant parole with the stipulation that DuMond be paroled out of state.

 

That same afternoon the Governor denied the clemency request. He sent a letter to DuMond that has been widely reported saying, (excerpted):

"Dear Wayne, I have reviewed your applications for executive clemency, specifically a commutation and/or pardon. ... My desire is that you be released from prison. I feel now that parole is the best way for your reintegration into society. ... Therefore, after careful consideration ... I have denied your applications."

The Governor's approach to the DuMond case has been consistent. As he expressed in the letter, he did believe that DuMond should be released from prison. However, he denied clemency/pardon FOUR TIMES. Even after the Board granted parole with the out-of-state stipulation, Governor Huckabee denied two subsequent clemency requests. DuMond could not find a state which would take him, so he remained in prison for TWO MORE YEARS. It was during this time that the Governor continued to deny him clemency.

 

If the Governor was actively seeking to release DuMond, he could have easily done so by granting him clemency. He did not do so.

 

Finally, September 16, 1999 the Board, during a regular progress report on DuMond, dropped the out-of state condition for parole. The Governor took no action to promote this decision and did not know it was coming.

So people aren't considering Mitt Romney's faith?

 

Secondly, many do not care about his faith UNTIL it seeps into the political arena. Like it or not, people are hiring a Commander in Chief and not a Pastor.

 

Lastly, who says they're not being tolerant of you. No one is going to stop you from pulling the lever. They just might disagree with your choice.

 

That's the beauty of the system.

 

I keep reading editorial after editorial telling me how wrong I am to use my faith to make decisions. I would assume that is judging me as they are telling me I am wrong to use my faith to make decisions. So, I guess it is fine to judge me but they call me out for judging others. And they say Christians are hypocritical.

 

I will get to make my choice based on the values I hold. You are right and that is great.

 

I think they are hiring both. Does not the President have some responsibilities in the social mood of the country, the morality of the country?

 

There was an article recently about "hooking up" and how teenagers today see oral sex as not sex. They have oral sex with somebody and then decide whether they want a relationship with them. Wonder where they got the idea that oral sex is not sex?

The thing that concerns me the most is this growing mindset that somehow voters should not considered a person's faith when making their decisions at the voting booth. It is being touted by what seems to be Democrats/liberals as the mantra of "religious tolerance."

 

While they are touting "religous tolerance," they are not being tolerant of me using my faith to make decisions in my life. They want me to believe that I can turn all decisions in my life over to Christ, EXCEPT the one I make at the voting booth.

 

Evangelicals buy into this load of crap(I like that word TD) and Huckabee could lose some support.

 

I think people should use their faith when making decisions. I just don't like it when some folks use it to disqualify a candidate. I'll also admit that when I see a candidate make a statement that we need to take the country back for Christ, that gives me pause and that candidate will have a whole lot of explaining to do before I would ever consider them for office.

I think people should use their faith when making decisions. I just don't like it when some folks use it to disqualify a candidate. I'll also admit that when I see a candidate make a statement that we need to take the country back for Christ, that gives me pause and that candidate will have a whole lot of explaining to do before I would ever consider them for office.

 

If it is okay to use my faith to make decisions but cannot use it to disqualify somebody? Is that decision making only for positives? I am confused on what you are comfortable with me using my faith in.

 

Saying, taking the country back for Christ" would be a horrible political move.

Headlines on the Drudge report today claim the Dems want him to get the nomination as they see an easy knockout in the general election with him. DNC apparently has not run a negative release on him since first of March. Interesting.

I like to make my political decisions based on concrete facts of the here and now. Faith in a greater being is a wonderful thing in life. I just believe when it comes to politics there should be some seperation in church and state. That being said I see how faith can drive your opinions of moral issues facing the candidates and the country, however there are too many other issues like economy, foreign policy, and homeland security to name a few where faith plays no role. People that cast their votes based on one or two moral issues only are in my opinion making uneducated votes based solely on their religious beliefs. Some vote based on one issue like abortion, which we still have after 2 terms of Republican administration, but continue to gripe about the gas prices, the war in Iraq, job losses, foreign relations, and one of the worst housing markets in recent memory. Maybe they should look at all the issues when they cast their vote, and not one issue.

I like to make my political decisions based on concrete facts of the here and now. Faith in a greater being is a wonderful thing in life. I just believe when it comes to politics there should be some seperation in church and state. That being said I see how faith can drive your opinions of moral issues facing the candidates and the country, however there are too many other issues like economy, foreign policy, and homeland security to name a few where faith plays no role. People that cast their votes based on one or two moral issues only are in my opinion making uneducated votes based solely on their religious beliefs. Some vote based on one issue like abortion, which we still have after 2 terms of Republican administration, but continue to gripe about the gas prices, the war in Iraq, job losses, foreign relations, and one of the worst housing markets in recent memory. Maybe they should look at all the issues when they cast their vote, and not one issue.

You are mistaken on the bolded. The Republican Congress passed a partial birth abortion bill in the 90's. The DEMOCRAT President vetoed that bill.

 

His veto and support from his wife on that veto, led for many more years of babies being partially born and then being killed as they were partially born. A practice the Democrats seem to support with their veto of the bill.

 

When the Republican Administration came into power, they signed into law that bill the Congress passed.

 

So, one of the most horrendous forms of abortions is not allowed as it survived a Supreme Court decision.

 

In addition, because of the Supreme Court Roe V Wade decision, the administration cannot just flat out outlaw it, YET.

 

But what they can do, is appoint conservative justices to the Supreme Court that if the right lawsuit is brought to their attention, can overturn Roe V Wade which THEN can lead to the banning of abortions.

 

So, thanks for the opportunity to make this point. This is a very important Presidential election to the abortion issue. If you think abortions should be stopped in this country like slavery was 140some years ago, you need to elect a President that will appoint conservative justices that will overturn Roe V Wade.

 

Will that President candidate most likely to come from the party that outlawed partial birth abortions or the party that vetoed the bill that would have outlawed it?

Headlines on the Drudge report today claim the Dems want him to get the nomination as they see an easy knockout in the general election with him. DNC apparently has not run a negative release on him since first of March. Interesting.

 

DNC probably thought GW was going to be an easy win in 2004 too.

I like to make my political decisions based on concrete facts of the here and now. Faith in a greater being is a wonderful thing in life. I just believe when it comes to politics there should be some seperation in church and state. That being said I see how faith can drive your opinions of moral issues facing the candidates and the country, however there are too many other issues like economy, foreign policy, and homeland security to name a few where faith plays no role. People that cast their votes based on one or two moral issues only are in my opinion making uneducated votes based solely on their religious beliefs. Some vote based on one issue like abortion, which we still have after 2 terms of Republican administration, but continue to gripe about the gas prices, the war in Iraq, job losses, foreign relations, and one of the worst housing markets in recent memory. Maybe they should look at all the issues when they cast their vote, and not one issue.

 

3 out of 5 of your issues would be there no matter who's in the white house so you would be casting an uneducated vote 60% of the time. Different issues, same problems.

I like to make my political decisions based on concrete facts of the here and now. Faith in a greater being is a wonderful thing in life. I just believe when it comes to politics there should be some seperation in church and state. That being said I see how faith can drive your opinions of moral issues facing the candidates and the country, however there are too many other issues like economy, foreign policy, and homeland security to name a few where faith plays no role. People that cast their votes based on one or two moral issues only are in my opinion making uneducated votes based solely on their religious beliefs. Some vote based on one issue like abortion, which we still have after 2 terms of Republican administration, but continue to gripe about the gas prices, the war in Iraq, job losses, foreign relations, and one of the worst housing markets in recent memory. Maybe they should look at all the issues when they cast their vote, and not one issue.

 

Let me say also, my faith does drive my positions on these issues. I think Christianity calls me to act for the "least." Definitely, areas within economy and foreign policy. I don't want a candidate that is goign to ignore the "least" but his Christian faith is going to drive him to do something about it.

3 out of 5 of your issues would be there no matter who's in the white house so you would be casting an uneducated vote 60% of the time. Different issues, same problems.

 

Please explain. I believe all of these issues could improve. Sure they will be there, but will they be in better shape. For the record, I am not a supporter of abortion in most instances, and in no time am I a supporter of partial birth abortions. There are just many more issues that affect my everyday life, and those are the issues I vote on. I believe a person is ultimately responsibe for the way they live their life. Someone who has an abortion will be responsible for their actions, I don't feel like it is up to me to judge them. We all have a great ruler who will be the only judge that matters in the end. I listened to the republican debate, and the majority of the candidates said they would not pass a law making abortion illegal, they would instead leave it up to the individual states. There were a couple of exceptions, but they were the radical right wing candidates.