Thursday, February 21, 2008

Go HUCK! Is there any numeric possibility he can get the nomination now?

With the NY Times story suggesting moral impropriety--and other news outlets reporting on the McCain temper, why is the GOP stuck with him???

If the Times story is true, then McCain may be a serial adulterer --that's how he got Cindy, isn't it? At least, he dumped a wife --and married the cheerleader half his age --I'm not sure if there was overlap--but there was the midlife crisis that characterizes a man of bad character -- yes, like King David of Israel. Can an immoral man be a good leader? When David was chosen, he was a good man annointed by Samuel--God's choice --but lust and power corrupted. We hear McCain has a really bad temper and a sharp tongue, too. Who needs it?

Because there ARE men of good character --I know so many --why do we have to have one who isn't of good character to lead the country? or my party?

Go, Huck! He'll be far more interesting, lively, sharp in rhetoric, entertaining, and wise --than any of the others. Granted, Obama's powers of rhetoric --but what has he done except be a popular politician? What has Obama or Hillary administrated --she couldn't even control Bill! How will she lead the nation? He is her achilles heel --a real heel at that.

Hillary as presenting herself today is an appealing figure to me, actually, but I know her past positions on issues and she is way too radically liberal for me --of course. And the SUPREME COURT IS AT STAKE. Five or six may retire during the next 4 to 8 years --or keel over--and a liberal president will give us their Yale and Harvard Liberals on the court and gay marriage, etc.

So this is the worst choice for pres. we've had in years --except for the colorful man of principle --Huckabee--who put a triple wide mobile home on the governor's property when they were refurbishing the mansion one year.--as featured on the Jay Leno show. Now there's a man with the common touch! We could use one with a REAL sense of humor --and a joy for life --that's what Reagan had. It comes with principles and real spirituality.



"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible

9 comments:

johnnypeepers said...

Huckleberry never had a chance, and he knew it. He was a foil for McCain to enlist the Christian voting bloc. They are both Council of Foreign Relations (New World Order) stooges with a common purpose - the economic enslavement of the U.S. under the North American Union. Huckleberry's foreign policy adviser was Richard Hass - President of the CFR.

Huckleberry's task was to ensure the Christians voted for the republican candidate (McCain) and not the false-Messiah Barack Hussein Obama. He has performed this role effectively and will not drop out (even though is nomination is a statistical impossibility)to keep the Christians in McCain's camp.

Huckleberry is no conservative. He advocated giving American tax-payer dollars to illegal aliens, released criminals from prison who killed again, and embraces big-government wealth redistribution ala Karl Marx. He is a wolf in sheep's clothing and must be rejected. Also, he ate fried squirrel in college.

johnnypeepers said...

Huckleberry failed to exert dominion over his wife. She has sinned by staying in Las Vegas at the Hooter's hotel. She may have chosen to stay there to ogle scantily clad women in violation of God's law. A man who cannot control his own house should not be given authority over every house.

source - http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/21/MND9V5PR8.DTL

Barb said...

WELCOME to my small readership, Johnnypeepers! Jeepers!

I guess I wouldn't know any better than to accept or seek the help of someone on the Foreign Relations Committee if I were running for office and needed to be brought current in a hurry on the international scene. So I'm thinking Huck's use of someone from that committee doesn't really make him "their stooge" as you conclude. A person could be on ANY committee, himself, in hopes of having positive influence --like I was on a school board. That doesn't make me guilty of advocating liberal views and policies in education.

I also think Huck is wanting to win --not just run to ensure Christians to vote for Barack. And someone said he is unemployed and would happily be vice-pres.

Do the Christians have elsewhere to go, besides McCain if he wins? No.

The worst is --Huck eating fried squirrel! What's the matter with him!!?? (Actually, I have eaten squirrel! It is tasty, as is rabbit. My brother fixed both --during his hunting days.)

Economic Liberals challenge conservatives in one area -- to consider how to raise up the other peoples of the world. Compassionate conservatives have that concern in common with economic liberals --but we really do not agree on methods or fiscal ideology. Capitalists want to see it done through investment and eco-development of the other nations --and with the open door for econ-investment should be inroads for the Gospel via human rights. Do you know that Bible studies are being tolerated in Chinese corporations because it makes for better work attitudes and more prosperous companies? (World magazine)

I sure don't believe in chronic federal or state hand-outs to illegal aliens --but I remember that one issue was schooling for the illegal children in Arkansas--some of whom came through our school system with honors and sought state aid to their colleges, same as legals. Huck figured if he couldn't deport them gracefully, they had better get an education.

We all say we can round up illegals and send them packing --but it would look like Hitler rounding up Jews. I think compassionate people have to find another system--but in the meantime, tighten the borders and start sending new arrivals back before they have a chance to taste the American dream --or its hand-outs to the needy.

I bet the hope of NAFTA was, in part, to raise up Mexicans where they live --to reduce the desire to move here. Yes, we get cheaper labor in the short run --but only in the short run.

I have Christian friends who ran an American company in Mexico for a short time--they loved it there.

Barb said...

I wouldn't stay at Hooters either.
It does send the wrong message to Christians --but I guess it's as big a leap --or bigger-- to call her Lesbian than the leap NYT makes in suggesting McCain is still an adulterer.

I know Huck's wife is supposed to have been a bit of a tomboy--would like to go hunting with my brother, no doubt --AND his wife. That's how my brother and wife got together; she shared his interests in camping, hunting, fishing, etc. She was a biology teacher, too, so her career and outdoor interests went together.

johnnypeepers said...

Barb,

I respect many of your views. I also appreciate your insightful and respectful comments on my blog.

I am not sure you understand how pervasive and malignant the CFR influence has become on U.S. political affairs. I highly recommend you investigate this body yourself, and learn of the stranglehold they have on Washington, corporations, and the media.

I suggest you start with the warnings from Barry Goldwater. Please take the time to learn of this organization and then tell me it is wise to have your foreign policy "directed" by these evil men intent on perpetual war and human subjugation.

Here is the link:
http://www.gwb.com.au/gwb/news/multi/goldwatr.html

Jeanette said...

If I believed every negative story the New York Times wrote about Republicans I'd be a Democrat.

Barb said...

I got a phone message from Mccain assuring me of his conservative concerns and social conservative concerns as well --pro-life, etc.

So I'll vote for Huck next Tuesday and McCain in the fall if I must --he is older than he should be for this post.

Johnnypeepers --don't confuse me with the facts! : D I confess, I have not followed your link yet --because I still will like Huck for his saying that the gov't didn't give us the right to life and the gov't can't take it away. It's still the fetus's inalienable right from God, regardless of what our supreme court said.

steve said...

I think I'm going with Hillary. McCain is just Bush light, and I'm leary of Obama for a number of reasons. But I've read a ton of stuff about Hillary and I really like her. I'm probably the only one though in this blogging community haha.

Barb said...

Hillary has looked and sounded good --image is appropriate for a woman seeking this position--she will always be the first female primary candidate for president, won't she? and maybe the 2nd for veep in Nov.

I just know she has written papers in the past about family issues that make Christian parents shudder --things presented at world women's conferences --about the rights of children.

This generation doesn't remember when Communists took away the right to pass one's faith to their children --and took children from their parents at 3 for indoctrination in their state schools -- I attended some Ohio School bd. ass'n meetings where speakers told us it was inevitable that mandatory kdgtn and then for 3 year olds would evolve.

Home schoolers have solidified their rights in the meantime --but you never know when a liberal like Hillary will threaten parental rights. "Freedom of association" was one of the children's rights --meaning you have no say over who your children can be with, hang out with, whatever. "freedom of religion" would mean no religious education if your kids objected.

You haven't heard a lot of rhetoric like that in YOUR day, but we did --and the family values concern you see now is a reflection of liberal nonsense at the UN and other world conferences for women--where Hillary was part of the problem.