His Hand is on the Door

29 Comments Add your own

• 1. Washington  |  January 11th, 2008 at 3:43 pm

  To build on what you’ve just said David… picture that we were in Germany during WW2 and by some micracle there was an election during 1943… and people knew about the holocaust. It would’ve been utterly absurd to be focused on tax issues, immigration, the war and healthcare over the systematic elimination of human beings.

  Sadly the human factor is this: we place little value of what we can’t see. If you can’t see the modern-day holocaust then it doesn’t move you or resonate with you… you can be more easily distracted by shadows.

  But here I believe is the good news… when God sent Moses to deliver the Egyptians out of slavery and persecution He asked Moses: “What is in your hand?” The reality is that even after Moses had the ‘Word of the Lord’, the prophetic declaration and mandate, God still uses something unextraordinary that is within our hands. In this case our vote seems unextraordinary… it’s only 1 vote after all. If we despite what is in our hand because we perceive it to be useless given the magnitude of the problem then we torpedo the very thing that God can use to bring about deliverance.

  My senior pastor’s wife has a phenomenal saying: “To surcumb to the enormity of the problem is to fail the one.” I believe that God is the one… if we fail in prayer and supplication we surcumb to the problem. Only prayer can move hearts and minds, something that a political debate tries to do and is fickle when effective.

• 2. Cathy  |  January 11th, 2008 at 3:49 pm

  I’m going to beat my husband to the comment board on this one and be the first to say “Amen.”

  My vote, if I could vote, would go also for a pro-life candidate. I cannot vote , as I am one of those LEGAL immigrants (not yet a citizen) who many of today’s candidates seem to forget about when they say they will give a free pass to those who broke the law to get here. I would like to point out that they will all still take my money and grant me no special privileges.

  Finding a candidate that is pro-life is not difficult - Thompson, Romney, and Huckabee, for example. But finding the right candidate is trickier. Huckabee has taken speaking fees from companies that promote the morning after pill, and seek to do embryonic stem cell research - something I find competely distasteful. If you’re going to stand before God and ask him to end abortion in this nation, then taking money from those who support the murder of innocent children, to finance your campaign is completely sleazy, in my opinion.

  Then we have Romney, the Mormon. That’s a whole other issue that I would have to take up with God.

  Instead, I guess I’ll also take advantage of the privilege of voting with my knees.

• 3. David  |  January 11th, 2008 at 6:00 pm

  Washington - good stuff. I want to say that I do care about the secondary issues, I truly do. They matter to the health and future of this nation. However, how can we solve the heath care problem and continue to provoke the Author of Life towards judgment? Everything in its own time and proper order, in other words.

  Cathy - you may boil a bit when I say this, but I say “not necessarily” when it comes to the “sleazy” point. Israel / Moses had no trouble taking money from Egyptians that had slaughtered a whole generation of Israeli children. Again, I’m a nuance guy and there are too many angles, agendas, and aspects on information like that for me to weigh it too heavily at this point.

• 4. Scott  |  January 11th, 2008 at 6:10 pm

  John McCain is pro-life too, and to my knowledge, always has been. From his website: “John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned”.

  Not an endorsement and not particularly on topic, just informational. Watch and pray.

• 5. Scott  |  January 11th, 2008 at 6:21 pm

  Just a bit more from his website to fill out the McCain position:

  “However, the reversal of Roe v. Wade represents only one step in the long path toward ending abortion. Once the question is returned to the states, the fight for life will be one of courage and compassion - the courage of a pregnant mother to bring her child into the world and the compassion of civil society to meet her needs and those of her newborn baby. The pro-life movement has done tremendous work in building and reinforcing the infrastructure of civil society by strengthening faith-based, community, and neighborhood organizations that provide critical services to pregnant mothers in need. This work must continue and government must find new ways to empower and strengthen these armies of compassion. These important groups can help build the consensus necessary to end abortion at the state level. As John McCain has publicly noted, “At its core, abortion is a human tragedy. To effect meaningful change, we must engage the debate at a human level.”

  In 1993, John McCain and his wife, Cindy, adopted a little girl from Mother Teresa’s orphanage in Bangladesh. She has been a blessing to the McCain family and helped make adoption advocacy a personal issue for the Senator.”

• 6. Scott  |  January 11th, 2008 at 6:23 pm

  I kind of like those comments.

• 7. Sean  |  January 11th, 2008 at 7:12 pm

  “In fact, the whole dynamic of skilled leadership requires the ability to navigate nuance, grey areas with no clear or easy solutions, and choosing the best of ten bad options. Quality leadership is able to operate within a values-based context that can hold two seemingly opposing values in tension to reach the best possible outcome.”

  Hey Dave, do you think you could write an article on leadership? I would love to read that!!? I just posted this quote for insight as to why it would be such a sweet thing to read

• 8. Cathy  |  January 11th, 2008 at 10:10 pm

  Dave - no worries, I’m not boiling. I just know that there are more issues than just taking money from groups like that in Huckabee’s past and not being strong on this particular issue and coming out and saying “I’m not going to have any affiliation or ties with your company whatsoever because you are part of the problem.” Huckabee is definitely not Moses and there are plenty of other companies who can finance his campaign. It just sends a wrong message.

  I also don’t like that when Dr. Jocelyn Elders said Christians had to get over their “love affair with the fetus” he came out with a very weak response: “After talking, I recognized she was absolutely sincere in her beliefs. I realized that the reason her positions on these issues so conflicted with mine was that our worldviews were fundamentally at odds. Reaching a consensus was impossible. She had her own idea of what a “dash” of salt was–in this case, a “dash” of human life–and recognized no standard that could show her she was wrong.”

  That was a passionless response that did not at all help the cause, as this was at a time when the conservatives were trying to get rid of her because of her positions. He just basically came out with an “oh well” and moved on. No call for her to be removed, no action on his part that I know of. I want a President who is going to say “No, this is wrong, and it has to be changed, and I will do everything in my power to work towards that goal, both on my knees in prayer and with the office of the Presidency.” But I guess I’m dreaming….

  Scott - hate to break it to you, but McCain is not entirely pro-life. He votes for embryonic stem cell research and favors a ban on abortion except in the cases of rape, incest or to protect the life of the mother or if it’s his daughter. He says they would have a family discussion and it would be up to her. It’s apparently up to his daughter to decide whether to kill his grandchild, but not ok for everyone else, if he believes Roe vs. Wade should be overturned.

  Another candidate that just bends with the wind….

  Time to pray….

• 9. Scott  |  January 12th, 2008 at 12:21 am

  Cathy, I agree with your heart, but which candidate measures up to your standards?

  Is there any room for nuance? (word of the day)

• 10. Matthew  |  January 12th, 2008 at 12:36 am

  An article on leadership would be good, an article on time management would be better. I can’t imagine how you can do all you do at IHOP, write this blog and read others, moderate and discuss different stuff on a forum - besides the Onething boards - and various blogs, (I believe I’ve seen you undercover on SOJ) follow football enough that you can build a fantasy football team and win some fried chicken, (I think?) and spend time with your family.

• 11. Washington  |  January 12th, 2008 at 8:07 am

  Rape & incest account for 1% of all abortions in America… 6% account for medical complications, the rest are social/economic reasons.

  93% of abortions are for pure selfish reasons… The modern day spirit of molech (ie. Passing children through the fire - read Ezekiel)

  Stats: http://www.cbrinfo.org/resources/fastfacts.html

  As a scientist I can tell you now that there are alternatives to human ES stem cells… Monkey, mouse, porcine ES stem cells are viable alternatives and it is ethically irresponsible for scientists to create human life simply for research purposes when it is really unnecessary.

• 12. Cathy  |  January 12th, 2008 at 8:54 am

  Scott - you’re exactly right. I don’t think there are any candidates that measure up to my standards. Obviously we don’t have a Christian candidate at this point who will stand up and do and say the things I mentioned, but wouldn’t it be nice if we did?

  As for nuance, well - I think on the issue of life, there is no room for nuance. There’s either life or death. The 10 commandments had no room for nuance. God said “thou shalt not kill”. He didn’t say you can kill in the cases of ‘rape, incest, or especially “for the health of the mother”, a reason which has been abused in the past.

  As far as Huckabee, I would have been a lot happier with him had he taken the speaking fees and given them to a pro-life cause or something like that, and not taken them to finance his own personal campaign. I think he panders to the press, and some times his witty sense of humour shows exactly what he thinks. He has more than once made President Bush the butt of his jokes and I also find it disheartening to see not only a Christian candidate, but an ordained Pastor, up there taking pot-shots at the President, another man who truly loves the Lord. For example, I certainly don’t think God would be too pleased if I started a blog and poked fun at David for something he said on his blog. It’s just not right.

  I want a candidate who takes the high road, and says and does what’s right in the eyes of the Lord - not what he thinks will get hi elected or will give him favour in the press. I’ll probably never get it, so I joyously await the return of the one perfect leader - Jesus.

  After saying all this, if God told me that Huckabee, McCain, or even Guiliani was His man, I would go with it in a second!

• 13. David  |  January 12th, 2008 at 10:27 am

  Cathy - keep stirring the pot. But I think you’re wrong on at least one point - Huckabee’s answer to Dr. Elders was, in my opinion, brilliant. How do I know? When I read it, I thought, “Hmmm, that sounds like something I would say!”

  The reason it was smart was because of the point I made about the skills it takes to get elected today. Everyone seems to bash what an unelectable (fill in the noun of choice here) Huckabee is, yet he continually pulls Clinton-like rabbits out of his hat.

  Does that make him a nice person? A fiery believer? No - but it makes him more electable than people think. He was honest but skillfull without alienating people that see it differently. Can he govern? Now that’s a different issue, as I said - but I think he has a better shot at getting votes than people think.

  I find it interesting (as I’ll expound on in pt. 2) that the two strongest candidates with “likeability” are also the ones people takes shots at in the arena of “electability”.

• 14. Cathy  |  January 12th, 2008 at 10:46 am

  David - which is more important? Getting elected? Or doing right before God? If you want to get elected as a leader of the republican party, the surefire way is to pander to the press, and don’t upset the moderates or liberals. But is that what we really want in a President? If he’s doing that now, what is he going to do and say once elected? I totally disagree that a Clinton-like rabbit out of the hat is a smart move! Clinton did that all the time, got elected and you see where that got us.

  I don’t disagree that his answer to Dr. Elders was fine (not brilliant - and by that I don’t mean to say that YOU’RE not brilliant…haha, but it was his response to the press, to the Republican party, and to the rest of the base who were looking to change the law at that time in history, that was very weak. He had an opportunity, after speaking to her, to speak out on this issue, and make it known that this woman was completely wrong and should not be in power with those kind of statements and that kind of authority.

  Anybody can be electable and say what you want to hear. Huckabee may be a good politician, but that doesn’t mean he’ll be a good president.

• 15. Cathy  |  January 12th, 2008 at 11:02 am

  Also, I don’t think he was skillful at all by not alienating Dr. Elders and people who agree with her. The best leaders don’t worry about alienating others who don’t agree with them. They state the facts as they see them - black and white.

  In case you didn’t know, Clinton asked Huckabee to meet with Dr. Elders. Now he did that because he knew Huckabee would not really do anything. He knew he would not upset the apple cart. He could then say that this conservative Baptist Pastor met with her and didn’t say anything negative to remove her. He used Huckabee as a pawn.

  The democrat operatives have labeled Huckabee “glass jaw” and aren’t picking on him just yet, because they have a ton of information on him that they’ll use at a later date when he becomes the nominee. They want him to be the nominee for the Republican party.

  I would also like to know why Brownback didn’t endorse Huckabee, if he’s so electable, they’re both Christians and have the same values?

  And one more question…why won’t Huckabee release his sermons? Does he have something to hide? If I were a candidate for the Republican nomination, I’d be hammering that point over and over again.

  All things to think about…

  

• 16. Scott  |  January 12th, 2008 at 1:54 pm

  Cathy, excellent points and info that you’ve added to this discussion.

  I sense that you have some reservations about Huckabee! That’s why if the Georgia primary was today I’d probably vote for McCain. I think he passes my nuanced pro-life test, he’s a man of proven integrity (by which I do no mean purity) and he cares more about doing what he believes is right than about getting elected (see the whole Iraq and “surge” issue).

  I do think you defined “leader” a bit differently than I would. Here’s how you said it: “The best leaders don’t worry about alienating others who don’t agree with them. They state the facts as they see them - black and white.”

  Implicit in the word “leader” is that there is someone actually “following” you. Someone who leads as you described would not have much of a following. Depending on their calling, that may well please God! But great leaders like king David and Paul often went to pains to lead in a way that caused people to actually follow. They did care about alienating those who did not agree with them–because here’s the thing about a great, even anointed leader: a great leader is made great by a big and difficult cause. The reason the cause is difficult is that almost no one is on board with him at the start. His challenge is to bring more and more people along. Thus the need for nuance.

  Winston Churchill was probably not a godly man, but my what a great leader he was, and how God used him during WWII. His skill was this: he did not vary from the road leading to victory over fascism, but he somehow found a way to get the British people and then FDR to follow him into a war which was originally opposed by the vast majority of Britain and America. But he brought them along with anointed rhetoric, some pleading and coddling and unwavering leadership.

  Oh yeah. Churchill had some powerful intercessors behind him. Have we measured up to that example? I’m a little less inclined to blame the candidates than I am to blame myself for falling short in my prayers for Mr. Bush, et al.

• 17. David  |  January 12th, 2008 at 2:41 pm

  Cathy -

  You’re speaking specifically, and I’m still speaking conceptually. In other words, for a politician, I think Huckabee is more skillful at navigating touchy issues in a likeable manner than most give him credit for. That’s very different than “leadership” and governance, as I stated in my post.

  But, since you brought it up, I don’t think that skilled leadership is black and white. I think that one who speaks in absolutes / black and white terms in that arena are positioning themselves for failure - unable to gain any kind of consensus among those who one would need to gain the trust and respect of to get things done “on the hill”. Case in point, our current president.

  His black and white take on the issues has been, in that arena, an exercise in poor leaderhip and has been rendered astonishingly innefective.

  As I said, skilled leadership can think in moral absolutes but speak and lead in such a manner that many are able to follow, as Scott said in his last post.

• 18. Cathy  |  January 12th, 2008 at 3:04 pm

  Scott - I’ll agree that my one sentence on leadership was too short to show my true feelings on what consitutes a great leader. I could write an essay on it if asked.

  I would like to argue a few of your points though. All just for the sake of discussion - no malice or anything like that!

  If God can use anybody, like an ungoldy Winston Churchill, and He can, then why not vote for Romney, Hillary or Obama, as they speak well, and seem to have about as much ability to lead as Mike Huckabee?

  It’s not just about us as intercessors doing our jobs. If you want to openly declare yourself worthy of leadership of an entire nation - a superpower - then you had better be willing to back up your words with deeds and you had better have a strong voting record, etc. And you may say, well, Huckabee isn’t Hillary or Obama - they don’t believe in the same things. I aruge that Mike Huckabee is not Paul, King David or Winston Churchill either. What few words we have heard from Mike Huckabee sound more like Obama than any of those great leaders.

  I think there are many ways people to agree with you, and a great leader does influence the thoughts and opinions of others without steamrolling over them, but it’s also includes TRUTH and INTEGRITY. Financing your personal campaign for the office of president off of dollars made from the blood of innocent children, is not exactly righteous in my books. Diplomatic conversation is all well and good, as is the desire not to offend others but influence them to your point of view. I have not yet seen Mike Huckabee do either. When he spoke of how he was not going to air his negative ad against Romney, he followed it up by showing it to the press corp, whom he knew full well would air it for free. If he really wanted to do the right thing, why not just say you had a negative ad, but not show it. Or better yet, don’t say it and don’t make a negative ad. He’s also hired a not-so-nice campaignl adviser, in Ed Rollins - and that action makes me really question him. When asked about his success in Iowa, he gave glory to God. It was wonderful to hear that until I took a step back and looked at how he ran his campaign.

  Many people take time to talk about other historical figures because we don’t know anything about Mike Huckabee. He’s only been in the public eye for a short amount of time, he won’t release his sermons, and those liberals who do know his past want him to win because they know of his weaknesses. I think Mike Huckabee is as close to Winston Churchill as Jesus is to Huckleberry Hound! Huckleberry Hound was a nice soft-spoken guy who said all the right things but he was no Jesus.

  But because it sounds like he says the right thing in a 30-second soundbyte, people are flocking to him and assuming he’ll be a great leader. What did most people know about him a month ago? A month into the race and people are expecting him to be a great leader and are willing to stake their own reputations on his few words. We had hundreds of years to analyze King David and Winston Churchill’s leadership. We know their track record. I’ve already seen some things in Huckabee’s campaign that I think are rather disappointing. I’ve also heard some things out of his mouth that I agree with.

  I would loved to be proven wrong, and have him actually share his sermons, get challenged on something and stand up for it, refusing to back down, even in the face of critics. I would love to read Huckabee’s sermons, see him lead successfuly in a “big and difficult cause” but so far, he’s just a guy with some clever one-liners for the TV cameras.

• 19. Cathy  |  January 12th, 2008 at 4:43 pm

  David,

  I agree with most of what you said but I ask you to refer to my post to Scott. I should have elaborated on my statement about “black and white”. I agree that a leader should absolutely think in moral absolutes, but I also think he should stick to his guns and say what is right. You said that “one who speaks in absolutes / black and white terms in that arena are positioning themselves for failure - unable to gain any kind of consensus among those who one would need to gain the trust and respect of to get things done “on the hill”.

  Consensus? Most consensus is done by giving up and settling. People agree to things that they would not have normally agreed upon in order to gain concensus. I argue that there are many US Presidents regarded as great leaders, who have stuck to their principles and refused to compromise at all with their words or actions. Lincoln, for one.

  What do you know about Franklin Pierce, who had the idea that the President was only one single vote among his cabinet and that everyone would vote together to agree on an issue for sake of consensus? Check out his success.

  And as for President Bush not being able to get things done on the hill because his “black and white take on the issues has been, in that arena, an exercise in poor leaderhip and has been rendered astonishingly innefective.”

  There is so much that this president accomplished that others were unable to do, that I have to wholeheartedly disagree with that statement. I could have Dean write you out a huge list, but I’m sure you can look it up!

  As awful as this may sound, if you want to talk about what Bush has accomplished, talk to Saddam Hussein, but you better talk loud! He has also implemented what is known as the biggest tax cut in a generation. Those are just a few of his accomplishments. There are definite problems, I agree, but that is not necessarily due to his black and white stance. He was able to get 2 judges appointed to the Supreme Court, and the Democrats are constantly complaining about the changes he has made, so he must be getting some things done!

  I don’t think a leader has to be pig-headed and stubborn, but I do think that if he wants my vote he has to prove to me that he is going to stick to his moral absolutes and change others hearts and opinions based on words of truth and not words of compromise for the sake of consensus. I’m just waiting for a candidate like that to appear.

• 20. Scott  |  January 12th, 2008 at 4:52 pm

  David said:
  “Because I want to vociferously justify why I am an unapologetic single-issue voter… Most importantly, I will unapologetically, unequivacably, and joyfully vote pro-life.”

  After all of my nuancing I am back to David’s central point - I too will vote pro-life only. As I have without exception for 19 years or more. From 1989 backward, I’m not aware of voting for anyone pro-abortion, but I’m less certain.

  2008 appears to offer a pretty decent slate of choices for us single-issue voters. Let’s look at it:

  Clinton, Obama, Edwards and Guiliani - competing to be the most “pro-choice”. As if that were laudable.

  Romney - has probably lived a pro-life life, but governed with too much compromise on this issue.

  McCain, Huckabee and Thompson - all genuinely pro-life.

  So we watch and pray, yes?

• 21. Cathy  |  January 12th, 2008 at 5:01 pm

  Yes, indeed Scott - we watch and pray! But discussing like this is so much fun also!

  You guys have made my day a bit better. We had some sad news here today, as a van carrying a high school basketball team from my hometown in Canada skidded on the ice and hit a tractor trailer. Seven students were killed and one teacher. The dead teacher was the wife of the driver, and basketball coach/ teacher. It has affected the entire community and has been the major headline in the country today. My parents were especially close to the teachers involved, as my father was the History Dept. Head at that school for decades and knew them both well. The driver/teacher was my high school Accounting teacher.

  Prayers for the city of Bathurst, NB, Canada are welcome!

• 22. David  |  January 12th, 2008 at 9:19 pm

  Oooh - that last comment makes what I am going to say in relationship to your previous comment a bit trivial; it moves today’s post somewhere beyond “irrelevant”. I’ll make sure to pray for the folks in your hometown.

  In context to your earlier comment, you missed my point a bit. The great leaders of the past that you have referenced often emerged in a historical context that included clear lines and well defined boundaries.

  It’s why Churchhill floundered before and after WW2, for example. Some men are made to lead in a time of crisis, when the way forward is clear and the currency needed is courage.

  Secondly, what marked those leaders as great was not their ability to think or communicate in absolutes, but to provoke people of many different ideolgical backgrounds to rally to their cause.

  Great leaders, to steal a phrase, are “uniters, not dividers”. They are able to take absolutes and serve the people through facilitating individual and corporate ownership of the road that must be taken.

  But this is post was never meant to be an examination of sound leadership - that is another subject. And, in your zeal to discredit Huckabee as a viable candidate, I fear you missed the real point here.

  The point, to sum up, is that the system as it is currently constituted is so flawed that the skill set needed to get elected is completely different than the one must have to govern effectively. Thus we find that our candidates are ALL fatally flawed, for different reasons.

  But again, I’ll talk more about that on Monday. Thanks for the comments!

• 23. Washington  |  January 12th, 2008 at 9:51 pm

  Whoa… lots of blogging action over the past 12 hours! Let’s talk about something less contentious, like religion… oh wait

• 24. Cathy  |  January 12th, 2008 at 11:11 pm

  David,

  Thanks for your prayers! I just returned from a night in Manhattan with Dean….wish you and Tracey could have joined us!

  I think I understood the point of your first post referring to the flawed system when I first responded, but you’re correct that we did veer far away from the original point of your post. Forgive me for that! I have no real zeal to discredit Huckabee. He just happens to be the one who irks me with some of his words and actions pertaining to the life issue. I think I could easily have typed as many words on Obama or McCain, had the conversation led that direction. Poor Huckabee got to be my example today!

  I also do agree with many of your statements on great leadership. It’s how great leaders are able to unite and not divide, and “provoke people of many different ideolgical backgrounds to rally to their cause. ” that we may disagree on.

  I also think it’s a matter of perception where we differ. For example, you see Huckabee as able to “skillfully navigate touchy issues in a likeable manner.” I don’t see what he does as skillful at all. I see him as weak on touchy issues and not particularly likeable.

  However, as I said in my initial post - I can’t vote, and so I’ll vote on my knees asking for our true leader to put whoever He wants in office. I know that He is definitely unwilling to pander or compromise.

• 25. David  |  January 13th, 2008 at 8:46 am

  Cathy - voters in Iowa seemed to see things differently in regards to Huckabee’s likeability; it was the number one thing you heard about throughout the process.

• 26. Scott  |  January 13th, 2008 at 8:53 am

  Cathy, I’m so sorry about your hometowners. May their hearts be drawn to Jesus…
  Scott

• 27. Cathy  |  January 13th, 2008 at 2:55 pm

  David,

  Iowa also thinks that Barack Obama is likeable. People also say about the serial killers “oh, he was such a nice, quiet guy”. Likeablility means nothing. When you stand and preach, “repent of you will end up in hell”, many won’t find you likeable.

  The only reason Huckabee is currently likeable is that the media isn’t attacking him yet. As soon as they start, people will not like him anymore, because no one knows anything about him. The people of Iowa have no loyalty to Mike Huckabee. Some who met him may have liked him, as they did when they met Clinton, but that doesn’t make him likeable by all. New Hampshire didn’t like him. And likeability doesn’t mean much. Nobody liked Abraham Lincoln. Most people knew nothing about Huckabee a month ago. They’re just filling in the blanks of what they imagine he will be as a leader when they vote for him. He’s likeable because he’s not saying anything that people have a problem with at this point. What’s going to happen when he needs to actually do or say something which is not so likeable, like perhaps bomb a country, or appoint a Supreme Court Justice?

  People are so easily played by the media and once the media starts turning on him, you’ll find many people being interviewed that say “I don’t like Mike Huckabee because of ….”

  The media is also saying Hillary is likeable now since she cried in New Hampshire. The media makes this stuff up and they decide who gets to be called likeable. Just like “change” - the other word for the month. Obama is now an “agent of change.” The media is so strong and people don’t realize how in-the-media bubble they are. For example - if you asked someone on the street to name a dumb Democrat, they probably couldn’t. They could tell you a bunch of dumb Republicans because no one is ever considered dumb in the Democratic party.

  If Mike Huckabee becomes the nominee for the Republican Party, you can pretty much guarantee that the media will not be easy on him as they are now, and his likeability factor will drop dramatically. He’ll also, hopefully, be forced to state his positions on gay marriage, abortion and other controversial issues and we’ll see how likeable he is after that.

• 28. Cathy  |  January 13th, 2008 at 2:56 pm

  Scott - thanks for the kind words!

• 29. a guy from canada  |  January 18th, 2008 at 4:39 pm

  how about alan keyes anybody? anybody? every media debate refuses to let him on. i think he’s the best “leader” going. and yes, he’s pro-life. it’s also probably the reason why all of the mainstream media refuse to let him into their debates, even the supposedly conservative Fox, on whom he had a tv show awhile ago, “Alan Keyes is making sense” please look into this guy.

Leave a Comment

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed