I am back! Johann is for Huckabee

Here is a post for the faithful who still check this site sent via Johann. As you know, I am a Romney man. However, I would be happy to vote for Giuliani, and I have softened considerably on Mr. McCain lately. Someone who has been on the rise as of late is Mike Huckabee. In this post, Johann expresses why he is a Huckabee man. I would be very happy with Huckabee, but I will confess the reason I have not been enthusiastic is because I didn't think he had a chance. Admittedly, this is a self-fulfilling prophesy. I do still have some concerns about his foreign policy skill, but we could do much worse than Mike Huckabee. Here is Johann's post:

I know many of you are on the bandwagon of the same candidate that the host of this blog is on, and I am convinced you are on that bandwagon because of well thought out policy examination. As far as who has the very best policy, goes I will be forced to acquiesce and say probably the man from Massachusetts (or Detroit?... or is it Utah?) But as a member of the much maligned "Value Voters" Block, I just don't think he is the best representative of my views (and no it's not because he is Mormon). Not a single candidate for the Republican nomination, save one, really has the credentials of a conservative, especially when your definition of conservative is formed by the base of the Republican Party, the so called "value voters". Governor Romney is a man I could vote for, most assuredly, and if he is given the Republican nomination, he has my vote. But in my opinion, (granted I am not an expert political strategist), Gov. Romney will be unable to draw out the main Republican base out to the polls. That is especially important when your opponent will be someone who will drive you base out to the polls to vote against (provided they have someone they feel they can vote for). I do not think Giuliani fulfills this either, nor does McCain, Thompson, Tancredo, Hunter, or Paul. The one man that in my opinion can and will do this is former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. Yes, that's right, Johann Hearts Huckabee.

Sinking to a New Low (Even for Him)

NT: Here is another contribution from Johann. He is pretty fired up about Star Tribune columnist Nick Coleman's recent article about the 35W bridge collapse. Read and comment.

The collapse of the 35W bridge over the Mississippi is a terrible, tragic event. Even today, as I write this, many families who have been missing their loved ones since Wednesday, have no body to bring closure to their grief. Thursday, as the dust was still settling, the news media began to assign blame for the collapse; the national and local media blaming their respective pariahs, President George W. Bush and Governor Tim Pawlenty. One of the most vitriolic columns I have read in my entire life, (especially considering the timing) was written by Nick Coleman of the Minneapolis Star Tribune. http://www.startribune.com/coleman/story/1339911.html You can go ahead and read it for yourself but the long and short of it was that had Governor Pawlenty raised the Minnesota State gas tax 5 cents a gallon the bridge never would have collapsed. Can you imagine this picture. The session ends. The State Senators and State Representatives are victorious in their efforts to raise the gas tax and they march out to the 35W bridge chanting along the way, "Now the bridge won't fall." His argument is absolute lunacy. Had we raised the tax this year or not the bridge still would have fallen. Even more than the ridiculous, illogical argument of Nick Coleman, even if he was right, it is disgusting to read this the morning after the bridge collapsed. To take advantage of people's deaths, while their families are just beginning to mourn them (some without bodies even to mourn over), for the sake of taking a political jab is the most repugnant thing I have ever witnessed by a so called "journalist". Some might say to me, if the governor were a Democrat, you would blame him for this. The honest answer is, I might. But I hope to God that I would never write an article in the state's most widely read newspaper blaming him, while at the same time families were still weeping over their dead. It might be too late, but I encourage the readers to write to the Star Tribune if this man's article made you even slightly as upset as I have been since I read it.
- Johann

NT: I couldn't agree with Johann more. Coleman's article is despicable. Sadly, this event validates Coleman's entire ideology. There are no taxes that are too high. To Coleman, everything is political. That is a sad way to live. Some things are just accidents. I am glad I have come to a point in my life where I can look at an event like this and not have my first thought be who messed this up. Surely, the investigation will show that more maintenance should have been done on the bridge. Hind sight is 20/20. Let's pardon those who made misjudgments and instead focus on mourning the dead and pondering just how fragile our lives really are. Nothing can be taken for granted. Not even a commute home. Let us live with a greatfulness for each day we are spared and be ready for when our day comes.

I get by with a little help from my friends!

Clearly, I, NT, have taken a bit of a sabbatical lately. Well, it will continue for several more weeks. In the meantime, Johann has sent in this contribution. Hopefully he will become a regular contributor. Enjoy.
I noticed that the blog has not had an update in two weeks so I decided I will send you a story that sparked my interest. This morning I heard on Bill Bennett's radio show that the New York Times ran an Op/Ed piece today (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/opinion/30pollack.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) by two well-esteemed Democratic military and foreign policy experts from the Brookings Institute who just recently returned from their most latest trip to Iraq, with the explicit purpose of examining the effects of the "troop surge." Immediately upon their arrival they found much greater morale amongst the troops, sectarian groups that were once allied to al-Qaeda, now securely in the American camp, neighborhoods that were ghost-towns now bustling hubs of commerce, as well as ethnic groups seemingly at least tolerating one another. This is an incredible development. Two experts, oft quoted by the likes of John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, saying that we could possibly win the war in Iraq. It is very likely that they might even be understating the facts. Just days ago for someone to say that we could win in Iraq, they would be labeled a right wing quack, an ideological die-hard who cannot accept the facts. Clearly the facts have changed course. The only question is what will the Democrats do with this. This isn't as if this is a Washington Times or National Review editorial; it comes straight from the main artery of American liberal thought. As Newt Gingrich poignantly stated, "The left wing of the Democratic Party is deeply opposed to American victory and deeply committed to American defeat." If his statement is true, and I believe sadly that it is, that the Democratic Party's entire electoral strategy is invested in Iraq, what can they do when their fellows say that we can win? Do they ignore it? Does the news-media ignore it as well? Bill Bennett had remarked that President Bush should call a press conference and hold up this article for a photo op. ala "Dewey defeats Truman". What have you seen? Is this where this op-ed piece was first brought to your attention?