Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Huckabee at the Surf Ballroom

Mike Huckabee and Barry Goudreau jamming at the Surf.

We went to the famous Surf Ballroom in Clear Lake for the first time Friday night. Hard to believe we've lived here for almost 5 yrs now and this is our first visit to the Surf. For those of you who don't know the story, the Surf is where Buddy Holly, Ritchie Valens and the Big Bopper played their last concert in February 1959. Shortly after the concert they were killed in a plane crash on the way to their next venue.

At the Surf, we enjoyed a concert by Capitol Offense, the band for which presidential candidate Mike Huckabee plays bass guitar. We were pleasantly surprised by the fact that the music was very good. We were expecting to hear the Governor speak some on the issues, but instead the night was about the music. Joining the band on stage for several songs was Barry Goudreau, the lead guitarist of the group Boston. The selections for the night were mostly rock songs from the 70's and 80's, including some southern rock hits like Lynard Skynard's "Sweet Home Alabama" and "Free Bird". With Barry on stage, of course the great Boston hit "More than a Feeling" went over well.

Governor Huckabee's campaign is heating up. He is now second in the Iowa polls with the caucuses coming up in just 2 months. He is also garnering more national attention and is now running neck and neck with Romney and McCain for third in the national Republican polls, just behind Fred Thompson and about 10 points behind Rudy G.

I still feel Huckabee is the best candidate. He is a true pro-life conservative who is not afraid to speak his mind. He has never waivered in his pro-life, pro-Christian stance. He has over 10 years of executive experience as the republican governor of a very democratic state, Arkansas. He was re-elected in this democratic state twice by very large margins. Rudy is for abortion rights. Romney has done the flip-flop on many issues. Fred T's not willing to discuss any of the issues and McCain is McCain. Huckabee knows where he stands on the issues and doesn't waiver from where he stands. Visit and click on some of the videos to hear what the governor has to say about the issues. Join Huck's army as he continues to mock the media "talking heads" by gaining ground on the first tier candidates. My prediction is here: Mike Huckabee will win the Iowa Caucus on January 3, 2008.


Anonymous said...

I cannot support another religious candidate. I voted for Bush the first time and we saw where that lead. He was the only candidate I ever voted for the got elected. He promotes (un)intelligent design over real science. I am republican leaning but on the Liberian side. As an Atheist I believe Richard Dawkins view regarding religion the Root of All Evil:

and part 2 here:

and your will pretty much have my views. Also the candidate is anti-smoker. As a government scientist Bush has done more harm then good. We do not need another Bush. With you and Mary both science trained, I am surprised that you would support the idea that intelligent design is any but creationism in another rapper. It is not science. He will never have my vote.


Anonymous said...

Mr. Dawkins seems to claim that "this is what religious people believe" and then proceeds to debunk his own assertions.

As an Electronics Engineer formerly of NASA/GSFC I have had the honor of working with many top scientists in many different disciplines. It has been my experience that the vast majority of these find their faith reinforced by their scientific discoveries.

The deeper we delve into sub-atomic structure, the more apparent it becomes that nature must have a guiding hand somewhere. I refer you to Asimov's book "Atom", which has no whisper of religion in it.

In closing, I will ask a question:

Q: How can there be a God with so much evil in the world?

A: If there is no God, where does all the good come from?


Anonymous said...

Lawrence, I too am a government scientist who works with top scientists. One who I work with is someone who worked with Wernher von Braun. Many of those that I work with are religious. However, none would say that intelligent design is any but creationism or that it should be taught as an alternative to evolution. It should not be taught as science. Comparative religions maybe, philosophy maybe, but president Bush, my boss, puts religion above science. We do not need another president like him getting soldiers needlessly kill because of his BELIEFS. Hinders science because of his BELIEFS. No we do not need another religious fanatic as president. One a regret ever voting for.


Anonymous said...

Is it Dan?

I'm confused by your comments. Are you equating Bush with being a religious president? I don't consider someone who practices syncretism to be much of an example of Biblical Christianity. A man who claims that Jesus was a great philosopher, yet also claims that followers of Islam and Christianity worship the same God, is not a worthy representative of either religion.

Even as an atheist you should recognize the difference between these two religions. One worships a god of anger and vengeance, while the other has a God who loved the world so much he sent his only Son to pay the penalty for sin.
Huge difference.

So voting for a supposed religious man who is confused or worse about what he believes could easily result in dissatisfaction with that person.

As a government scientist you want what? A candidate who believes that life is simply the result of time/chance? That life involves only the here and now, that there are no future consequences to the decisions he makes? Are you suggesting that we should reject any thought that there may be more to life than eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow you may die?

Dan, what if there is some cosmic creator, some external force, acting outside the time/space/matter continuum to call into existence the universe? What then?

John is my friend, so I won't dis Huckabee on his blog. I am not voting for Huckabee though, because I'm voting for a candidate who most closely follows the Declaration and Constitution.

How do you as an atheist reconcile your beliefs with the Declaration?

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are createdequal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are the Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Do you deny that our rights come from the Creator? If not the Creator, where did they come from? The government?

Isn't this document, one of the foundational documents of this country, claiming that there is a intelligent designer to the universe? Would you prefer that the founders had set up a government based on the majority opinion of the people, a democracy? You know five wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner!

In fact isn't that what Bush is pushing in Iraq, democracy? Is that preferable to a Constitutional Representative Republic, which asserts that rights come from the Creator?

Like I said, you confused me. Maybe you can clear it up for me.


John said...

Interesting comments.

I'm not supporting Huckabee because of his religious beliefs, but because he supports values that are similar to mine. The fact that his faith drives his values is beside the point. Dan accuses Huckabee of being a "religious fanatic". What is the definition of fanatic here? Just because a man has a deep faith and develops a worldview based on his beliefs and that faith, does that make him a "fanatic"?

Were our founding fathers religious fanatics? Read the inaugural addresses of our presidents, beginning with Washington ("To The Best Of My Ability" by James M McPherson). EVERY one of them mentions God. Most include a prayer for God's watchcare such as this by Washington in 1789: " would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplication to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge".

So, again what is a fanatic? If it is anyone with a faith based values system, you may find it difficult to vote for anyone. Check out the websites of Hillary, Obama and any of the republican candidates. All of them mention the impact that their faith has had on their lives. Does this mean that they are all religious people? I doubt it. But Mike Huckabee has been unwaivering in his positions such as regarding the sanctity of human life ever since he became governor of Arkansas 11 years ago. His positions will not change because his values are faith driven. As he has been quoted many times: "My faith is my life - it defines me. My faith doesn't influence my decisions, it drives them."

Tom, I'm not going to dis Ron Paul either! I have nothing against him but just don't think he's electable.

Larry, you may have read Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ". Check out his companion book "The Case for a Creator". He delves deeply into the science of both evolution and creation-- and there is science that supports creation.

Sorry for the's late. Keep the discussion going. It's been an interesting read.


Anonymous said...

Tom wrote: "Is it Dan?

I'm confused by your comments. Are you equating Bush with being a religious president?"

Dan would be me. I long time friend of John's that goes back to the 10th grade in High School.

President Bush is my boss, if you go way way up, the chain of command. President Bush put his Faith above science. I do not have problems with faith, but it was Bush that publicly stated that he though intelligent design (which is creationism) should be taught in science class along with evolution. I does not have a problem with intelligent design being taught in school in a philosophy class or even a comparative religious class. My problem is comparing creationism with science. It is not. I could go farther, as their are stories about Bush appointing creationists to NASA to suppress research that does not match his beliefs. Does anyone believe that the Iraq war wasn't based on faith.

I support the Republican position because I am a Libertarian. I think this candidate is anti-science. He will not have my vote.


Anonymous said...

Dan, I thought it was you! I remember some good times together!

I agree with you that Creation is better examined in philosophy or theology, PROVIDED that these venues are available. If not, I think that it should be presented in science class as a counterpoint to Darwin's evolution. If Darwin's theory can stand on it's own merits, that shouldn't pose a problem.

I find it much easier to believe that our morality (amongst many, many other things) was given to us by God than to believe that we "evolved" them.

For myself, I don't see where one must choose between the two. For me, it all hinges on what is meant by "in our image". My understanding of this, along with my discovery of exactly WHAT Jesus did for us on Calvery made possible what I'd so much wanted all along; the simple yet powerful faith that religious people have working in their lives.

What I like about the president is that he doesn't care squat about the polls, unlike Clinton, whose rape of our intelligence agencies in order to balance the budget made 9/11 possible.


Anonymous said...

Here is the reason I would never vote for Mike Huckabee. To quote from Orac a physician PhD's site link found here:

Orac says: "Being a creationist, as Mike Huckabee is, to me is an indication of a huge lack of understanding of even the most basic principles of science. Worse, though, and more relevant to the Presidency, it indicates an even larger hole in his critical thinking skills--so much so that it's pretty close to an automatic disqualification for the Presidency. Basically, to me belief in creationism of any stripe is an indication that a candidate is too likely for my taste to choose his religion and ideology over science and objective facts whenever the there is a conflict between them. We've had far more than enough of that already; we don't need any more.

But, then, what do I know? I'm just a physician and a scientist."

That is why he will never get my vote and in addition he support a nation wide smoking ban. Do we really need another President who believes in crank science? As a scientist with Bush as my ultimate boss and she what he did, the answer is clearly no.


John said...

Hey Dan,

That's twice you've mentioned the "national smoking ban" that Huckabee is supposed to be supporting. This is something that is making its rounds in the liberal blogosphere.

Here is what Huckabee has said regarding this:

HUCKABEE: "Certainly, I don’t believe that we as a government have a right to tell people what to do or not do. The issue is one of workplace safety, the same reason that the government regulates the exposure of radon and other toxic gases in the work place. In Arkansas I signed a bill that banned smoking in certain public areas and businesses, but not in bars or restaurants, because those were places consumers could more easily choose to go to or not. So, in the workplace, if we regulate smoking, it is an issue of worker safety. The responsibility initially lies with the states, of course. The only way this would be a federal responsibility is for it taking on that role as part of OSHA as it regulates other work place safety."

This is supporting a workplace safety law, the same kind of thing that was passed in Maryland in the mid-90's before I even moved to Iowa. As such, there will be no impact in Maryland, as a state law is already in effect.

In regards to Orac, if believing in creation "automatically disqualifies" someone from the presidency......again, read the bio's of our past presidents. Most, if not all, have been creationists. Should Reagan have been "disqualified"??

Huckabee's thoughts on this issue:

"I believe that the Creation has a creator. I believe there is a God. And I believe God put this whole creative process in motion. How he did it and the time frame in which he did it, I honestly don't know. Nor do I think it's relevant to being president of the United States," Huckabee said. "I'm going to leave the scientists to debate the intricacies of how it happened and when it happened because I simply don't know. But I believe that rather than all this being just some accident that happened, there was a design, and a designer in the design,"

I know I'm not going to convince you to vote for him, but I really don't think the guy is as big a nutcase as some are making him out to be. He is a true conservative, with conservative values, something our current president will never be able to claim! Huckabee does not = Bush!