Sometimes, the teacher is the one who should be wearing the dunce cap.

This week, we heard the shocking story of a kindergarten teacher in Florida who had one of her 5-year old students, a boy being tested for Autism, humiliated by being voted out of the classroom, Survivor style. As reported on TCPalm:

Last week, Portillo held a vote in her classroom in which kindergarten students "voted out" 5-year-old Alex Barton, who was in the process of being tested for Asperger's Disorder, a type of high-functioning autism. Alex's mother, Melissa Barton, said the vote was taken after classmates were allowed to tell Alex what they didn't like about him.

The class voted Alex out of the room, by a 14 to 2 margin.

Unfortunately, there's more:

Melissa Barton, Alex's mom, told how her son is currently in the process of being tested for Asperger's Syndrome, a high functioning form of Autism, and how all of the students in the class were given the opportunity to let Alex know what they didn't like about him. Words like “disgusting” and “annoying” were used to describe the little boy.

...

The little boy was devastated and his mother did not return him to the school.

After I picked my jaw up off of the floor, my heart went out to that poor little kid, Alex, who experienced total humiliation by his classmates at the direction of his teacher. If Alex's mom is reading this, know that a lot of us would be honored to have Alex in our kids' classrooms and to have our kids be his friends. We share your anger with how your cool little boy was treated by this particular teacher.

We all make mistakes. Everybody screws up. But when your screw up involves such a total lack of sensitivity and shows no regard for the incredible damage that you are doing to a very vulnerable young boy, you need to go into a new line of work. It's awful enough to damage the fragile psyche of a five year-old child, but when that child is potentially more vulnerable than even the average kid of his age, it's even worse. In my opinion, when a teacher demonstrates such horrendously and indefensibly bad judgment that they do something that no amount of training could have prevented and that should be obvious to any adult (did anyone seriously think to tell new hires "please do not humiliate developmentally delayed children in front of all their peers"), that teacher has to go. There are other jobs out there that don't involve interacting with impressionable little children.

With that, we the parents have spoken. You should not be given the opportunity to repeat your mistake and humiliate another kid who can't easily defend himself. We hereby vote you out of the classroom!

Most of us have a personal opinion in the highly charged debate about whether or not abortion should be legal. Whether we call ourselves "pro-choice" or "pro-life," we have developed our personal opinion on the subject. It's very personal to us and for many of us, we feel very strongly about our viewpoint. But I wonder how many of us have formulated our opinions based on presumptions that just aren't factually true.

I consider myself strongly pro-life. Some time ago, I considered myself to be strongly pro-choice. I eventually came to the conclusion that abortion was morally wrong (if it's wrong to kill a baby one day after birth, why is it okay to do so one day before?), but still assumed that most of the justifications I had heard people used to defend it were right. But after doing some study, I came to learn that almost everything that I had heard and assumed about abortion was wrong. Not just "we agree to disagree" morally wrong, but factually wrong. As in irrefutably and verifiably incorrect. And I've found that many other people on both sides of the "pro-choice"/"pro-life" fault line have been misinformed as well. That's why I feel the need to debunk the things that just aren't true.

Let's examine the following commonly believed statements. Please be patient. There's a lot of bunk out there.

• "Abortion is rare"
• "Abortion is only used as an extreme last resort"
• "Adoption is not always an option"
• "Roe v. Wade has saved many lives"
• "A lot of abortions are the result of situations in which women are pregnant as the result of rape or incest."
• "A lot of abortions involve situations in which the mother's life is in danger"
• "Abortion is safe"
• "Abortion is Constitutionally Protected"
• "The number of abortions in the U.S. is going down."
• "The people having abortions are mainly poor teenagers"
• "Roe v. Wade has lowered the demand for abortion"

Bunk: Abortion is rare

Let me start off with one simple observation that you can interpret the way you want to. Bill Clinton is the person who popularized the phrase "safe, legal, and rare."

The truth is that abortion is extremely common and very widespread. The government reports that for every 1,000 babies born in the United States, there are 239 unborn babies aborted. So, for every five babies born this year, another baby who would have been born within the next nine months has his/her life terminated in the womb through abortion. Another way of looking at this is that if you exclude miscarriages and stillbirths, 19.3% of all pregnancies result in an abortion. And for most of the 35 years since Roe v. Wade was passed, there have been at least one million abortions every year in the U.S. And if it's "rare" here, it's clearly "well-done" from a global perspective - there are about 46 million abortions per year in the world.

Does this fit your definition of rare? If so, I disagree. But, if you think this way, the really good news for you is that poverty, hunger, war and crime are all pretty rare as well.

Bunk: Abortion is used only as an extreme last resort

Many pro-life people claim that abortion is being used as birth control of the last resort. Many pro-choice people dispute this characterization. However, it is clear that a very large percentage of abortion patients are people who have had another abortion at some point in the past.

The facts tell us that 46.3 percent of the abortions performed in 2004 involved patients who had at least one previous abortion. 11 percent had two previous abortions, 7.7% had three previous abortions and 2.4% had an unknown number of abortions before the one they had in 2004. Although no one is suggesting that most people who have abortions are taking the decision lightly, it seems unlikely that such a large group of people are facing extreme life-or-death circumstances on repeated occasions.

The three most common reasons given for having an abortion are: "Having a baby would dramatically change my life" (74%), "can't afford a baby now" (73%), and "don't want to be a single mother or having relationship problems" (48%). Of course, all of these issues are mitigated by choosing the option of adoption.

Bunk: Adoption is not always an option

Actually, in every state except for Nebraska and Alaska, there exist some form of "Save Haven" laws that allow for you to hand a newborn baby to the state (generally at a police station or hospital), no questions asked.

Also, some people have claimed that abortion is good because there are too many babies waiting to be adopted. The opposite is actually true. In fact, one of the effects of the increased number of abortions is that there are now fewer American babies available for adoption than there were in earlier years, which is one of the reasons for the increased number of international adoptions.

Bunk: Roe v. Wade has saved many lives

This popular argument is so frequently repeated but yet so full of bunk that I need to take some time to dig through it. Yecch. What a mess!

Wanna take a guess at the number of women who died during abortions the year before Roe was handed down by the Supreme Court? 50,000 a year? 10,000? 5,000? A brigade of martyred sisters so great in number that we'll never know how many there actually were?

Try sixty three. A few more than five dozen tragic cases through all of the U.S. in the year 1972 - the year before Roe was decided - out of at least 586,760 abortions that year. Oh, yeah, and I forgot a very important point. Of these sixty three abortion deaths, 24 of the victims died during legal abortions (abortion was legal in a few places before Roe).

So, did Roe make a difference to the fate of millions of women? Almost certainly not anywhere near as much as abortion advocates would suggest. Two years after Roe, the number of women who died during legal abortions had temporarily climbed to a higher number (29) than those who died during legal abortions in 1972. Meanwhile, during the first three full years after Roe (when there would have been no reason for "back alley abortions" because abortion was legal), the number of abortions rose by 29.44%.

Hey, wait one minute, TVV! There had to be a lot of other women who died through abortion whose deaths were covered up! Yes, I'm sure that there were probably some abortion patents who died but whose deaths were not properly categorized. But, for all our government's faults, one thing it has always been pretty good at is knowing when people die. And when the people who die are women of childbearing age whose lives are cut short under mysterious circumstances, we've always tended to take a closer look at things like that.

But let's take something into account here. According to a report by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, there were a lot more abortion deaths that took place in the earlier part of the twentieth century than in the latter part. In 1930, abortion was listed as the official cause of death for almost 2,700 women. By 1940 - long before Roe - the number had fallen to under 1,700. In 1950, the number of abortion deaths was slightly over 300. By 1970, it was under 150. A lot fewer women were dying as the result of abortion and it had nothing to do with Roe, which didn't come along until 1973.

The CDC noticed something similarly else interesting with the number of women who didn't have abortions but who died due to pregnancy complications. Just like the abortion deaths, maternal deaths were high in 1930. They decreased in 1940, 1950, and onward.

So, the rates for both abortion deaths and maternal deaths fell dramatically. Both fell dramatically long before the government legalized abortion. It certainly appears that the thing that helped save the lives of countless women was not legalized abortion. It was antibiotics and other medical advancements that made pregnancy safer for all women.

(Data Sources - Alan Guttmacher Institute and the CDC)

Bunk: A lot of abortions are the result of situations in which women are pregnant as the result of rape or incest.

Rape is one of the most gruesome and cruel crimes that a person can be victimized by. Because we all sympathize with rape and incest victims and are furious at those who commit these crimes, as many as 84% of us are estimated to not oppose abortion in these circumstances. However, because most of us are used to hearing pro-choice arguments that mention rape, we probably associate abortions and rape much more closely than they really are.

Very, very few abortions involve rape. According to a report by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a survey of abortion patients in 2004 indicated that only 1% were having an abortion to end a pregnancy that resulted from a rape. Less then 0.5% were aborting a baby that was conceived through incest. And what's more, these numbers have not changed since the survey the organization did in 1987.

The other problem with the argument that many abortions involve sexual assault is that the number of rapes in this country is very small in comparison to the number of abortions. According to the FBI, in 2004, there were 94,635 reported instances of forcible rape. If every single assault led to a pregnancy that was followed by an abortion, sexual assaults would be responsible for 11.2% of the abortions.

What about rapes that aren't reported? Even if only half the sexual assaults in this country were reported and every one of those led to a pregnancy that led to an abortion, rape would be responsible for 22.6% of abortions. But let's not forget that abortions themselves are underreported by virtue of the fact that we don't have data from California, New Hampshire and West Virginia (explained below). Since there have been more than 1.1 million abortions every single year from 1977 until some states stopped reporting in the late 1990's, we can make a more accurate supposition that there were at least a million abortions. And if this is true, it would mean that even if rapes were only reported half the time, that every one of these crimes resulted in pregnancy and that every victim chose to abort - even in this most extreme situation - it would mean that 81% of abortions had nothing to do with sexual assault.

Bunk: A lot of abortions involve situations in which the mother's life is in danger

The Guttmacher survey suggests that a very small percentage of abortions involve pregnancies that pose at least some risk to the mother's life (12% according to the survey). But then again, because almost every piece of proposed legislation for limiting or banning abortion procedures makes exception for cases in which the mother's life is in danger, this isn't a logical point of argument - there is little disagreement between the two sides in situations of genuine danger to the mother's life.

Bunk: Abortion is safe

Believe it or not, legalized abortion didn't end the horrible prospect of the patient dying as the result of an abortion. As we discussed, there were 24 women who died as a result of legal abortion in the year before Roe v. Wade. 39 other women died that year from illegal abortions. From 1974, the first full year of universally legal abortion, through 2003, the last year available in the report, there were an average of 11.2 women who died as the result of a legal abortion.

So, women still die as a result of legal abortion. And because the numbers are relatively low, both before Roe as well as today, we can see although the numbers are lower, they're not that much lower. Both right before Roe and long after it, the number of women who died in abortions - legal and illegal - have been in the double digits.

There are other potential health risks for abortion that are possible but not medically proven. There have been studies that have suggested a link between abortion and breast cancer (an early 1990's Howard University study found a significant increased risk in women who have had induced abortions; two other mid-1990's studies made similar observations with other groups). Other researchers believe that some women who have abortions face an increased risk of depression. To be fair, many in the medical establishment have made strong statements dismissing the potential link between abortion and cancer (it has certainly not been proven that abortion causes cancer). But since many in the medical establishment are absolutely adamant that there is no link between vaccines and Autism in some children - while at the same time having not being able to explain some apparent correlations in the cases of some kids - I take the stronger pronouncements of the medical establishment with a healthy dose of skepticism.

Bunk: Abortion is Constitutionally Protected

There is no mention of abortion in the U.S. Constitution. And just because the Supreme Court decides a case in a particular manner does not mean that the matter is definitely Constitutional and certainly does not mean that it is morally right. In fact, let's bring a moment of unity to this deeply divisive subject matter. No matter who you are, I guarantee that you don't think that one of the following U.S. Supreme Court cases was decided the right way - either from a Constitutional point of view or from a moral standpoint. One of these cases will make you agree that not everything the Court decides is right.

Bush v. Gore - ruled that it was unconstitutional for Florida to recount all the ballots in the 2000 Election

Kelo v. City of New London - affirmed that the government has the right to seize privately-owned property as part of a comprehensive development plan. Otherwise known as Eminent Domain ("It's not your house, ma'am. It's our 50-yard line!")

If you take comfort that a case decided by the Supreme Court is always decided in line with the Constitution and is always morally right, I envy you. It must be nice to look at the news and sleep well at night in the knowledge that the government always gets it right.

Bunk: The number of abortions in the U.S. is going down. So, stop talking about it, you repressive "anti-choice" folks!

The number sure is going down. That is, if you only count 47 states and make sure California isn't one of them. And come to think of it, the amount of beef consumption in the U.S. is way, way down. (I forgot to mention ... I'm not counting Texas).

From 1973 until 1997, the CDC received data on the number of abortions performed from all the 50 states. Then, starting in 1998 onward, California and New Hampshire no longer reported its numbers. Alaska stopped reporting from 1998 through 2002. Oklahoma stopped reporting for two years. As of 2004, the year of the CDC study cited here, the agency had information for only 47 of the 50 states. Many of the people who insist that the abortion rates have gone way down are comparing the incomplete figures of this decade where the most populous state and several others are excluded with the figures in the late 90's in which all 50 states were included. So, yeah, there is a decrease. But it's not a real one.

Bunk: The people having abortions are mainly poor teenagers

Simply not true. Actually, only 17.4 percent of the abortion patients in 2004 were under the age of twenty. 82.6% of the abortions were had by women who are twenty years of age or older. Almost half (49.8%) were age twenty five or older.

Bunk: Roe v. Wade has lowered the demand for abortion

Do you know how you see a Starbucks coffee shop today. A week from now, it's full. Then two weeks from now, the good folks from corporate go and build another Starbucks across the street. You think to yourself "they've got too many of them. There's no way they'll fill them both." But surely enough, in a short time, both places are full of customers and they're off to building a new one right around the corner.

Roe v. Wade actually increased the demand for abortion at the same time that it increased the supply. Here's a graph of how abortions rose for the ten years after Roe.

Barack Obama announced his intention to seek the Presidency of the United States by going to the Old State Capitol building in Illinois, the place where then-Illinois Senatorial Candidate Abraham Lincoln made his famous House Divided speech. The location wasn't chosen accidentally. The Obama campaign intended to link his campaign in some way to the legacy of our greatest President.

However, of the many attributes and personal strengths we know about President Lincoln was that he was quite personally involved and engaged in our nation's military affairs. In fact, Obama might do well to read a copy of the book Lincoln on Leadership: Executive Strategies For Tough Times by Donald T. Phillips. Chapter One of that book is titled "Get Out of the Office and Circulate Among the Troops" and cites a proven leadership strategy called MBWA - for "Management By Wandering Around." Lincoln made a practice of doing this long before he became President, leaving his law firm often to personally gather information and ensure that he had a first-hand account of the things he was about to advocate. And he carried that trait to the Presidency and used it to have the important personal insight he needed in order to manage the war. When Lincoln couldn't get information from one source, he sought it from another. He personally met with the troops. He got to meet new recruits. Phillips wrote that "wherever the soldiers were, there would be Lincoln." He sometimes spent all night at the War Department. He kept close watch of strategic operations and was very intimately engaged in the battle that was tearing the nation apart. And having as much information as possible as quickly as possible from as many sources as possible helped him to lead this nation out of its most bloody and costly war.

This is an election, of course, and many pile on Obama for one thing or another for simple partisan advantage - as would be expected. But there are times when legitimate points are raised in the process. And this one - the need for him to spend some time on the ground - is a very legitimate point. He can't have a complete sense of what's going on with anything less than personal inspection.

Barack Obama doesn't need to go to Iraq with John McCain. But he does need to go. He needs to personally talk to the military leaders, to the soldiers and to the Iraqis. He has to gain situational awareness of what he will have to deal with should he become the Commander In Chief. And he needs to, by his presence more than his words, communicate to our brave men and women in uniform that he is very personally engaged and totally informed with regard to the decisions he might be making. And if you are going to accuse the current administration of not listening to the battle commanders or their troops, the only way to avoid being hypocritical is to listen to them yourself. But first you have to talk to them. And that requires taking a trip to their office.

Question: What do you call a country without a strong and brave military?

Answer: The territory of another nation that has one.

On Memorial Day, we must take time to honor not only our nation's fallen over its many conflicts but those who have served in peacetime and those who continue to serve in the wars we are in today, along with all their families.

Without your sacrifice we would not be able to live in a great country that gives us the ability to speak freely.

God Bless all of you and God Bless America!

(Satire)

I only got a small percentage of the vote on Real Clear Politics' Reader Articles Page this weekend. And now I'm waiting to see how fair the Digg people are. The only logical reason I can figure for people refusing to vote for this great article is because of massive gender/racial/religious bias against me.

Huh? Yeah, I know that some of you may disagree with my political viewpoints. Or my suggestions on policies. Or you don't like the fact that I'm an inexperienced writer or that my family's been around Washington forever. Some of you don't think I'm sincere. But I know the real reason you won't support me. It's because you just don't like people of my gender, my skin color or my religion. Shame on you!

			According to a subset of the supporters of some of our major Presidential candidates, it's impossible to dislike their candidacies for any legitimate reason. It's got to be because of bias.
"You don't like her? You must be sexist!"	"You don't like him? You must be racist!"	"You don't like him? You must be anti-Mormon!"

There sure are a lot of angry supporters out there. Could some of them feel at least a little more wronged than they actually are?

It's pretty clear when you check the blogosphere that a lot of people think that the problems that have plagued their favorite candidate can be traced back to voter prejudice against them. A lot of Hillary supporters seem to think that her struggles are the result of widespread sexism. There are some Obama supporters out there who are ready to label any person who opposes him as being a racist. And even months after Romney ended his run for the White House, there are fans of his who are convinced that those who didn't support his campaign are anti-Mormon bigots.

It is a pretty open-and shut case, isn't it? I mean what reasons other than sexism, racism or religious bias would lead someone to not vote for or vote against these fine candidates?

I know that some people who don't like Hillary claim that they oppose her because of her vote to authorize the War in Iraq. And others are just tired of the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton thing going on in Washington. There are others who really don't like her personality. And others who actually question how much experience she personally has. But we all know the underlying problem, don't we? They don't like the concept of a strong woman. Not even the many strong women who oppose her.

Some of the people who oppose Obama think that he's just too inexperienced. Or because they don't think he has communicated enough specifics on policies. Or they are turned off by how liberal he is on social issues. Or they're freaked out by some of the folk that he's interacted with. But, let's just cut to the chase, folks. None of those things really matter to the people who aren't voting for Obama. They're all against him because he's a black guy. You know that and I know that, right? Settled.

And some who were refusing to vote for Romney were bothered because they perceived him as too slick and salesman-like. Or they had a hard time believing that his positions changed from socially liberal to those of a conservative's conservative's conservative in a pretty short time period. Or maybe they didn't like the idea of practically being Mitt's our guy! instructed to Solid conservative! vote for him He'll save the economy! every time they turned on the tube. But you know and I know that these were just excuses. These people were never going to vote for a person of the Mormon faith. It was ugly widespread bias that motivated voters to behave the way they did.

Isn't all this horrible? This is an outr ...

Hey - wait a minute. You know what?

The more I type, the more I can actually think that maybe people do have some other reasons for supporting or not supporting a particular candidate other than because of bias. Maybe we've all been a bit too quick to assume that when someone doesn't like our candidate that it automatically means that they oppose everyone within our guy/gal's demographic group. You think?

Of course, this country does have a lot of people who actually won't support a candidate for reasons of race, gender or religious affiliation. A lot of them. There also are some people who would support a candidate mainly because of those reasons. Quite a few of them are out there too. Some people had their mind up about a black candidate, a female candidate or a Mormon candidate before any of these people even had the chance to do anything good or bad. From the beginning, their answer on these candidates has ranged from "no!" to "NO!" to "[any number of bad words] NO!!!!!!!" And there have been some very ugly pot shots dished out that have definite racial, gender, and religious overtones. We'd be in an unhealthy state of denial if we pretended that this type of thing doesn't exist. It absolutely does. There are a lot of idiotic people who live among us.

But there are also a lot of fair people in this country who don't have a problem voting for someone of another gender, another race, or of another religious faith. It's been proven out in the polls so far. Many people are willing to vote across gender, racial, and religious lines. People want answers and are seem to care less about the demographic profile of the person who is able to provide them than they ever have before.

Some of the people who oppose or support a particular candidate are from the first category - the people who don't see past color, gender or some other demographic category. We can't do anything about this other than pray for these people and hope they emerge from their ignorance. But many - and a good number of those who are being accused of bias - are from the second category. They are people who actually don't worry about the candidate's demographics that much if at all. But they do have concerns about who the candidate is inside. They care about what he/she says or doesn't say. About what they believe on important issues. Whether or not they seem honest. If they have a track record detailing their past or plans for the future. If they seem that they want the job so desperately that they're willing to say or do anything to get it.

(And to be fair, I have heard the charges of bias mostly from supporters of the candidates and not the candidates themselves. I've never heard Obama or Romney themselves blame bias for the fact some voters have problems with them. Clinton has come closest in her recent complaints of sexism. But I don't think I've exactly heard her outright accuse voters of being biased either).

So, we need to be careful when we accuse people who don't support our candidate of being biased. Some who reject our favorite candidate definitely have issues. But a lot of others don't. And when you get away from the simpletons who refuse to vote for someone because of something as trite as their demographic identity, that's when you run into the real problems. Because the others who don't like your candidate may have valid reasons to dislike them. And that's harder to deal with than bias because it involves flaws that are more the fault of our candidate than anything else. So, we have to put down the accusatory fingers and understand that everyone who dislikes our guy or gal isn't motivated by hate. Some people have good reasons for disliking our favorite candidate. And we'd be wise to listen to them to understand why.

And ... maybe this is why some don't vote for my article. Maybe some of them who don't vote for it aren't rejecting it because of my race, gender or the faith I belong to. Maybe they just don't like what I say. I feel a little bit better about you all now. But now I'm going to turn my attention to the real reason my blogs don't get more attention. I blame the media.

Gospel artist Stephen Curtis Chapman tragically lost his 5-year-old daughter when she was struck by a family vehicle while in the family driveway. It was a horrible accident. Chapman is one of the most successful Contemporary Christian recording artists and songwriters of all time and he and his wife have raised a beautiful family. I had the opportunity to meet him on one occasion and heard him and his wife give a talk at a Family Life conference on another occasion. There are simply no words that can be offered in the face of such a tragedy. But we need to all pray that the Lord Jesus will give the Chapman family supernatural strength to deal with this situation.

A group of fifty black conservatives called a press conference the day before Super Tuesday to urge Governor Mike Huckabee to stay in the GOP race. Two weeks before, on Martin Luther King Day, another group of African American Pastors endorsed Huckabee for President. And during his long tenure as Governor of Arkansas, Huckabee earned what is believed to be the greatest share of the black vote of any Republican since the 1930's.

Last week, Mike Huckabee, the always-affable funny guy, made an impromptu joke that bombed badly. While giving a speech to the NRA, he heard a loud sound from behind the stage that startled the audience. Reacting to the unexpected sound, the quick-witted Huckabee thought up a rambling one-liner that turned unfunny very quickly. He explained that the sound came from Barack Obama ducking someone who was holding a gun. The joke would have carried less baggage and might have been considered funny by more people if he had picked someone other than the black Presidential candidate who has been receiving threats throughout his candidacy. But the joke got widespread attention and within hours, clips of his remarks were all over the web and all over the news. Huckabee immediately made an unconditional apology, admitting that he screwed up and that he meant nothing by it. Over the weekend, he also apologized personally to Senator Obama, who told him not to worry and that he knew he meant no ill will.

It was a one day story.

The press let it go. Black leaders kept quiet and did not give Huckabee a hard time about it. A few people on the web tried to escalate the situation but were overwhelmed by many more who spoke up to defend Mike and accept his apology. It seems like almost everybody knew that Mike had simply made up a very bad joke without thinking about its context and that there wasn't anything else to it. And the way people have reacted to the Huckabee gaffe illustrates something interesting about him as well as a lesson for the rest of us. When you build a long reputation for seeking racial harmony, people tend to give you the benefit of the doubt when you make a mistake.

Rejecting Jim Crow

Mike Huckabee was born and raised in Hope, Arkansas, the same town in which Bill Clinton was born. He grew up at a time that the south was still deeply segregated. However, Huckabee was personally ashamed of the racist views and policies that were present at the time. As a young man, he was remembered by those who knew him as a kid who despised racist language and attitudes.

When he became the Pastor of the Immanuel Baptist Church, he gave sermons chastising Christians for failing to speak out firmly against racism. As his ministry grew and his sermons were broadcast on the radio, a young black man who heard him on the air wanted to worship with the all-white congregation. Pastor Huckabee welcomed him to the church. However, some of the other ministry leaders were extremely upset by this and didn't even want the black parishioner to sit with them. Rev. Huckabee, who earned a nice salary, threatened to resign as Pastor unless the young man was accepted and greeted with love. Most of the congregation followed his lead and the church eventually became integrated.

A decade later, Huckabee became the Governor of Arkansas when Jim Guy Tucker resigned in 1996. The following year marked the forty year anniversary of the integration of Little Rock Central High School and the new Governor was invited to speak along with President Clinton at a nationally televised commemoration ceremony. The Governor gave a speech that, according to Newsweek, moved many who were present to tears. Huckabee denounced the racist policies that tormented the Little Rock Nine and criticized the church organizations that not only refused to intervene but that added fuel to the fire of racism. He stated "... and today, we call upon every church, every pulpit, every synagogue, every mosque in every part of Arkansas and the rest of the world to say never, never, never, never again will we be silent when people's rights are at stake."

The Politics of Inclusion

Election night 1998 was not such a good night for the national Republican Party. The party maintained its total of 55 Senate seats but lost five House seats and lowered its count of Governorships by one in the wake of the Clinton/Lewinski scandal. But that evening was a very good one for Governor Huckabee, who won his first elected term with 60% of the popular vote. But it was the exit polls that revealed a more unexpected figure. Governor Huckabee became only the state's third elected Republican Governor since Reconstruction with the help of 48 percent of African American voters. He essentially split the black vote with his Democratic challenger.

To put this in context, that same night, all but two of the other Republican Gubernatorial candidates who won had received less than 20% of the African American vote. Six others got between 10% and 20% of the black vote and thirteen others got too little in the exit polls to measure (although some governed states with very few black residents). But what is especially interesting about Huckabee's numbers is the fact that he managed to do this in a southern state that was dominated by the Democratic Party and by the Clintons. Bill Clinton was the most popular political figure in the country among black voters at the time, was the incumbent President of the United States and supported Huckabee's opponent. The Governor not only won in spite of all this but managed to break the trend in which almost all black voters vote for the Democrat.

Huckabee left office in January of 2007 and later that month launched his long-shot and severely underfunded bid for the Presidency. He continued to win attention and praise throughout the year with his impressive performance in a long series of Presidential Debates. And then in September, PBS hosted a GOP Presidential Debate with a focus on Minority Issues, which was held at Morgan State University in Baltimore and moderated by a panel that included Tavis Smiley and Fox News' Juan Williams. Many Republicans shied away from the concept of spending the night answering questions from black voters - in fact, the top four leading candidates declined to participate (commentator Pat Buchanan stated "there is a risk going to this gathering here, and there's very little reward ... I can understand why they don't go down there and get asked about affirmative action"). But Huckabee, who seemingly could barely afford the plane ticket, participated eagerly and earned rave reviews. He first attempted to soothe the badly hurt feelings of rejection that many experienced as the result of being snubbed by the four leading candidates. He stated "frankly, I'm embarrassed. I'm embarrassed for our party and I'm embarrassed for those who did not come, because there's long been a divide in this country, and it doesn't get better when we don't show up." He then voiced his knowledge of and concern for issues such as substance abuse and disparity in sentencing. And although he opposes Affirmative Action (which did not even come up as a topic), Huckabee earned rounds of applause from the audience for the way he carried himself. He even won praise from Dr. Cornel West, a well-known supporter of Barack Obama.

Give and it will be given unto you

Huckabee's willingness and eagerness to engage and interact with all voters has earned him the reciprocity of unprecedented public support from black voters for a Republican candidate over the past several decades.

Tavis Smiley was clearly impressed. After Governor Huckabee shocked the political world by winning the Iowa Caucuses, Tavis spoke at length about him on the radio, praising him for not being "afraid" to interact with blacks and to actively ask for our votes. Although clearly not a Republican, Smiley suggested that his listeners take a look at Mike Huckabee and pay attention to him. He suggested that Huck was the best Republican candidate in many years.

On the Martin Luther King holiday, Huckabee took some valuable time off the campaign trail to attend a tribute service for the slain leader. While John McCain, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani were campaigning heavily in advance of the Florida contest, Governor Huckabee put aside campaigning for half of the day so that he could attend the ceremony with former President Bill Clinton. But unlike Clinton, Huckabee did not speak but simply sat with members of the King Family. After leaving the service, Huckabee received the endorsements of three dozen African American clergy.

The day before Super Tuesday, a group of conservative blacks scheduled a press conference at the National Press Club to plead for Governor Huckabee to remain in the Presidential contest. Many in the group expressed a clear preference for the Presidency of Mike Huckabee over that of either Barack Obama or Mitt Romney.

Three days after Huckabee announced the suspension of his Presidential bid, widely-respected former Oklahoma Congressman J.C. Watts wrote an article titled "Missing Mike Huckabee already."  He wrote in his column that "Mike Huckabee spoke to so many issues that I've been trying to get the GOP establishment to speak to as a black, a social conservative and an opportunity conservative."

Some blogger even started a site called "Hip Hop 4 Huckabee," apparently an effort to get young black voters to take a serious look at conservative Republican Huckabee. Also, at least a few of the former Governor's most loyal Internet supporters (Huck's Army), are conservatives who happen to be black - including myself. And because most black voters describe themselves as either conservative or moderate, the GOP has a tremendous potential to compete for a large number of non-liberal votes that go to the Democratic Party by default.

Comfortable in his own skin

It seems as if many politicians have developed their own special "techniques" for talking with black voters. A number of prominent Democratic politicians have seemed to try to channel some type of southern Baptist preacher persona when speaking to black audiences. It's a little strange to see people who rarely raise their voices above conversation level suddenly transform into fire-breathing revivalists when they come to converse with black voters.

A number of prominent Republicans have taken a very different approach. They haven't showed up at all. And sadly, there are some political leaders who think that they need to "talk black" when going to black communities (a recent example involved one candidate who wanted to talk about his "bling.").

Mike Huckabee has in my opinion the most impressive approach of all. He shows up. And then he speaks to black voters the same way he talks to everybody else.

Goodwill

When the news of the Reverend Wright sermons first broke the headlines, Huckabee earned the appreciation of Obama supporters by defending the Senator and suggesting that he shouldn't be held accountable for his Pastor's remarks. Many Obama supporters have expressed appreciation at Huckabee's refusal to pile on when the Democratic candidate was at his lowest point. In addition, Clinton supporters have seen the good nature of Huckabee as he defended her against pressure to withdraw from the contest. Huckabee has showed class in many ways throughout his campaign and has built up for himself a resovoir of goodwill among many voters. Many people disagree with his policies or statements. But many of these same people will acknowledge that he's far from a mean guy.

Mike Huckabee has made racial healing a theme not only of his campaign but of his life and career. And he didn't wait until it was time to ask for votes to behave that way. And through years of reaching out and trying to build bridges, Huckabee has also built a few things for himself that everyone who makes impromptu jokes needs. The benefit of the doubt. And a solid reputation that can't be sullied by a gaffe.

When it all comes down to it, we're all in the same party.

Despite my disagreement with Ted Kennedy on more political topics than I can think of, I was really extremely saddened to hear that he's been diagnosed with cancer. It is our prayer that he fully recovers and that his family knows that people all over the country and all over the political spectrum care. If anyone from the Kennedy family or their friends is reading, be encouraged that just as Senator Ted has many friendships on both sides of the aisle, he has a lot of people of all political leanings who are praying for him and his family.

God Bless You!

(Ting!) "Doom to the concept  of the bride and groom"

Senators McCain, Obama and Clinton have it all wrong. They've spent years of their careers as legislators. They're working hard to try to get elected President. But what they haven't figured out is that if you really want to be in charge in America today, you need to become part of the judiciary. That's the real gig. It's the Justices and judges who really run things in America on behalf of the rest of us. Not the people. Not the legislature we elect. And not the hapless executives who declare themselves duty bound to carry out the commands of the true bosses who sit on the bench.

Yesterday, the California  Supreme Court overturned a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage. The court ruled that domestic partnerships are not a good enough provision for gay couples and that the "state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation."

I don't hate or dislike gay people in any way. I will admit that I personally believe that homosexuality is morally wrong - but then again, a lot of things are morally wrong and I don't hate anyone else either. However, the issue of same-sex marriage strikes a special nerve with me. The government did not create the institution of marriage and does not have the right to redefine it.

But, let's play along with the liberal premise that a definition of marriage that does not allow any two people to choose to marry is unjust. Assuming that this is the case, we have a lot of injustice to correct in this land. Do you know that there are whole groups of people in this country who don't have the right to marry each other? And since injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, it is hypocritical for those who advocate same-sex marriage to stop working until all people who are currently prohibited from marrying each other have these awful restrictions removed.

I've compiled a working list of these types of people so that those who champion "marital reform" can understand that they still have a lot of work to do. Here is at least a partial list of the maritally oppressed - people who the government is denying the right to marry a person of their choosing. And most of them are heterosexuals. So, to those of you who advocate same-sex marriage, it's time for you folks to roll up your sleeves. You have a lot of work to do in fixing the inequalities suffered by the following sets of people:

• Those who are too closely related. Some states deny the right to marry to parties who are more closely related than the fourth degree of consanguinity. If you find that right person for you but that person happens to be a bit too close to your bloodline, the government is out to stop you from being happy.

Now, I know what you're thinking. The idea of close relatives getting married is bothersome to you, isn't it? The same is true for me (as is, honestly, the idea of two guys or two ladies getting hitched). However, what the same-sex marriage movement has told all of us is that the fact that we find certain types of intimate relationships disturbing is just proof of how bigoted we are. Who are we to tell two people who love each other but who are in the same clan that they are legally denied the right to be happy? What right does the government have to prohibit this? And what is the real basis for us opposing it? Are we trying to impose our own morals on other people who just want to be happy? If non-relatives have the right to be married, it is an injustice to deny the same rights to couples who are a bit ... uh ... closer.

(Don't laugh. This has happened to people you know of. One of our major 2008 Presidential Candidates was married at one point to a second cousin. And one of our most famous American Presidents was married to his fifth cousin once removed - his wife's maiden name was the same as her married name).

The main point here is that, if we are going to change the definition of marriage so that it accommodates people of the same gender, we also need to change it so that it allows any two people to be married regardless of their familial proximity. To fail to do so would allow a form of inequality to continue.

• Polygamists. I don't think very highly of polygamy. The concept of it bothers me and I've always been glad that our laws have forbidden it. But, now that we know that we don't have the right to deny the "rights" of people who want to be in a marital relationship with any person of their choosing - even if it doesn't fit the model of traditional marriage. So, according to that way of thinking, the only right thing to do is to change the definition of marriage so that it allows for groups of more than two people to be legal participants in a single marriage. If we don't do this, we have inequality between couples and groups. (And, if you're a little grossed out at the thought of polygamy, shame on you! Stop being a bigot.)

Two state courts have already made it precedent that the definition of marriage needs to be changed in order to not deny the rights of two people of the same gender who want to be married. So, in the same way, to be fair, we also need to modify the definition of marriage so that we don't deny the rights of a group of people to all love each other within the bounds of a single marriage.

 

• The already married. All states limit people to being married to one person at a time. If you are married to a living person and have not had the marital relationship terminated by either divorce or annulment, you are legally prohibited from marrying somebody else.

So, what you might ask, is the fate of those poor people who are married and want a divorce but haven't been able to get one (either because their current spouse resists or because it hasn't yet been finalized)? For these people, should they find their true love and want to get married to them, they can't - at least not until they are no longer legally married. The government is stopping these people from being happy and from establishing new loving and long-term relationships. So, if the logic is that we need to change the definition of marriage in order to stop denying the "rights" of same-sex couples and groups, we also need to change it so that no couple or group is prohibited from marrying their true love(s) - regardless of anyone's current marital status. Otherwise, there is discord between the rights of single people and legally married people - some are being prohibited by the government from getting married.

• The unlicensed/those without medical check-ups. Most states require us to get marriage licenses before we can actually be married. But what about those don't have a license? People might not have a license because: a) they can't afford one, b) they didn't satisfy the waiting period, c) they don't have the proper identification (to prove among other things that they aren't already married to other people), d) because their previously issued marriage license has expired, or e) because they didn't have a medical check-up before applying for the license? These people are prohibited - at least temporarily - from getting married. Is this right?

I'll admit - fixing this marriage restriction is far easier than changing the very definition of marriage. But the point remains that there are people who want to be married but aren't allowed to by the government for some reason. It's only fair that if we are going to reform the rules of marriage, we need to get rid of all of these rules that enforce any prerequisites to marriage.

Please understand the point being made here. I am actually not comparing gay couples to incestuous relationships, polygamists, bigamists or, on the lighter side, those who violate simple rules about getting properly married. What I am doing is drawing a common link in that all of these groups of people are people who may have a desire to marry a person of their choosing but are prohibited from doing so by law. And my point is that if you change the definition of marriage to make it so that one group of people is now allowed to get married, you are being hypocritical unless you change it as well so that the other groups can as well.

In order to really fix all the "inequalities" in traditional marriage, we would need to change the definition of marriage so that it doesn't exclude anyone based on gender, family relationship,  number of parties involved, marital status, or any procedural prerequisites. We can define marriage as a long-term and committed relationship between more than one person. Period. This way, we can make sure that everyone is happy.

And by changing the definition of marriage to make sure that we don't leave anyone out, marriage will become such a nonspecific, general term that can mean so many different things that it means nothing. Which is exactly the end result of yesterday's ruling.

Or, we could just leave marriage alone and treat it as a legal reflection of the institution that God created before the government started changing it to try to make some folks happy. A lifelong relationship between one man and one woman. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

My, my, my. What a mess!

Let me start out by saying that in order to prove I'm not a racist, a sexist, an age discriminator or a religious bigot, I'm going to put multiple checkmarks on my ballot in November for multiple candidates. This way, I can be assured that no one feels that I don't like the groups they belong to. I really do love all people and I'm going to prove it even if it means getting my ballot thrown out.

We all come to Washington

The black guy	The white gal	The Mormon	The Christian	The older guy

One Democracy. Many Demographic groups. One Nation Under God. Something about this reminds me a little of a real-life political version of the movie "The Breakfast Club." Maybe at the end, we'll all figure out that we do have a lot in common after all.

This election year, the "Final Five" major candidates (the last major party candidates still in the race who managed to rack up more than a hundred delegates) have been a relatively demographically diverse group. We had, in no particular order: the black guy, the white gal, the Mormon, the Christian and the older guy (who also happens to be the lone remaining white guy). This group pretty much covers a wide spectrum - different ethnic groups, both genders, multiple religious faiths, and several generations are covered here. And all of this is a good thing for our country.

However, a bad thing for our country has also come about that we need to somehow escape from. All of the sudden, anyone who doesn't like a particular candidate is under suspicion (by some supporters of the candidate) of not liking the entire demographic group that the candidate represents. And in addition, those who support a particular candidate are suspected of liking them only because of the demographic group that they represent. So, large groups of voters are being portrayed as simpletons whose decisions about who to support or who to oppose are based only in identity politics.

What's worse is that there are smaller numbers of voters who really are simpletons and who make their decisions about who to support or oppose simply because of the demographic characteristics of the candidates they love or loathe. Make no mistake about it - there are racists and sexists and religious bigots out there, and plenty of them, who wreck havoc on the whole thing and make it harder for those of us who aren't like them. We have legitimate reasons to like or dislike a particular candidate that aren't based on demographics. But those folks cause all of us - of all backgrounds - to be misunderstood.

All of this emphasis on identity politics has caused all of us as a group to be perceived the exact opposite of what I believe most of us are. For the most part, we are complex and intelligent voters whose vote is based on a variety of issues that are important to us. Most of us, regardless of what "group" we belong to, aren't going to automatically vote for or against someone because they are or are not part of our "groups." Most of us just want someone - anyone - to understand the issues that are important to us and to be willing and able to do something about them.

And this foolish focus on identity politics - not always by the candidates themselves but more often by some of their supporters and the media - is getting some of us into trouble. Some of us are getting falsely accused of being biased because someone we don't like happens to be a member of another "group." Others of us are also being accused of being biased in the other direction because someone we do like is part of our "group" - whether that group be our race, our gender, our religion, or even our age group. We're starting to spend more time accusing others and defending ourselves than we are in focusing on what kind of person is going to be running the joint eight months from now.

The rules of Identity Politics (latest edition)

So, here's a set of the catch-22's in the complex rule book in Election 2008 Identity Politics. Don't say you haven't been warned.

• If you're not a black voter and you don't like Obama, people may call you a racist. But if you are a black voter and you do like him, you'll also get called a racist - people think you only like him because he's black.
• If you're a man and dislike Hillary, you're a sexist who is totally against strong women. However, if you're a woman and you like her, you must only be into her because you want a female President and you desire to take over the world.
• If you're not part of the LDS faith and you dislike Romney, you are a flaming anti-Mormon bigot (no doubt made that way by some Huckabee comment). But if you really like Mitt and happen to be of the Mormon faith, the theory goes, you must be only voting for him because of some religious mandate.
• If you're not a Christian and don't like Huckabee, you are an anti-Christian bigot (funny how no one complains about that bias). But if you do like him, you are a simplistic Bible-toting southerner trying to pass the time between Sundays while you wait for further instructions from TBN.
• If you don't like McCain and aren't a white guy, the reason is clear: you're tired of white guys running things. But if you do support McCain and are a white guy, then you obviously aren't prepared for a non-white or a non-guy to take over. It's all so obvious.

In a nutshell, we're all free to like or dislike any candidate we choose. It's just that we've got to make sure that the candidate we like doesn't belong to our group and the candidate we don't like does.

(For more information about the rules on Identity Politics, please tune to any discussion on race/gender/religion and politics on CNN - the friendly on-air "should I vote my color or my gender?" people. They can explain the rules quite clearly as they have all of us, regardless of what group we belong to, figured out. In fact, they know what you're thinking right now.)

Let us reason together

Don't you think this is all getting a bit crazy? And it's dividing us further in a way that doesn't help us as a nation. Can't we all give each other a little bit more credit?

Are there racists in this country? Without any doubt. A lot of them - and of all skin colors. Are there people who are sexists? Absolutely! Religious bigots? No question.

But are there also a whole lot of people in this country - of every race and ethnicity and of both genders and of multiple faiths - who are willing to be fair and who really try to be fair. And I think that most of us - of all "groups" - fall into this category. So, rather than continuing to sit in this closed circle of point-and-accuse in which all of us are eventually getting hit, let's stop for a second. Let's think about some valid reasons (outside of prejudice) why some vote the way that they do.

Let's take a look at our American Election Final Five ...

So that we can end all the polarization, let's look at each of our Final Five, each of which represents a different demographic group. We're going to think of some reasons - other than an "ism" - why some voters who aren't in their group might not like these individuals and some voters who are in their group might like them. And once we realize that not all the other groups other than ours aren't necessarily motivated by bias, we can all stop being mad at each other. And then we can together pay attention to the really important things. Like American Idol.

Obama Demographic Designation: "The black guy"* AKA "the young guy" *Since he's biracial, he's technically both the black guy and the young white guy

Isn't it possible that some white voters who don't like Obama don't like him because they see him as extremely liberal? After all, he is quite liberal. And white voters didn't treat the liberal John Kerry all that well in 2004, giving him only 41% of their support compared to 58% for Bush, and race was not a factor in that particular contest (unless you're really paranoid and you think some people held his suntan against him). In addition, it should be noted that a few of the white social conservatives who oppose Obama were ardent supporters of Alan Keyes, another black candidate. Some others were pushing for Colin Powell to run for President in 1996.

On the other hand, isn't it possible that the reason so many black voters support Obama is because they like him for the same reason so many other white voters also like him? Because he's a new face and a very smart guy who communicates popular messages well and who has charisma. And isn't it possible that they've begun to dislike Clinton for many of the same reasons that many white voters dislike both her and her husband - especially in the wake of the South Carolina campaign? And since I've explained the biggest reasons why most black voters don't vote for Republicans, Obama is not just "the black candidate" but also the only major candidate left who isn't a Republican or a Clinton. Barack Obama is not the first black major party Presidential candidate. Black voters didn't support Al Sharpton or Carol Mosely Bruan in 2004. We didn't support Alan Keyes in 1996 or 2000. But we did enthusiastically support both Bill and Hillary Clinton for sixteen years - pretty much right up till their South Carolina scorched earth campaign earned them criticism from voters of all races and both parties.

Clinton Demographic Designation: "The white gal"

Couldn't it be that some male voters have no problem in principle with a female President, but just don't care for Senator Clinton? After all, 52% of Americans disapproved of her last year - which is actually a higher percentage than all the men in the United States.

On the other hand, isn't it possible that many women are supporting Hillary Clinton is for the same reasons that many men are supporting her? Because she's moved to an anti-war position and she is better known and has been around Washington for a longer period of time. Or because whether you like her or not, she is very intelligent and, my God, determined ("you are going to have to pry this nomination loose from my Kung Fu grip. I won't go away ... everrrr!"). Could people be attracted to her because they associate her with her husband, who despite all his faults managed to reduce the deficit every year of his Presidency until it was gone? Isn't it possible that they respect her even if they don't like her? And maybe they do like her.

Romney Demographic Designation: "The Mormon"

Can't it be the case that some non-Mormon voters who don't like Romney don't care for him because of disagreement with his positions over the years or because of personal dislike? In fact, many of the same voters who voted against Romney have very high opinions of other Mormon politicians, including Senator Orrin Hatch. And does anyone really think that Republican resentment against Senator Harry Reid has anything to do with the fact that he also is a Mormon?

On the other hand, isn't it a possibility that some of Romney's supporters who share his faith like him for the same reasons that many non-Mormons like him (for instance - they watch Fox News or listen to Clear Channel radio stations, who might as well be chanting "Rom-ney! Rom-ney! Rom-ney!")? Mitt Romney is a very smart man who has some outstanding business accomplishments - he got an average 116% return on investments at Bain Capital. And unlike many of the 2008 candidates, he's actually spent some time running a government also. Isn't it possible that his supporters who are from within his same group like those things and not just the fact that he belongs to the same church?

Huckabee Demographic Designation: "The Christian"

Isn't it possible that some non-Christians who dislike Huckabee don't actually have it out for everyone who owns a Bible and believes what it says? Couldn't it be that maybe they disagree with something Huckabee said or that they believe the many negative things that have been said about him in the "conservative" media (don't get me started on that. Lies!). Because they don't like him doesn't mean that they're out to get Christians in general.

But on the other side, can't it also be the case that those who support Huckabee (myself included) aren't supporting him just because he's a Christian? After all, evangelical voters didn't necessarily flock in huge numbers to Gary Bauer in 2000 or Alan Keyes in ... well, in any of the years he's run. And we also didn't all flock to Huckabee. The Republican Primary exit polls showed more evidence toward a three-way split between Huckabee, McCain and Romney (in that order, I think) than a clean sweep for Huck. And can't it be that we like him because he actually had the most experience running a government of any candidate in either party? Because he's proposed scrapping our nonsensical tax code and replacing it with something that works better for the people and the government? Can't it be that folks who support him aren't doing it just because he's part of our "group"? After all, we didn't support others who were part of our group either, and we didn't all support him.

McCain Demographic Designation: "The older guy" AKA "the last white guy still in the contest"

Isn't it also true that many who oppose McCain in favor of either Clinton or Obama aren't either anti-white or anti-guy. The people who dislike McCain could be Democrats, which would explain why they prefer the candidates from their own party. Or they could be against the war. Or they dislike Bush and link McCain to him. And, while we're at it, people who dislike him aren't necessarily against him because of his age either. After all, he and Hillary are only eleven years apart. And those who think age is an issue might be just as likely to think that Obama is too young.

From the other perspective, why can't it be a possibility that those who support McCain are people who really don't like either Obama or Clinton - for some of the reasons listed above. Or couldn't it be that they do like McCain - for his combined experience as a war hero and long-term legislator? For the fact that he hasn't tolerated pork barrel spending or the fact that he has a lot of foreign policy experience. Couldn't it be that the same people who are rejecting Obama and Clinton in favor of McCain would have rejected McCain in favor of J.C. Watts and Elizabeth Dole if given the chance? Aren't there valid reason that people would like him without exhibiting "groupism"?

Let's get on with it

As an black voter from a blue state who is an enthusiastic supporter of the Christian white guy from Arkansas (who also happens to be among the most experienced), let me tell you this - there is no value in identity politics. At the end of the day, does it really matter what color skin the next President has? What their gender is? Whether or not they profess to share your specific faith beliefs (which of course sounds great when they do - except that almost every President and Presidential Candidate in decades has professed to be born again).  Does it matter whether they are your age, your dad's age or your granddad's age? No. It really doesn't. One way or the other. The type of human packaging surrounding the mind that's going to be making the top decisions next January isn't what's going to determine our future.

Whoever you like or don't like - more power to you. Support or refuse to support the people you feel strongest about. Do whatever floats your vote. But just like or dislike them for who they are inside. Otherwise, you'll definitely one day come to regret it.

Human nature is what it is and some of us have long-held hang-ups that we can't shake loose from or don't want to get rid of. But I'll give you a really practical reason for focusing on the person and not what group they belong to. Concentrating on these things will make you miss the real evaluation criteria for a leader - judgment, character, knowledge, and details. In other words, do they know what the right thing to do is, care about doing it, know how to do it, and actually plan to do it? Because if the next President lacks any of these characteristics, you and I, regardless of the groups we belong to, are all going to suffer the consequences together.

A teenager found herself pregnant and in a situation that both families disapproved of. Not long afterward, she was alone, a college dropout, and in a world that disapproved of her and her baby. Today, her baby has a beautiful family of his own and is a serious contender for the Presidency of the United States. Which in itself is proof that every life is important. Even when the life begins under non-ideal circumstances and even if some people view its arrival as punishment.

In March, during the start of the worst period of his Presidential Campaign, Senator Barack Obama, speaking in western Pennsylvania at a town hall meeting, responded to a woman's request to "stop these abortions." Obama responded with a statement that probably hurt him with Pennsylvania voters and that won't help him in the general election either. His reply included the following:

"Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old," he said. "I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn't make sense to not give them information."

The line "punished with a baby" earned Obama his first taste of widespread criticism from a range of Christian Groups. It also brought to many voter's minds his extremely liberal record on abortion. But rather than add further to the chorus of justified criticism over this remark that underlies a favorable attitude toward allowing abortion at any time and for any reason, let's address the scenario that the Senator discussed a bit further.

What if, heaven forbid, years from now, one of his loved ones did make a mistake and became pregnant as a result of it? What options would she really have? And what options exist for all the rest of us who make mistakes that result in unintended pregnancies? Since he brought up the example, let's think it through and examine a variety of options for a person who is unintentionally pregnant, regardless of how old she is. We'll exclude the option of abortion, the option that punishes the object of the pregnancy - the baby.

But before we go through the options, let's address the word "punishment." Certainly, a person who becomes unintentionally pregnant, and especially a young person who finds themselves in that position, may feel as if they are being punished. But the fact that the unborn's mother or the other family members feels that way does not mean that the human life whose heart has already started beating is actually a punishment. It also does it mean that the unborn's life has no meaning or value. As an example of this, let's talk about the circumstances of the birth of Obama himself.

Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, was celebrating her eighteenth birthday about the time she discovered she was pregnant with the child of Barack Obama, Sr., who was her college classmate. They got married three months later in spite of the fact that both her parents and his opposed the interracial marriage, something that was widely disapproved of in America and that was even illegal in some states. Now, it is conceivable that some people in the family may have considered both the marriage and the pregnancy to be some type of "punishment" to them - even a shame to the family. But yet, today, Obama is poised to become a major party candidate for the President of the United States. Obama's own birth is testimony to the fact that every life has importance, even if the family of the unborn don't like the circumstances that led to it.

Something else that needs to be quickly pointed out is that, although many who defend abortion cite the example of the pregnant teenager, very young people aren't the ones having most of the abortions. Many people assume that most people who have abortions are teenagers or victims of rape and incest - something that just is not true. Actually, about 80% of abortions are had by women who are at least twenty years of age. Half of abortions involve women who are at least 25 years old.

One more thing that I'll point out is that anyone in Obama's family who were to find themselves unintentionally pregnant would have even more options available to them than the ones that I'll list below. Both Obama and his lovely wife Michelle are graduates of Harvard Law School. They together made $4.2 million last year and made at least $1 million in each of the two years before. Obama has an annual salary of $169,300 a year and will earn $400,000 a year if he is elected President. So, anyone in their family who finds themselves with an unwanted child will have more many options available to them than the average American.

That said, let's talk about what at least a few of the things someone could do to deal with the "punishment":

Adoption - Have you ever wondered why so many Americans have been pursuing international adoptions? It's because in general, there aren't enough American children available to adopt. One of the reasons for this is because of the high numbers of aborted babies. A lot of people have been simply getting rid of their punishments.

Being pregnant does not mean that you have to raise the child yourself. There are a lot of parents who would do anything to have a baby of their own and who can't have one. And there aren't enough babies to go around. That living thing that you may call a punishment could be someone else's blessing.

Help from relatives - A significant number of children live with family members other than their mothers and fathers. Many extended family members may be willing to help raise the child. In fact, according to the 2004 Census, more than one and a half million American children are living with their grandparents. Another 548,000 or so are living with other relatives. And another 224,000 are living with non-relatives outside of the foster care system. There are a lot of people who might be willing to raise your child if you are not willing or able to.

Safe Haven Law - As a last resort for handing over a child that you don't want and/or that you cannot or will not raise, you can leave a newborn baby at any police station, rescue squad, fire department or hospital. The statutes that allow this, called "Save Haven" laws, exist in some form in every state except for Nebraska and Alaska and generally allow you to hand your child into the protection of the state without any questions being asked. The state will find care for your child, which may very well lead to permanent parents for the child. It may not sound ideal and it is not. But it is far better than to kill your child whose life has already started. In any scenario in which your child has the opportunity to be born, the child has a chance. In the "choice" of abortion, the child will definitely have no chance at all. 

Raising the child - although it can be very difficult to raise children under some circumstances, it is also possible to successfully raise a child even in a daunting situation. And for an example of this, we'll turn back to look at Obama's life again. Obama's mom was a teenage college student who was barely an adult and who suddenly found herself with a new baby and a new husband. When Barack was a toddler, his father left the family. Ann Dunham was forced to drop out of college, a single white mother with a black child in a country that at the time tended to ostracize both mixed families and those that were split through divorce. In spite of these odds, she managed to earn an advanced degree, re-married, and raised a son who went on to have an advanced degree and who is now in serious contention for the U.S. Presidency. It is definitely harder to raise a child under adverse circumstances, and especially those in which the parent does not have a spouse or partner. But it is possible. And Obama's family is an example of this.

(If you happen to be in a situation in which you are pregnant and don't know what to do, there are organizations out there, such as Life Choices, that can help you understand all of the other options you have available and that can help you understand how to deal with the stress of an unintended pregnancy. Some organizations even provide housing for pregnant moms who are deeply in financial need).

One very important last point here. While Barack and Michelle are teaching their kids about values and morals, it would be in the family's best interest - as well as in all of our best interests - to include in their teaching the importance of the most effective form of birth control and protection. It's called abstinence. Because even though many deal with the "punishment" of an unborn baby through abortion, another unintended consequence of making certain mistakes is acquiring an STD. No form of "protection" is 100% effective. Statistically, the best protection comes by waiting until marriage and being faithful afterward. And acquiring an STD, especially AIDS and Herpes, are outcomes that can't be so easily made to "go away". In addition, our kids need to know that some experts believe that some women who have abortions may have a greater chance of later suffering with anxiety and depression (this is not medically proven but you can read the information and draw your own conclusions). So, the absolute best way for our kids to avoid having babies before they are ready or contracting diseases is to ensure that they're aware of the option of abstinence and encouraged to take it. Certainly not every young person will agree with these values and morals. But it doesn't make sense to not give them that information.

P.S. - I have no idea whether or not members of Barack's extended family considered his arrival punishment. But we do know that his grandmother grew to love him as much as she loved anything in the world.

I have a friend. I'll call my friend "Jim." Jim is a white guy who lives in one of the two states that Hillary Clinton is fighting to have included in her count. Jim's not a Republican. I think he's a Democrat or maybe an Independent. I've never gotten the impression that he's a particularly religious guy or that the issues that are important to me are important to him. I didn't get the impression that Jim likes President Bush that much or that he particularly likes the war in Iraq. Sort of the type of voter that Hillary's highly paid consultants (who broke the piggy bank) have been licking their chops to reach.

But when the subject of the election came up, Jim looked me dead in the eye and told me that he would move to Canada if Hillary became President. Or Mexico. Or somewhere. I started to chuckle. He didn't. I think he was serious.

It's pretty amazing to observe the level of resentment and hostility that exists by some toward the Clintons. What about me? I don't particularly care for them. But I certainly don't actively loathe them. But many people do.

A year ago, the Gallop poll showed that 52% of Americans had an unfavorable view of Clinton compared to 45% who had a favorable view. But that's before the fun began - before her campaign managed to do what no one would have guessed it would have done a year ago: alienate Democratic voters and simply provide entertainment and comic relief for otherwise bored Republican voters. Whole groups of voters who have supported her now seem to dislike both her and her husband. In less than a year, they've gone from being the "rock stars" of Democratic politics to being most definitely out of style.

But whatever damage a third Clinton Presidency might have done to the country will in almost any case be postponed for at least four years. And a lot of people who most dreaded the day that Hillary might take the oath of office are beginning to unpack their bags.

This year, the issue of experience has regularly emerged as a topic of discussion among the various Presidential candidates. Senator Clinton has made her political experience a central theme of her campaign despite the fact that she has been an elected official for the least amount of time of all the three major candidates. Senator McCain has emphasized his vast combined experience as a military hero from a family of military heroes and his twenty-five year career in Congress. And Senator Obama has dealt with the experience issue by asserting his claim that experience is far less important than good judgment. So, the question that remains is how important is experience to Presidential success? To get an empirical answer to this question, we're going to do a little homework and try to come up with a rather objective answer.

The Experience Factor

Based on the historical rankings of all the U.S. Presidents (the Wall Street Journal 2005 study) compared to their levels of experience prior to taking the high office, the evidence indicates that experience in general isn't in itself an indicator of how successful our Presidents have been in office. However, there is evidence that that the type of experience is extremely important. By dividing our Presidents into groups based on the types of experience they had prior to coming to office, here are some statistical observations:

• Presidents who possessed previous experience as a Government Chief Executive at the state or local level have above-average historical ratings.
• Presidents who did not possess previous experience as a Government Chief Executive at the state or local level have below-average historical ratings.

If we break out the second group, the Presidents who did not have previous government Chief Executive experience prior to taking office, we find a bit more information about the relationship between the types of previous experience these Presidents have had and their legacies as assessed by historians. We can see that:

• The Presidents who didn't have government Chief Executive experience but held some level of governmental executive experience (Vice Presidents, Cabinet Officials, Lieutenant Governors, etc) have had considerably below average ratings by historians.
• The Presidents who didn't have government Chief Executive experience but held Military Executive level positions (i.e., they were Generals) also had below-average ratings. However, they were rated better than the above group.
• The Presidents who didn't have any type of executive experience were rated above average. But there were only four of them. And this group included Lincoln, who is rated so highly that he raised the average for the group substantially (otherwise this group of Presidents would have been rated about average).
• All of the subgroups of Presidents who didn't have prior Government Chief Executive Experience have a lower median rating than that of the Presidents who did have prior Chief Executive experience.

Methodology

These numbers are based on the poll that the Wall Street Journal did in 2005 with a bipartisan group of Presidential historians (equal numbers of liberals and conservatives). The poll took the average rating for each President and gave them ratings ranging from 1 (the best) to 40 (the worst). The reason that the range is 1-40 instead of 1-43 is because one President held two nonconsecutive offices (Cleveland) and is regarded as our 22nd and 24th President while two other Presidents (W.H. Harrison and Garfield) served less than seven months in office and weren't rated. And to be able to positively correlate years of experience (where a higher number indicates more years) with historical ratings, I inverted the 1-40 scale used by the Wall Street journal by subtracting 41 from their rating. This means that in our conversation, a score of 40 indicates the highest rated President (Washington) and 1 indicates the lowest-rated President (Buchanan). This makes it easier to determine the relationship between years of experience and the President's rating by historians.

Of course, a historian's view of a President is not by any means a perfect measure of a President's performance in office. On the one hand, historians, like all other people, may be biased - something that was mitigated by the fact that a large number of historians were polled and the group was balanced across ideology. Secondly, the way that Presidents are viewed can change drastically over time but become more settled as the decades pass. Thirdly, President Bush was rated although his term is not yet expired; his rating (22) does not reflect at least the last two years of his term based on the time that it was conducted (2005). However, all the Presidents other than Bush and Clinton have been out of office for at least 15 years and the information in the survey gives us a broad picture of how the different Presidents are regarded by a broad group of historians.

A look at our leaders

It's pretty clear by simply looking at the historical reviews of our Presidents that the best leaders have been those who were Chief Executives prior to coming to office. Let's take a quick but closer look at our Presidents by their pre-presidential experience and the way historians have perceived them.

The Chief Executives

The Presidents who had previously been Chief Executives in Government

In this group, listed from highest ranked to lowest ranked are Franklin Roosevelt (38), Jefferson (37), Theodore Roosevelt (36), Reagan (35), Polk (32), Jackson (31), Wilson (30), Cleveland (29), McKinley (27), Monroe (25), George W. Bush (22), Taft (21), Clinton (19), Coolidge (18), Hayes (17), Carter (7), and Andrew Johnson (4). The median historical ranking for this group is 27 out of 40. Twelve of these seventeen Presidents (70.5%) were rated above "average."

The Non-Chief Executives

The Presidents with no Government Chief Executive Experience but who had Military Executive Experience (i.e., they were Generals)

In this group, listed from highest ranked to lowest ranked are Washington (40), Eisenhower (33), Grant (12), Harrison (11), Taylor (8), and Pierce (3). The median historical ranking for this group is 11.50 out of 40. Two of these six Presidents (33.3%) were rated above "average."

The Presidents with no Government Chief Executive Experience but only lower-level Executive Experience (VP, Cabinet Official, etc)

In this group, listed from highest ranked to lowest ranked are Truman (34), John Adams (28), Lyndon Johnson (23), George H.W. Bush (20), Arthur (15), Van Buren (14), Ford (13), Hoover (10), Nixon (9), Tyler (6), Fillmore (5), Harding (2) and Buchanan (1). The median historical ranking for this group is 13.50 out of 40. Three of these thirteen Presidents (23.1%) were rated above "average"

 
The Presidents with No Prior Executive Experience At All

In this group, listed from highest ranked to lowest ranked are Lincoln (39), Kennedy (26), Madison (24), John Quincy Adams (16), and James Buchanan (1). The median historical ranking for this group is 24 out of 40. Three of these four Presidents (75.0%) were rated above "average".

Number of Years of Experience

And we consider the factor of the number of years of experience a President has had prior to entering office, we find the following:

• Having more total years of experience in government did not make for lead to higher ratings by Presidential Historians. In fact, years of experience has a very slightly negative correlation (-3.27%) to historical ranking. This means that the two are mostly unrelated but those with the most total experience tended to be slightly less well regarded by historians.
• Having more years experience as a legislator also did not lead to higher ratings by Presidential Historians and had a slightly higher negative correlation (-9.98%) to historical ranking. So, while still largely unrelated, through our history, having more experience as a legislator makes it slightly more likely that a President will have a lower historical score. Being a pure legislator - someone who has never served in any of the executive capacities described above - makes it even a little bit less likely (-10.15%).
• However, having more total years of government Chief Executive experience has a positive and notable correlation (36.33%) with historical ranking. Meaning that the longer someone serves as a Chief Executive in government prior to taking the high office, the more highly rated they tended to be as President of the United States.

The Choice of Vice President

Looking at the Presidents in conjunction with their Vice Presidents, we also can make some preliminary conclusions about the impact of Chief Executive experience between the President and Vice President. Looking at the Presidents who had Vice Presidents at some point during their terms in office (John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, and Chester Arthur didn't), we see the following:

• Presidents who were not Chief Executives but who had Vice Presidents who did have Chief Executive experience were rated higher (median of 23.5) than either the "average" President (20.5) or those who were not Chief Executives but didn't have Vice Presidents with Chief Executive experience.
• And looking at all the rated Presidents, we can see that Presidents who either were Chief Executives or had Vice Presidents who were Chief Executives were rated higher (again, median of 23.5) than either the average President or those Presidents who had no experience running a government and were paired with a Vice President who did not have that experience either (13.0).

Closeness to former Presidents

I also decided to investigate the effect of having a close relationship with a former President. Although it is not possible to research who Presidents who are former spouses of Presidents have been rated (there obviously haven't been any), we can check how those who have had a chance to work closely with Presidents (worked directly for) prior to office have been regarded. There are three groups of Presidents here:

• Close Relatives of former Presidents. This includes Benjamin Harrison (grandson of William Henry Harrison), Franklin Roosevelt (whose wife - and distant cousin - was the niece of Theodore Roosevelt), George W. Bush (son of George H.W. Bush), and John Quincy Adams (son of John Adams).
• Former Cabinet Officials and Assistant Cabinet Officials. This includes James Buchanan (former Secretary of State), Franklin Roosevelt (former Assistant Navy Secretary), Herbert Hoover (former Commerce Secretary), and Theodore Roosevelt (former Assistant Secretary of the Navy).
• Former Vice Presidents. This includes Arthur, George H.W. Bush, Truman, Van Buren, Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, Coolidge, John Adams, Lyndon Johnson, Nixon, Theodore Roosevelt, and Jefferson.

All of these Presidents would have conceivably been in a position to have had direct, close access to the decision making of Presidents who served before them. Let's see how they stacked up.

In a nutshell, those with the "secondary" experience of working with and/or being around a former President have been rated just below average by historians. However, Cabinet officials seem to have excelled. But two of those three Cabinet officials, Franklin and Theodore Roosevelt, were also former Governors and fall into the Government Chief Executive category. The other former cabinet officials were Hoover and Buchanan, who were rated poorly.

When you evaluate those with close ties to previous administrations but exclude individuals who also themselves had experience as Government Chief Executives, you end up with a chart like this:

Having close access to a former President without having personal experience in running a government does not suggest based on history that one will make an above-average President.

Those with absolutely no previous executive experience

Of the 40 Presidents who have been rated in the WSJ 2005 study, there have been four Presidents in U.S. History who have no executive experience at all. This does not imply they didn't have experience or talent but that they neither ran a government as Chief Executive, held an assistant Executive position (VP or cabinet position), or were at the General level in the military.

Of the above-average ranked Presidents in this category, Lincoln, widely regarded as the best in history, was unlike most other Presidents. He had little elected experience but had a strong moral conviction and a fierce determination to save the Union even if it meant pursuing an unpopular war. Kennedy came to office never having run a government but had fourteen years of experience as a U.S. Congressman and Senator. Madison had six years experience in the Virginia State Legislature and the Continental Congress.

Of the below-average ranked Presidents in this category, John Quincy Adams had served a single term in the U.S. Senate (not much more than Obama and not much less than Clinton). Buchanan had served as Secretary of State under Jackson and also had served ten years in the U.S. Senate, ten years as a U.S. Representative and two years as a state Representative. But Buchanan is almost universally regarded as the worst President in U.S. History.

Conclusions

I'll pretty much let everyone draw their own conclusions based on how closely experience is correlated to how our presidents have been perceived to have done in office. But a few things are pretty clear to me. The first is that there seems to be no substitute for the experience of personally running a government before becoming the Chief Executive for the entire United States. And the second is that although a number of very good Presidents haven't had this experience, the chances of success and a positive legacy seem to be statistically higher when a President who doesn't have Executive Experience pairs up with a Vice President who does.

You might think by reading my post Life Lesson: The Company You Keep that I'm being hard the Republican Party. I'm not doing that as much as I'm trying to help it. Many pundits have been telling the Republican faithful that the reason for the massive divide between black voters and the GOP is because of Democratic race tricks. And as an African American who hasn't voted for a Democrat at any level in about a decade, I tell you that this may be a part of it but it's not really the problem. The biggest problem is that the GOP, the Party of Lincoln, was also the party of Jesse Helms and a number of other politicians and pundits who have been widely perceived as racist being tolerated and put in positions of great visibility, influence and power for a long period of time. The second biggest problem is that the GOP has not shown an interest in reaching out to black voters with any type of consistency. So, while you may want me to be the rah-rah cheerleader and talk only about how Eisenhower sent in the troops and Lincoln helped end slavery, I have to tell the truth and explain the problem. I do this so that the problem can be solved and the party can stop limiting its own growth and limiting the options of a huge number of potential voters. If you're a die-hard Republican, you may not want to hear this, but you need to hear this. There really is a problem that needs to be fixed. Wounds from a friend can be trusted (Proverbs 27:6).

Think of it: about 65 percent of black voters are conservative or moderate, but 90 percent vote for the liberal Democrats? Why is the GOP comfortable with this? It's time to acknowledge the truth behind the reasons why and change it. Which is why the GOP leaders would be insane not to listen to Mike Huckabee, who totally understands the problem.

Let me do something else to help explain to my white republican friends why black voters abandoned the GOP and ran into the waiting arms of the Democrats. Let's use a scenario example.

Pretend that both Al Sharpton and Rev. Jeremiah Wright ran for and got elected to the U.S. Senate - as Republicans. Politicians have a solemn right to change all their positions at election time, so let's pretend that Sharpton and Wright are now for small government, low taxes, strong military, pro-life. They've GOP'd it up and are saying all the things that you like in terms of positions. And after they get elected, they are put into positions of influence in the Republican Party. After not that long, you find that a lot of the messaging within the party starts to sound a lot like they've been heavily influenced by Msrs. Sharpton and Wright.

One problem: as a white person, you get the distinct feeling when you hear them talk that they don't like people who look like you. As they talk, you feel with almost every sentence that there is an underlying resentment toward you (I'm not making this judgment myself, just repeating what I've heard from others). It's not like all the Republicans give you the feeling that they don't like white people. But these are the guys who they've kinda put in some really high and visible positions. And you're convinced they don't like people like you.

At the same time, the Democrats start reaching out to people like you. You don't agree with all their positions. But they make you feel like they really want your vote. They visit your neighborhoods. They don't have quite as many people in high positions whom you get the feeling don't like you. But best of all, you don't have to regularly hear what you perceive to be tones of contempt directed toward you by these two guys.

If this were the case, wouldn't you become a Democrat? Even if you didn't agree with their ideas as much?

This is exactly what happened to the black voters who supported the GOP for almost a century. A little more than a decade of allowing segregationists who switched parties to run things and ... poof. Gone, baby, gone. And most of us haven't come back.

The Republican Party - or at least what the party should be about (faith, family and freedom) - has better ideas than the Democratic Party. And many black voters agree with those ideas. But the problem is that about two generations of black voters have grown up convinced that Republicans in general just don't like black people (which isn't true) - because of the "Wrights" that have been allowed to have great influence in the party for a long period of time. And we all know that no one listens to ideas from people whom they are convinced are out to get them.

If the GOP is going to grow and truly implement the better ideas that will benefit everyone, it has to start the process of repairing relations with black voters. Which includes three things. First is acknowledging the problem and not just pretending that it doesn't exist and that nothing happened ("Wait a minute! Lincoln! What about Lincoln?"). The second part is pushing the racially divisive people who won't change out of positions of influence - just as I suggested in the previous post. The third thing is ... well, how do I put this ... just showing up. Republican politicians can't afford to be "busy" when they get invited to speak to a group black voters. Especially when they're not generally busy when invited to speak with any other ethnic group. You can't win votes from people you're afraid to talk with.

Again, I know some people don't want to hear this. But those are the people who especially need to hear this.

The Mike Huckabee clips at the Morgan State debate last September 27th should be required viewing for the entire Republican Party. If you follow this guy's advice and do it consistently over time (instead of "reaching out" in 2004 only to permanently cease the efforts the day Ken Mehlman leaves the RNC), the Republican Party will eventually be able to reach out to black voters and do well.

I think we all need to be sure that we've learned an important lesson. The Wright fiasco gives us all an opportunity to learn it.

Are you a white voter who is offended because of Obama's prolonged association with Rev. Wright? Are you upset because of the fact that he tolerated a person who, while not using racial epithets (that I've heard), seemed to be full of bitterness, anger and hints of racial intolerance? And even though Obama himself has never tried to make race a point of division and has personally said all the right things about race relations, do you find yourself suspicious of him because for such a long period of time he allowed a person who seemed to have his mind stuck in an earlier and darker time period to be counted among his associates?

Well, you might mark this moment on your calendar. Because if you haven't before, you now finally understand the real reason why in general, black voters have resisted the GOP. With your own emotional response to the Wright issue, you've figured out why although 65 percent of black voters consider themselves conservative or moderate, about 90 percent voted for a liberal Democrat instead during the last two Presidential elections.

Let me explain. The number one comment I've heard by black voters in describing the GOP is a belief that the party is racist. Which I insist is not true - and I also insist that Obama isn't a racist either. But the Republican Party has had a number of its own "Rev. Wrights" who have been tolerated too long and who often haven't been denounced. And just as many white voters don't understand how Obama could have abided the influence of such a person for a long period of time, many black voters don't understand how the GOP could have abided the presence of racially divisive people in influential party positions for such a long time. In both cases, many people make the conclusion by association that if a person or an organization willingly associates with a person who seems to be a racist, they or it also may be racist.

And from this we learn an important life lesson. The importance of watching the company we keep. Because no matter how many of the right things we personally say, when we tolerate the presence of people who are racially divisive, there is danger that people may confuse their message with ours. And this applies both to people and to political parties.

I would argue that there are a lot of "Rev. Wrights" in the country. By that, I mean that there are a lot of people who make racially divisive and offensive remarks, even if they don't explicitly use epithets. These people have different skin colors, different political affiliations, different occupations and live in different places. What unites them, though, is a deep sense of racial resentment and a deeper "us versus them" mentality - where "us" and "them" are defined by racial and ethnic barriers. There are racists of all skin colors and they substitute different words in the sentences they use to communicate their feelings. But all of their thinking patterns are quite similar.

And so when I say that the GOP has had its own share of "Rev. Wrights," I mean that over the course of the last 48 years, it has allowed some very interesting characters to gain positions of influence and power within the party. In general, these people have not explicitly used racial epithets but have been widely perceived to communicate the same type of wide-scale resentment that we've heard from Wright. For one example among several, many black voters have at least as negative perception of former Senator Jesse Helms (whom columnist David Broder called the "last prominent unabashed white racist politician in this country") as many white voters have about Wright. And the question they've asked of Obama is the same question many black voters have asked about the GOP. How can you tolerate the presence of people like that for so long? If you esteem so and so into a position of influence, speak well of them, cater to them, get advice from them, doesn't that also make you ...

You probably get the point.

The Democrats also have had their own share of Rev. Wrights. The party was practically controlled by racists earlier in the 20th century (in 1924, the Democrats in their National Convention came within one vote of writing support for the Ku Klux Klan in the party platform). And even while Hillary Rodham Clinton may gloat about Obama's predicament, my mind drifts to one of her husband's mentors, J. William Fulbright, who had been a segregationist who attempted to filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (in fairness, toward the end of his career, he did vote for a civil rights bill). I don't believe for one second that either of the Clintons are racists. However, I've never heard of them disavowing him. In fact, in 1996, then President Clinton in a White House ceremony praised Fulbright as "my mentor and friend." And let's not forget that when Jimmy Carter was running for President in 1976, he still belonged to a church that didn't allow blacks to be members.

I'll state for the record again: I don't believe that the Republican Party is racist.  I don't believe Obama is a racist. And I don't believe that Bill or Hillary Clinton are racists. But all of the above have had close associations with their own versions of "Rev. Wright" in some way or another. And for the most part, they have not been willing to disavow them until (in some cases) they've had to.

But the problem is that whenever you have a close relationship with someone and that person drips of deep racial resentment, people can mistake that person's message for yours. Even if you've said and done all of the right things yourself. Whether you call that divisive person "Pastor" or "My friend, the Distinguished Gentleman," there is still opportunity for people to be confused by your close association with that person.

And so it is time for all of us to clean the skeletons from all our closets. Both individuals and the political parties. It's time for both individuals and political parties to actually learn something here. And it's time to disavow all the "Rev. Wrights", regardless of their skin color or party affiliation. We badly need racial reconciliation and healing. And we all need to push aside those who aren't willing to get on board.

Never be so blind to the faults of a racially divisive person that you allow them to become attached to you or to your cause. Regardless of whether they are your "crazy uncle" or your "dear friend and colleague."

Please read the follow-up post: My Republican Friends, Meet Your New Party Leadership for a bit more on this.

Thanks to Ken for pointing this out.

Has it been a little while since you've heard a prominent African American personality  in the mainstream media going on and on for ten minutes about how much he respects and likes a Republican candidate. It's been a while, right?  You'd have to go back to ... nineteen ninety never. This is another example of why Huckabee is the best thing to happen to the Republican Party since Reagan. He can expand the Republican Party ... without the party compromising on conservative values.

The Republican Party with him in a leadership position has the ability to close the stupid racial gap that was initiated by the "southern strategy" and by the segregationist Democrats switching parties and gaining influence in the GOP. And in addition, the other guy from Hope is no longer regarded to be officially black anymore. The GOP has an opportunity and I hope they make the long-term commitment to fix the issue. Huckabee understands how to reach across the racial divide and build bridges that need to be built.

Tavis says so many positive things about Huckabee (with a couple obligatory swipes at Republicans that are sort of required in the MSM) that I can practically imagine him posting on Huck's Army.

According to a information by the University of California Berkeley, there is some interesting information about the ideological identity of African American voters. According to the study:

• 3.6% of African American voters describe themselves as "extremely conservative"
• 10% of African American voters describe themselves as "conservative"
• 12.4% of African American voters describe themselves as "slightly conservative"

So, it would seem that about 26% of of the black voters polled consider themselves somewhere between "extremely conservative" and "slightly conservative". And in addition to this, 38% of the black voters polled considered themselves moderate. 35% of black voters polled considered themselves somewhere between "extremely liberal," "liberal" and "slightly liberal."

This compares with 35.6% of the white voters polled who consider themselves conservative, 38.8% of the white voters who consider themselves moderate, and 25.7% of the white voters who considered themselves liberal.

These numbers suggest that there is not as great an ideological divide between the races as many would suggest.

HOWEVER, when you compare this information to the CNN exit polls for 2000 and 2004, you see that for black voters, ideology isn't reflected in voting patterns. No matter the position on the political spectrum, black voters tend to vote for Democrats. And it's not because of ideology but because of long-term relationship damage between the GOP and black voters.

In 2004, 88% of black voters voted for Kerry and 11% voted for Bush. The same year, 41% of white voters voted for Kerry and 58% voted for Bush. In 2000, 90% of black voters voted for Gore and 9% voted for Bush while 42% of whites voted for Gore and 54% for Bush.

Think about it. 64% of black voters described themselves as either conservative or moderate compared to 74.4% of white voters. Not such a big gap. But yet, the black vote goes almost exclusively to the Democrats while the white vote goes slightly toward the Republicans.

I'll tell you the truth as a black conservative. It's not just about Democratic exploitation of the racial divide, yada yada yada, or any of the other reasons that your typical "conservative" media pundit puts out there. This mismatch is largely because of a 48 year-old rift between the Republican Party and black voters. There is an entire generation of black voters who were brought up to believe that Republicans don't like us - and there have been more than a few politicians and pundits in the party who have either strengthened or at least not quelled this perception. And it doesn't take a genius from looking at the numbers and being aware of the history to figure out that there are a lot of conservative or at least non-liberal black voters who vote for the Democrats because they're not Republicans. This rift is costing the GOP many conservative votes that are just being lost but that they might otherwise have been able to get. And a notable portion of it is being lost because many Republican candidates haven't even bothered to ask for our vote.

Isn't it time to end this lose-lose situation? Black voters are losing because no one is competing for our vote (and because of the harm of a number of liberal social and economic policies espoused by the Democratic Party). Republicans are losing because the shifting demographics and attitudes are making it impossible for a party that looks to many to be ethnically monolithic from doing as well in the 21st century as it did in the latter part of the 20th century.

It's time for the GOP leadership to make a sustained, dedicated and long-term effort to reach out to black voters and, over time, undo the damage of Richard Nixon and the "southern strategy." It will take a long time. But the alternative is bad for both the GOP and for blacks. And for America. Political parties need to make it extremely clear that they're really, sincerely interested in getting their message out to all voters. We don't bite.

Former Arkansas Governor and Presidential Candidate Mike Huckabee gets it. He understands. Listen to his comments in the GOP debate at Morgan State University last year. The GOP would be well advised to listen to him and follow his advice on repairing the damage. This way, the Republican Party can eventually expand the pool of conservative voters instead of hoping and praying for the single-digit electoral vote margins that are the hallmark of an unhealthily divided country.

Sometimes, to explain why something that makes no sense indeed makes no sense, it is useful to come up with analogies that can be applied more directly to our lives. And since one of the more ridiculous things that we all deal with is the Federal Income Tax code, let's imagine a world in which we get our wages from our employers the same way the government gets taxes from us.

Real Life		Our Example (To show why the real life situation makes no sense)

The Tax Code

As we all know, we all have a responsibility as citizens to pay our taxes. But the amount of taxes we all pay are computed with an incredibly long, hard to determine and hard to enforce set of formulas known as the Tax Code. The organization that enforces the Tax Code by collecting the money we owe the government is the Internal Revenue Service. Because the Tax Code is so complex, it costs American citizens and businesses as much as $692 billion a year (which is about 5% of our national GDP) just to figure out what we owe the government - not including the cost of the taxes themselves.

It costs the government 44 cents for every $100 we pay in taxes for them to figure out what we owe them and to make sure we pay it. But, because of the complexity of the Tax Code, it's easy for us to make mistakes or to cheat and it's also easy for the government to not notice. And so the government fails to collect $300 billion of what we owe it.  By its own estimation, it only manages to take in 88 cents for every dollar it is owed.

And we know that the complex tax formula is based on a percentage of the income we make and that that as we earn more money, we have to pay an even higher percentage of our wages in taxes. Because of this, people try to earn as much money as they can without earning too much - to avoid falling into a higher tax bracket. But because the Federal government taxes income and the economy grows by spending, the system itself also suffers when people try to earn less than they are capable of earning.

Sound pretty accurate so far? So, let's miniaturize the Federal Income Tax system into an example that fits even more into our everyday lives. We'll imagine a world in which we get our paychecks in the same way that the Federal Government gets paid by us. This will help to see why our current system works against everyone's best interests.

In both cases, both the payers and the payees have to do a lot of work in order to figure out what is owed. In both cases, it costs a lot of money for both parties to do the math and paperwork associated with the payment. It costs the payers as much as 5% of their total spending and it takes the payees $0.44 off of every $100 collected. In both cases, the payer pays a graduated amount based on the amount of the payee's income. This gives the payer a disincentive from earning too much money. This ultimately hurts both the payer and the payee. And in both cases, because of the incredible complexity of the formula for figuring out what is owed, the intermediary is unable to collect all that the payer actually owes to the payee. They only manage to collect about 88 cents on the dollar. In our fictitious system, everybody loses.Just like the one we have in place today.

The Salary Code

Imagine the following scenario: we're all employed by a particular company. Our employer has a responsibility to pay us for working just as we have a responsibility as citizens to pay our taxes to the government. But let's pretend that the amount of our salaries is no longer a nice and easy-to-understand rate. And instead of being paid by the hour, week or year, our employers have to use an extremely complex set of rules for each of us in order to figure out what to pay us. We'll call these rules the Salary Code. And because the code is so complex, we need to use an intermediary (we'll call it the Individual Revenue Service) to make sure that our companies are paying us what we've really earned. It costs our employer a ton of money to figure out what they owe us. In fact, the company spends 5% of all its expenditures just to do all the payroll math and paperwork.

If our salary ended up being the U.S. Median Household Income, it would cost us $213 a year to pay the Individual Revenue Service to try to check the complex math and ensure our company pays us what it should. However, because the Salary Code is so complicated, it is possible for our employer to underpay us, either accidentally or intentionally. And although our Individual Revenue Service tries hard to make sure we get our full wages, it only collects an average of 88% of what we should get. This inefficiency costs us $5,741.22 a year.

The Salary Code computes our paychecks based on a small percentage of the company profits. However, as the company earns more money, the higher the percentage of the company profits we get to take, which is great for us. However, the company execs know this, are smart people, and want to give away as little money as possible. So they try to manage the company so that while it is profitable, it doesn't earn too much money. They try to keep the profit level lower than the point at which they'd have to give us a higher share of the earnings. This tendency of theirs hurts us because since we get a percentage of the profits and they try to keep the profits from getting too high, our paychecks don't grow as much as they could.

Another bad thing is because the company has to spend the 5% of all the money it spends on everything just to compute and prepare our paychecks according to the Salary Code - not including what they actually pay us - they really don't have money to give us raises when we need more money. And if we were to all demand a raise from them, they'd have to cut back on spending for other things. They couldn't invest in the things that might otherwise make the company more profitable. And because we get a percentage of the company's profits, when the company can't spend to invest in things to make the company grow, we don't take in as much money as we otherwise could.

Does this make sense?

Can you see the problems that this crazy pay scheme would cause if our company were to implement it? We, the workers, have such a complex salary structure that we've got to spend time and money to meticulously check the math to make sure that our companies are not cheating us. It's so complicated that we need an intermediary to help collect it for us. And even then, we miss a significant part of what we're owed.

Our company suffers because they have to spend even more time and money in making sure that they comply with the very complicated rules for computing our salary. They can face heavy fines and potential legal trouble if they're wrong and so they dedicate a significant amount of resources to figure out what they owe us. Their commitment to the massive payroll math takes away from the time and money they could be using to make the company even more profitable. And because they're not as profitable as they could be, this also hurts our bottom line, along with the fact that they're given a disincentive for earning too much money (because they'd have to pay us a higher share).

A better idea

Now here is a great idea. What if our company instead simply chooses to "pay as they go" and pay us per hour/day/week/year that they employ us. The nice thing about this is that the salary is a lot easier to figure out both for them and for us than the Salary Code, which takes both them and us a lot of effort to double check. And although we don't get a teensy-weensy portion of the company profits - something that would actually hurt us if we did get because the bosses might try not to earn too much so they don't pay us a bigger teensy-weensy portion - we at least know that we're going to get paid.

The company doesn't have to spend such a massive amount of investment in just figuring out what to pay us. So, this means that they might have money to eventually give us raises or at least to invest in the things that will help the company be more stable - which could help us to have better job security.

We don't need to constantly worry that the company is playing games with us and trying to cheat us out of money. We no longer need a middleman to pour over the extremely long Salary Code and figure out what we are owed and trying to resolve discrepancies. And because there is no longer a salary code but just an easy-to-understand salary that we get paid as we work, we don't miss out on lots of money that we otherwise would. I say this because as good as the Individual Revenue Service is, they still only manage to collect from the company eighty eight percent of what our salary should be. Now, we'll get all of it.

Do you think this simpler idea, which is probably how you get paid now, is better than the insanely complex system that we described above? If you like the simpler system, whether you realize it or not, you are in firm agreement with some of the main ideas of the Fair Tax.

Just because we're all used to the Income Tax and have been living with it for 95 years doesn't mean that it makes any sense.