Not going negative, seriously

Huckabee detractors are yuk-yuking about his decision not to air a negative ad about opponent Mitt Romney. Various reporters in the MSM are providing all the ammo necessary. (here, here), but most of what I was hearing was opinion or impression--not illegitimate, but it's still subjective.

So I was intrigued to read Jim Geraghty's (of National Review) impression of this event. The Campaign Spot on National Review Online. From the post, in reference to Huck's interview with Blitzer:

"I didn't see anything of the anger or wackiness in Huckabee that others described in his press conference appearance earlier today. And I think the 'no negative ads' pledge will be catnip for exhausted Iowans. His rivals had better bring their A-game, because this guy isn't going to drop the ball as the clock winds down..."

Getting the full fiscal picture

It is not easy to sift through the information and insinuations and invective of a campaign. But it is necessary if you want to make an informed decision.

Mitt Romney has been airing an ad about Huckabee's spending (with a clarification here). My conclusion? When fiscal apples are compared to fiscal apples, Huckabee looks pretty much like his opponents in the GOP primary.

Not that this Romney ad is exceptionally unfair or inaccurate or that I don't think Mitt Romney would be a fine president, but I think that accusations that Huckabee is a spendthrift and an economic "Liberal" are hyperbolic.

Huckering down

Here's an interesting article from The Weekly Standard about Mike Huckabee's (seemingly) increasing populist rhetoric on the stump.

Some of the rhetoric rubs me the wrong way, but I think it matters that he is making the comments in response to an onslaught of recent "vetting" from Romney and others. Getting called "Huckster" or a "Pro-Life Liberal" starts to get on your nerves after a while I'd guess.

But it reminded me of a recent article in National Review about the GOP's apparent challenge in 2008. Lowry and Ponnuru assert that the GOP seems to be answering questions noone is asking and needs to apply Conservative principles to existing problems and existing "realities." I use the quotation marks because political "realities" (despite the meaning of the word) are rather subjective and often used to rationalize departing from orthodoxies.

The Lowry/Ponnuru article didn't resonate at first, but I can see how--and perhaps why, Huckabee's campaign is striking a chord with voters . . . even though it isn't striking a chord with me in those particular aspects.

For three decades, the Republican party has absorbed increasing numbers of socially conservative working-class and middle-class voters while losing affluent social liberals — until the 2006 elections, in which Republican totals fell among every category of voter except for full-spectrum conservatives. The most plausible path toward a renewed center-right majority involves consolidating and deepening the trend of the decades before 2006: holding on to as much of the existing conservative coalition as possible while adding more downscale voters who lean right on social issues.

That task will force conservatives to explain how free-market policies can address the economic anxieties of this group of voters. We don’t have to support “universal coverage” on health care. But we ought to talk more about health care than about the budget; and when we talk about health care, we should explain how Republican policies will help people keep and control their own health care. We don’t have to abandon attempts to reform the tax code and to drop the top tax rate. But we should put much more effort into providing tax relief for middle-class parents. We don’t have to open the borders. But we should make it clear that our immigration policy isn’t based on anger. We don’t have to give up on the idea that sometimes the U.S. must fight wars, even going it alone; but we need to persuade people that we see unilateral military action as a last resort — that we’re not spoiling for a fight.

Also at WisdomisVindicated.

Speaking of context

As the post below notes, context is crucial in weighing the merits of an accusation or claim in political campaign. I had read this info about Romney's "tough on crime" ad running against Huckabee in Iowa, and had dismissed it as typical campaign rhetoric; however, in light of my post about Huckabee's fiscal record, I thought it was significant to point out the pitfalls of comparing the "apples" of one candidate's record with "oranges" of another candidate's record.

From the Newsweek article: "Romney launched another negative ad in Iowa this week, where the Republican presidential candidate has been battling the new front-runner, Huckabee. This time, Romney attacks Huckabee’s record on methamphetamine laws and the clemencies he granted as governor of Arkansas. We found that:

The ad says Romney “got tough on drugs like meth” while governor of Massachusetts, but the legislation he supported never passed, and his state’s laws are much weaker than Arkansas’. Convicted meth dealers face both minimum and maximum prison terms in Arkansas that are four times longer than those in Massachusetts.

The ad misrepresents news articles, implying that they supported Romney’s actions as governor when that’s not what the news organizations said. One article, in fact, gave critical views of Romney’s refusal to issue a pardon."

Hat tip, SaveTalkRadio.

Cross-posted at WisdomisVindicated.

Perspective on Huckabee's fiscal record

I'm not sure how I missed this op/ed, but I was surprised to learn more about Mike Huckabee's fiscal proclivities from Dick Morris ("Huckabee is a Fiscal Conservative"). Here's the opening paragraph:

As Mike Huckabee rises in the polls, an inevitable process of vetting him for conservative credentials is under way in which people who know nothing of Arkansas or of the circumstances of his governorship weigh in knowingly about his record. As his political consultant in the early '90s and one who has been following Arkansas politics for 30 years, let me clue you in: Mike Huckabee is a fiscal conservative.

Context or perspective is the antidote to lying with statistics, and it is the challenge of any voter to get proper context/perspective when considering the claims and accusations of a primary campaign. And the accusations will only multiply and intensify as a candidate is perceived as a threat.

Tip o' the hat to SaveTalkRadio.com

Cross-posted at WisdomisVindicated.

What about the supraliminal message?

It's hilarious that some people are complaining about the "subliminal" message in Mike Huckabee's latest TV ad--the "floating cross" Huckabee Stands by Christmas Ad:

"Catholic League president Bill Donahue said Huckabee went beyond wishing people a joyous holiday. Donahue said he was especially disturbed by the cross-like image created by a white bookcase in the background of the ad, saying he believed it was a subliminal message."

Well, here's the copy from the ad:

"Are you about worn out by all the television commercials you've been seeing, mostly about politics? Well, I don't blame you. At this time of year sometimes it's nice to pull aside from all of that and just remember that what really matters is the celebration of the birth of Christ and being with our family and friends."

Yikes. I can only imagine how worried these critics are about the supra-liminal message of the ad.

On the other hand, maybe the "floating cross" is a "coded" threat to America's atheists.

cross-posed at WisdomisVindicated.

Huckabee's newfound accusers

Great reporting about Huckabee and the infamous Dumond parole case in the New York Times:

"As new polls highlight Mike Huckabee’s ascent in the Republican presidential field, he is drawing new scrutiny of his record in Arkansas, particularly his actions in the release of a convicted rapist who went on to murder a woman . . .
Two former parole board members in Arkansas said yesterday that as governor, Mr. Huckabee met with the board in 1996 to lobby them to release the convicted rapist, Wayne DuMond, whose case was championed by evangelical Christians. “He expressed his concerns about DuMond’s guilt,” said Deborah Suttlar, a former parole board member. “He felt he deserved to be released.” Mr. DuMond later went on to murder a Missouri woman after his parole. He died in prison of natural causes in 2005. Mr. Huckabee, a former Southern Baptist pastor, has denied that he had any involvement in Mr. DuMond’s release, pointing out that he had refused to commute the sentence and that the parole board freed him. But The Los Angeles Times reported yesterday that three of the seven members of the parole board said Mr. Huckabee had pressured them, echoing earlier reporting by The Arkansas Times and other local news media."

The credibility of the folks on the parole board, however, is questionable, based on this report.

Mr. DuMond was convicted in the 1984 rape of a teenager who was a distant cousin of Bill Clinton, then the governor of Arkansas. While he was out on bail awaiting trial, Mr. DuMond said men forced his way into his home and castrated him, but the authorities said they thought he might have castrated himself in a play for sympathy. He was sentenced to life in prison.

Mr. Clinton’s successor, Jim Guy Tucker, found the sentence excessive and cut it to 39 ½ years, making Mr. DuMond eligible for parole.

While Mr. DuMond was in prison, the Rev. Jay D. Cole, a Baptist pastor and friend of Mr. Huckabee’s, ministered to him, and the inmate later said he had found God.

Mr. Cole said yesterday that he asked Mr. Huckabee to look into the case. “I think Mike was very torn about the whole thing,” Mr. Cole said. “I feel he felt an innocent man was in prison, or if not, he had been in prison too long. But he didn’t come out and say that.”

Nevertheless, soon after taking office, Mr. Huckabee met in October 1996 with members of the parole board, all of whom had been appointed by his Democratic predecessors. Mr. DuMond’s case, with its twists and turns — including a $110,000 judgment against a sheriff who kept Mr. DuMond’s testicles in a jar on his desk — had become something of a celebrated cause among conservative activists, who charged that Mr. Clinton’s relation to the victim had led to Mr. DuMond’s being railroaded.

The parole board meetings are public, but after Mr. Huckabee arrived, the board chairman closed the meeting to everyone except board members. What happened next is in dispute.

A request for a pardon was being considered at that point by Mr. Huckabee, who came out in favor of it. That caused an outcry among some, including the rape victim, who went to his office to ask him to change his mind.

Mr. Huckabee later denied Mr. DuMond clemency, but wrote a letter to him. “Dear Wayne,” he wrote. “My desire is that you be released from prison. I feel that parole is the best way for your reintroduction to society to take place.”

When Mr. Huckabee met with the parole board, according to Ms. Suttlar and Charles Chastain, another board member, he said he wanted to talk to them about a specific case and raised the issue of Mr. DuMond unprompted.

“I’ve looked into this a good bit,” Mr. Chastain recalled Mr. Huckabee saying to them. “I feel he may just be a fellow from the wrong side of the tracks and gotten a raw deal.”

Ms. Suttlar yesterday accused Mr. Huckabee of compromising “the integrity of the parole board.” She was somewhat more lenient in an interview with The Associated Press in 2001, when she said the pressure from Mr. Huckabee “was not coercion, it was an implied thing.”

Olan W. Reeves, who served as Mr. Huckabee’s chief counsel and attended the meeting, said that it was meant only to introduce the new governor to the board and that Mr. DuMond’s case came up when a board member challenged him on his support for clemency.

“He didn’t go over there to talk to them about that,” Mr. Reeves said yesterday. “The governor in Arkansas has nothing to do with parole.”

The board voted 4 to 1 several months later to parole Mr. DuMond, with Mr. Chastain casting the lone dissenting vote, after having denied his freedom repeatedly in previous years. Two board members, including Ms. Suttlar, abstained. She said yesterday she chose not to vote because she was disgusted by what she described as behind-the-scenes lobbying by Mr. Huckabee to have Mr. DuMond released.

But she previously told The Associated Press that she did not vote because Mr. DuMond had accused her of racial bias. She is black, and Mr. DuMond is white.

Mr. Huckabee said at a news conference in Iowa last week that he regretted the entire incident, reiterating that he did not pressure the board to “do anything.”

“I can’t fix it,” he said of the episode. “I can only tell the truth and let the truth be my judge.”

(emphasis added)


Also posted at WisdomisVindicated.

Is Huckabee NOW ready for prime time?

This AP report is going to cause a buzz Huckabee wanted to isolate AIDS patients - Yahoo! News. From the AP article (hat tip, TennViews):

"Mike Huckabee once advocated isolating AIDS patients from the general public, opposed increased federal funding in the search for a cure and said homosexuality could 'pose a dangerous public health risk.'

As a candidate for a U.S. Senate seat in 1992, Huckabee answered 229 questions submitted to him by The Associated Press. Besides a quarantine, Huckabee suggested that Hollywood celebrities fund AIDS research from their own pockets, rather than federal health agencies."

Newscoma posting at TennViews headlines it "New Revelations of the Real Mike Huckabee." I was kind of surprised at the candor reflected in the answers reported in the article, but I agree that the quarantine suggestion and the "put your money where your mouth is" reference to Hollywooders are lacking in propriety (for a candidate). Other than that, however, I don't think this is going to scare off anyone seriously open to voting for Huckabee. And his views have changed or moderated in some senses since making those comments. And some of the views expressed didn't need changing, frankly.

But as far as the "real (cue sinister instrumental) Mike Huckabee" reference: 15 years is a long time in a political life, and surely elitists can find it in their heart to let Huck evolve :) on how public policy interacts with personal views?

Cross-posted at WisdomisVindicated.

Mealy-mouthed Huckabee

One of the things I've been hearing--in light of Romney's "Faith in America" speech, is criticism of Mike Huckabee's answers of late to the question, "Do you think that Mormons are Christians?"

Here's a typical example, from a Time Mag. blog, Huckabee Stirs the Mormon Issue. For the record, I like Huckabee, probably more than any of the other candidates. And one reason I like him is plain ol' affinity--I perceive that more than any other candidate, he shares my worldview. And while I'd say that he more "mature" in the faith than me in a variety of ways, I don't think he is "right" on every issue of public policy. A single interpretation of the Christian Scriptures (or even "spiritual truth," generally) can have many different applications.

All that being said, I want to defend Huckabee on accusations that he is being mealy-mouthed or "stirring it up" in his answers about Christianity and Mormonism. Take this quote for example:

CBSNews.com: ‘Do you believe that Mormonism is a legitimate form of Christianity?’

Gov. Huckabee: ‘You know, Mormonism is a faith that people adhere
to. And I think people ought to respect anybody’s faith. I am not all
that familiar with the intricate details. I have enough trouble keeping
up with my own faith. So, I do not spend lots of time trying to
evaluate somebody else’s.’

CBSNews.com: ‘But do you think they’re real Christians?’

Gov. Huckabee: ‘Once again, I am not going to try to judge. That is
for them to determine whether they accept Jesus Christ as the only
revelation of God on Earth. And, if they do, then that is how a person
is a Christian, not by the label they wear, but by the position they
take on the role and the personhood of Christ.’

This might be difficult for non-Christians to understand, which is understandable :), but Evangelicals don't use the term "Christian"--especially in the context of the above Huckabee quote, to mean "moral" or "not Jewish" or "not Muslim" or "American" or "like me." Huckabee gives the Biblical definition of "being a Christian." Given the difficult-to-discern-about-others nature of "belief" and given the imprecision with which many people use religious terms, it is difficult to know where someone stands in relation to the Biblical definition of "being a Christian," but if the shoe fits, where it.

"Stirring it up" would have been giving a categorical statement that "no Mormons" or "all Mormons" believe such and such. But providing one's understanding of the Biblical definition of "being a Christian"--coupled with declining to judge an entire group of people, is what I call "tact." Anyone with half a brain can appreciate how valuable that is in a religiously diverse, tolerant society. Gee, sorry if Huckabee's answers don't provide the saucy soundbite you folks in the MSM (and some folks supporting other candidates) are looking for.

Star Parker on Huck's appeal

(Star Parker: "The unfair rap against Mike Huckabee"): "The Washington Post's David Broder provides one hint about the fuel that might be propelling Huckabee. He says that, according to veteran Democratic pollster Peter Hart, the attributes that are pushing voters' buttons this year are 'transparency, authenticity and unity.' A just-released The Economist/YouGov poll shows Huckabee doing well in these areas. Republican voters rate him first in both honesty and morality."

Cross-posted at WisdomisVindicated.

Huckabee the Religious Conservative consensus candidate?

Jim Geraghty posits that Mike Huckabee may now be the closest thing to a consensus candidate for the Religious Right: The Campaign Spot on National Review Online

WSJ on Huckabee's surge

This is a substantive report about Mike Huckabee's surge in Iowa ("Huckabee's Surge Stirs the Pot in Iowa" - WSJ.com). One thing that the article doesn't mention, but which is reflected in the latest Rasmussen poll report, is the level of commitment of Huckabee supporters . . . though every candidate is inclined to tout the devotion of his or her supporters, Conservative Evangelicals are pretty loyal, and that is where Huckabee's surge is coming from.

One other thing that stood out to me from the article. As I look at each of the Republican candidates, I think they are most appealing when they demonstrate their willingness not to pander. I think that is a strength of Thompson, of Giuliani and definitely of Huckabee. From the article, referring to Huckabee's latest TV ad in Iowa:

"I don't have to wake up every day wondering what do I need to believe," the former Baptist pastor says, as the words "Christian Leader" appear on the screen. He adds, "Let us never sacrifice our principles for anybody's politics."

That message appeals to Scott Filline, a pilot from Chicago, who stopped by the Des Moines Huckabee office Tuesday to pick up yard signs and literature. "Initially it was his religious views, because I'm a Christian, too," Mr. Filline said. "I like the fact that he's honest, not afraid to say what he believes."

Easy now, fredhead

The Corner has a post about a trigger-happy fred thompson blogger's attack on Huckabee.

(Another) Poll finds Huckabee at Romney's heels

Apparently Huckabee has reached a pleasant polling plateau("Poll finds Huckabee at Romney's heels"--DesMoinesRegister.com):

"A new poll of likely Republican caucus participants shows that former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has nearly pulled even with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, the Iowa front-runner. According to the American Research Group poll, taken Saturday through Wednesday, Romney is backed by 26 percent of likely caucusgoers and Huckabee by 24 percent. Fighting it out for third place are former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson, each favored by 11 percent, and Arizona Sen. John McCain at 10 percent."

I don't think Chuck Norris is acting

If you hadn't heard, Chuck Norris is a big Mike Huckabee supporter, and Huckabee's first TV ad features Norris in a change-of-pace, tongue-in-cheek production--frankly, like a lot of Chuck Norris' showbiz stuff.



Cross-posted at WisdomisVindicated.

More about Huckabee and Immigration

Marc Ambinder in his Atlantic.com blog posts about recent shots across Romney's bow on the issue of immigration. Marc Ambinder (November 14, 2007) - Huckabee Makes The First Move On Immigration:

"Kind of surprising: given how important the immigration issue to Mitt Romney's chances in Iowa, you'd think that he, and not challenger Mike Huckabee, would be the first to force a debate... and get personal."

It's an interesting read.

And it is significant to understand Huckabee's position on this issue . . . from an op/ed by Huckabee supporter Chuck Norris:

Gov. Mike did not offer blanket in-state tuition breaks to the children of illegal immigration. He tried to prevent penalties to high school students, even those whose parents brought them over illegally, who were aspiring to obtain challenging academic scholarships. He espoused that these competitive benefits were open to illegals too, "if they were willing to apply and become legal citizens."

Huckabee explained the drive behind his decision:

[My] position was and remains that you do not punish a child for the crime of the parent. If a child is in the back seat of a car when a father drives drunk, it's perfectly appropriate to put the father in the drunk tank, but you don't put the child in the drunk tank. If a child was brought here when he or she was 5 years old and has gone through our entire education system and has worked hard, learned and made straight As, and has qualified for an Academic Challenge Scholarship, which was a very specific program in the state, and that student has qualified to be able to earn that scholarship, I'd rather that student go to college and become a taxpayer, not simply take some low-end hourly wage job and ultimately be a tax-taker.

Here's a good post on the subject at MikeHuckabee2008 blog.

Cross-posted at WisdomisVindicated.

WWJD?--who would Jesus deport?

I started to write this post several months ago after a presentation at my church. The subject wasn't politics or immigration (it was on leading in an "externally focused" church), but the application to public policy seemed obvious to me: in sum, God is sympathetic to the "alien." Just do a search at bible.com for the term "alien" and you'll see what I mean (you probably need to use a version like the New American Standard Bible because "alien" is perceived as an archaic term these days).

As an aside, my church is unapologetically a "Bible" church--fundamentalist, Evangelical, "conservative," etc. so hearing this message definitely challenged my thinking on the subject. That being said, my church and its leadership are scrupulously a-political. For example, in our 8 years at the church the most political-ish statements I have heard from "the pulpit" are two references to the Biblical definition of marriage and perhaps two pro-life allusions. And that's the way I prefer it, because I don't want the Gospel to be obscured by political or any other messages.

But the point of this post is that I started to feel convicted about my attitude--my public stance on illegal immigration and the ways to address it. While Mike Huckabee has been accused of being "soft" on illegal immigration--actually, the wording is generally not as charitable as that, I have increasingly seen the wisdom in his views on the issue.

To be sure I am an American Exceptionalist, and I am seriously concerned about the erosion of American culture, American traditions and the "American" language--English. I believe America is great, and it isn't great because of fraud or exploitation or its natural resources or "dumb luck" (providence is another discussion) . . . it's because of our ideas and our ideals and our guiding principles, three things that can and are being readily undermined by illegal immigration in my opinion. And I am concerned about the burden of illegal immigration on our country's infrastructure (and am somewhat sympathetic to arguments about cheap labor's negative impact on some American workers), so I appreciate the economics of it all. But even if all these things are true, I don't get a pass from God when deliberating about how to address the problem. The reality is that this is very complicated issue with many ancillary challenges and with deep roots that can't readily be severed. Yes, they're breaking the law by coming to our country without permission and they're not assimilating as much as they ought to be and they breaking the law (oh, I said that one already), but I am pretty much convinced that God's word urges me to view them (the otherwise law-abiding aliens) more compassionately.

Incidentally, another aspect of this issue that jumped out at me several weeks ago was a news report about a convenience store robbery/murder that showed the video surveillance photos of two young Mexican-looking males who had been in the store at the time of the murder. They said these men were not suspects but were believed to have witnessed the murder (I know, I know, sometimes police say similar things about the real suspect in a crime--that wasn't the case here). The thought that crossed my mind was these guys are probably scared to death to come forward about anything they may have seen that night. So for the first time I saw how it could hurt me and other non-illegal aliens for certain people to be driven underground by our immigration policies. But I digress . . .

I would say that this sentiment probably started with defending Dubya from invective rooted in his soft-ish immigration policy. Though I disagree with Bush on various issues, and I even disagreed with him on immigration, I perceive him to be sincere on the subject and I had to acknowledge his consistency (in his first run for President to now) on immigration. As a result, I felt like it was unfair to accuse him of crass motives or of betraying those who elected him.

Regarding Huckabee, perhaps the most frequent throw-away Conservative slam I hear is that he is "terrible on immigration" or something along those lines. His views on illegal immigration are articulated here. But what I've concluded is that in waging the political battle to "solve" the illegal immigration problems I mentioned above, it is important to avoid demonizing people who are here illegally and dealing with the issue. First of all we should keep them from coming into the country through strict border enforcement--this measure has national security implications, too. Next, we need to prosecute persons who willfully subvert our employment laws by employing illegals--such employers are knowingly flouting our laws and are sticking a finger in the eye of law-abiding fellow Americans. And lastly, we certainly should SLAM someone who is in our country illegally and commits a crime. Any measures aside from these seem draconian--or certainly seem easy to characterize as draconian, and don't really balance Christian compassion with wise public policy. Though I don't advocate imposing my religious principles on others, there's no doubt that my religious views (my worldview) should impact how I feel about a given public policy.

And I'll end by saying that so much of this (and politics) is about "tone." Some people will not believe you are resolute if you don't seem angry or outraged. (Indeed, probably the most poignant quote I've heard from Huckabee to date is, "I'm Conservative; I'm just not angry about it.") As a Christian I should not push buttons of voters just to get them riled up. I certainly should not appeal to the Flesh (or base nature) of voters to get them riled up. Illegal immigration is a complicated problem with no easy solution, and Huckabee seems willing to straddle the divide on the issue, resisting the temptation to demagogue or simplistically pander to voters about it.





Here are several Biblical references that have gnawed at me of late:

Lev. 19:34
The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt; I am the LORD your God.

Deuteronomy 10:17-19
For the LORD your God is the God of gods and the Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God who does not show partiality nor take a bribe.

"He executes justice for the orphan and the widow, and shows His love for the alien by giving him food and clothing.

"So show your love for the alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt.

Malachi 3:5

"Then I will draw near to you for judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers and against the adulterers and against those who swear falsely, and against those who oppress the wage earner in his wages, the widow and the orphan, and those who turn aside the alien and do not fear Me," says the LORD of hosts.

Cross-posted at WisdomisVindicated.

What gives?

This story, National Right to Life to endorse Thompson, is peculiar in light of this story, THOMPSON SELF-ABORTS, don't you think?

Huckabee in 3rd in FL

Wow, this poll of registered voters puts Huckabee in third in Florida. ("Clinton, Giuliani keep big leads in Florida" - 11/11/2007 - MiamiHerald.com). I generally ignore anything but likely voter polls, but was surprised to see Huckabee move past two nationally-known figures like McCain and Thompson among registered voters.

What're Ron Paul supporters doing . . .

at a Hillary fundraiser?

Dobson leaning Huckabee?

Interesting report from the American Spectator ("Huckabee's Salvation"):

"Dr. James Dobson, who has largely been made irrelevant to the 2008 Republican presidential race, has apparently found his man, and according to an adviser, is ready to change the landscape of the Republican nomination race.

'He is the leader of the evangelical and social conservative movement in America, and he's going to reassert that position and leave no doubt that he's in charge,' says the adviser based in Colorado.

Sources close to Dobson say that within the next ten days he is coordinating an endorsement plan with the presidential campaign of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. According to a Huckabee insider in Iowa, the event would be staged in that state at a rally, followed by a bus tour across the state, and an appearance by Huckabee on Dobson's radio show, which is heard nationally."

A variety of voices have questioned the significance of Pat Robertson's endorsement of Giuliani, but there's little question about Dobson's enduring influence within the Religious Conservative movement.

Tip o' the hat to The Maritime Sentry.

Cross posted at WisdomisVindicated.

Lead, follow or act like you're leading

I haven't had time the last two days to dig into the subject, but I'm in a bit of a funk hearing about some recent high-profile endorsements: from Pat Robertson, Sam Brownback and Paul Weyrich. Something that has concerned me from the beginning of this presidential election cycle (or the day after the 2006 election when McCain announced his candidacy) was the pressure that some people feel to commit to a candidate early so that they can ultimately be credited with the candidate's success. Too often "leaders" are scrambling to get out in front of an issue or campaign and it is unseemly in my opinion. One of the things that impressed me about a Jeb Bush interview (via Bill Hobbs) was his statement that he wasn't endorsing any of the GOP candidates.

It is almost impossible to discern when a person's motives for endorsing a candidate are less than sterling, so I've focused--with my little soapbox, on preventing poorly-motivated endorsements. But this Huckabee statement on Weyrich's endorsement of Romney brought to mind one of Huckabee's strengths as a candidate . . . his consistency: (Huckabee campaign sets the record straight with Paul Weyrich)

"Former AR Governor and Presidential Candidate Mike Huckabee said he was disappointed that one of his political mentors endorsed another Republican candidate based on information that was factually incorrect. 'I love Paul Weyrich and he has been a political mentor to me. It hurts that he has accepted some misinformation as fact, but I will forever respect and appreciate him. I will continue to support Paul even if he doesn't support me, ' Huckabee said. 'One thing is for sure---when I was a 23 year old communications director for a Christian organization that helped launch Christian involvement in public affairs, Paul Weyrich was one of my heroes and I'll bet in the late 70's and 80's Mitt Romney wasn't listening to cassette tapes of Paul Weyrich speeches like I was. '"

Even when candidates hold views that contradict a certain constituency, I believe they get major credit from voters when they acknowledge that contradiction and don't gloss over it or obfuscate their past or present views. I've noted from the beginning that one of Giuiliani's strengths has been his straightforward handling of "controversial" (within the GOP) policy stances. Unless you're the candidate, no candidate is going to agree with you on everything, so a candidate/potential leader must mitigate the disagreements.

I also think that Huckabee is someone who has been straightforward about perceived disagreements with various constituencies . . . granted it isn't as big of a news story because he hasn't been the front-runner like Giuiliani or Romney and--most importantly, his past and present disagreements (with the base) pale in comparison to those of the others in the "top-tier." But the fact that Huckabee has been so consistent on his views--like them or not, is strong evidence that he hasn't had a "Road to Des Moines" experience and is less likely to have similar "experiences" in the future.

Thompson, talk radio and talking trash

Maybe they're right about talk radio.

This morning I wasted 25 cell phone minutes waiting to speak truth to power on the state-wide talk radio program "Talk of Tennessee" hosted by Steve Gill. As I waited, Gill kept ratcheting up the rhetoric . . . and then the show ended before he took my call. Here's some of what I was going to say:

Gill (who, incidentally, wrote a flattering book about Fred Thompson's likely presidential run: The Fred Factor) was defending Thompson from critics like Mike Huckabee who have been questioning Thompson's convictions on a host of so-called social issues (actually, I had yet to hear of the criticism until Gill spoke about it on the radio--apparently Huckabee is getting some traction in the campaign). Thompson is staking out a position that Federal action on a host of issues is unwise and even--depending on the particular issue, unconstitutional. Well, that's where he's wrong. Or at least Steve Gill is wrong when he asserts that Huckabee doesn't care about the Constitution because he thinks it ought to be amended to protect human life in the womb (Gill also repeatedly questioned the motives and the sincerity of "supposedly pro-life" activists; very insulting, but I don't have time to address that now).

First, the Constitution provides for an amendment process. If a person thinks a right--such as the right to live, ought to be spelled out in the Constitution, then that person can attempt to amend the Constitution to include that right. There are certain principles or rights the protection of which is legitimately not left to the discretion of the States . . . "life" is reasonably considered one of those rights. That's fine if Thompson doesn't think it is, but it is not fine to assert that it is anti-Federalist to acknowledge the existence of such rights or unconstitutional to attempt to amend the Constitution to recognize such rights.

Second, Thompson's reaction (and that of some present supporters) is doing little to assuage the concern of voters who think that abortion is "not a government issue" (as Thompson asserted in his first or something that is okay in some states and not okay in other states. Thompson has been straddling the issue of abortion since entering public life. I really resent someone tearing me a new one for wanting more than a pat answer regarding Thompson's views on an issue that is very important to me.

Which leads me to this WaPo article on the subject. In GOP Race, Blurring the Lines in the Abortion Debate | The Trail | washingtonpost.com:

"The simple way to look at the abortion divide in the Republican race is Rudy against the rest: one abortion rights supporter against a field of abortion opponents. But take a closer look and the distinctions begin to blur -- not in whether other leading candidates support a woman's right to choose or believe abortion should be outlawed in most or all circumstances, but in what each might do about it as president.

On that question, Thompson and Giuliani and the others are not so far apart. This became clearer on Sunday when Thompson appeared on NBC's 'Meet The Press' as part of the candidates' right (sic) of passage with host Tim Russert. Russert grilled Thompson at some length on abortion and in the course of the discussion, Thompson said two things of note:

First, he said that, as a senator, he had a '100 percent pro-life' voting record. Second, he said that he does not support the Republican Party's platform plank on abortion, which calls for passage of a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution."

First, though I'm glad that Thompson voted the "right" on abortion when he was in the U.S. Senate, the National Right to Life Committee's legislative scorecard on abortion (or any scorecard, for that matter) is only useful for predicting how someone would vote (assuming, of course, that the person didn't "evolve" on the issue as is common these days) on issues that came up for a vote before him/her while they were in office. The issues--or aspects of a given issue, can be rather narrow depending on the particular period during which the person served, frankly.

Second, as I detailed above, I hope Thompson (and his supporters) can appreciate that a Pro-life voter views abortion as different than laws on marijuana use or insurance regulation or speed limits. It is reasonable--as Gill argued this morning, to assert that Thompson's idea of a Federalist approach would spare more human life than holding out for a nationwide ban on abortion, but please forgive us for being reticent in acceding to a legal position that we vehemently disagree with.

I may very well end up supporting Thompson out of all those in the current GOP field, but I won't be persuaded by disingenuous and/or pugnacious treatment by him or his supporters.

Cross-posted at WisdomisVindicated.

The Purpose Driven Post

Okay, for those of you who think Rick Warren hung the moon (that is, since he started making greenish comments--by the way, what's with a media company so blatantly propagandizing on controversial Environmental issues? but I digress . . .), here's what he had to say about Mike Huckabee:

“I know most of the candidates running for president but I’ve known Mike Huckabee the longest, since we did our graduate degrees together in the late 70s. Mike’s a man of vision, compassion, and integrity. I’ve watched his uncanny ability to identify with normal people in ways that many leaders don’t. That’s probably why TIME named him one of the five best governors in America. He’s definitely presidential material. But honestly, what I find most appealing is his self-deprecating humor. That’s a key sign of a spiritually and emotionally healthy leader - someone who is comfortable with himself, is authentic, doesn’t wear a mask, and is secure enough to be humble. People love that.”"

Btw, I like Warren and I know this side comment might take some of the sheen off of Warren's glowing comments about Huckabee, but I can't resist commenting on this (grandiose) subtitle on Warren's site: "Want to learn more about Rick Warren's historic plan to tackle the global giants of spiritual lostness, egocentric leadership, poverty, disease, and illiteracy?" Reminded me of this Onion article about John Edwards.

Cross-posted at Wisdomisvindicated.

Jeb Bush on Huckabee

One of the most talented political leaders in the country--two-term former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, weighs in on the GOP field but makes news with his comments about Huckabee:

"'He's a great speaker,' Bush said of Huckabee, a former Arkansas governor. 'And I like governors. He's got a great sense of humor. But he should be taken seriously.' Huckabee should be included among the front-runners for the GOP nomination along with former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Arizona Sen. John McCain, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson, Bush told the Dallas Morning News."

Would Chuck Baldwin vote for Jesus?

I don't know who Chuck Baldwin is, but apparently he is a pastor, apparently he is a Christian and apparently he's backing someone other than Mike Huckabee for president.

Pastor Baldwin, at the Christian site "NewswithViews.com," is casting Mike Huckabee as a bogeyman. (Chuck Baldwin -- "Christians Need To Beware Of Mike Huckabee") As the old political adage goes, it is a good sign when your competition starts aiming for you (or however that old political adage goes); so Huckabee's people can take some comfort at hit pieces like this one. But there is another positive aspect of this op/ed.

Among other damning quotes marshaled in the article is one from Phyllis Schlafly, a pillar of the Social Conservative movement. Chuck Baldwin writes:

"President and Founder of Eagle Forum, Phyllis Schlafly, said this about Governor Huckabee: 'He destroyed the conservative movement in Arkansas, and left the Republican Party a shambles.' She went on to say, 'Yet some of the same evangelicals who sold us on George W. Bush as a 'compassionate conservative' are now trying to sell us on Mike Huckabee.'"

Guilt by association (especially when the principal "guilty" party has acquitted himself ably in many respects to Religious Conservatives) is specious; however, upon reading the quote, I had a question for Schlafly: "Which candidate are the other evangelicals (who sold you on Dubya but are not trying to sell you on Huckabee) trying to sell you on this go 'round?"

And that's the real issue or challenge we face: How do you pick a presidential candidate from among a host of candidates--none of whom are Jesus? (You non-believers can substitute whomever--I won't speculate who, you believe to be the ideal person for "Jesus").

No, I'm not saying that Mike Huckabee is Jesus. But the truth is that every candidate has strengths and weaknesses, and there are a host of political issues about which there is no definitive Christian or Biblical position. Indeed, I would submit that even Jesus (if He were running as a sort of heavenly Manchurian Candidate and we didn't know He was God in the Flesh) would somehow rub each of us the wrong way . . .

hat-tip: Miguel Diocuore.

Cross-posted at WisdomisVindicated.

"Inquisitioning" minds want to know

Hugh Hewitt has a great post ("great" except for his assertions toward the end that Huckabee has been slinging coded, anti-Mormon barbs in the campaign) about arguably illegitimate religious questions being thrown at folks like Huckabee and Romney. ("Mike Huckabee with Bill O'Reilly")

From Hewitt's post:

"The interview was conducted during my show yesterday, so I could only see some text as the mute button was on. I think Bill asked the governor if he really believed in Adam and Eve. The answer doesn't matter to me so much as what the question represents: A huge breach in the previously widely respected understanding that such questions are not asked of presidential candidates and, if asked, politely turned aside as inappropriate in a nation built on the premise that religious tests are unconstitutional in law and that politics is best kept very clear of theological disputes appropriate to church debates and academic settings."

cross-posted at WisdomisVindicated.

My, what pointed questions you have . . .

Huck and Wolf in The Situation Room, wherein Huckabee responds to his critics (in this case, Romney and The Club for Growth).

Know-it-all-ism

Ronald Bailey of Reason Magazine has taken to quoting religious people to impugn Mike Huckabee (Reason Magazine - Hit & Run > "Choosing Between Science and God: The Mike Huckabee Story") . . . "hit and run" is right.

Bailey relies on this exchange from Salon Magazine to score make his point,

A reporter asked Huckabee how he thought his views -- including his view on evolution -- might play in the general election.

"Oh, I believe in science. I certainly do," [Huckabee] said. "In fact, what I believe in is, I believe in God. I don't think there's a conflict between the two. But if there's going to be a conflict, science changes with every generation and with new discoveries and God doesn't. So I'll stick with God if the two are in conflict."

Bailey's quote of Huckabee (not to be confused with the really impressive, though mostly inapposite, quote from St. Augustine that followed) relates to the evolving (though I would probably assert it is simply varying or shifting) nature of science . . . especially given the politicization of science in our day. Huckabee probably should have used the term "scientific hypotheses" instead of "science" but Bailey is just itching to prove "know-nothingism."

And you can save your "NASA scientist [felt uncomfortable] in Bush administration [some of whose members happened to think there might be a God]" links. When I say "politicization" I am referencing the use and abuse of an increasingly sacrosanct field of "science" to support political objectives. Global warming alarmism comes to mind.

Bailey is beside himself in linking to a poll showing that a majority of Republicans say that they don't believe in evolution. Well, if "evolution" means to Republicans what Bailey seems to think it does--that there is nothing beyond the physical or natural world, then I would say that the Republicans (and Americans in general--Democrats weren't far behind Republicans on this point) in question are more open-minded than Mr. Bailey.

cross-posted at WisdomisVindicated.

Huck is GOP foil

Although I do not agree with her assessment that Huckabee cannot win the GOP nomination (a lot can happen between now January), Jennifer Rubin of the New York Observer has a nice piece about Huckabee's role as a GOP foil. ("For Thompson and Romney, Huckabee's Routine Is a Killer"). From the article:

"But beyond all that, Mr. Huckabee is a walking, talking advertisement for his opponents’ flaws. Mr. Romney’s elastic views and slick presentation seems that much worse to social conservatives next to Mr. Huckabee, a Baptist preacher whose fire-and-brimstone invocation of religious values makes the Romney message seem plastic and contrived. And Mr. Thompson, he of the forgettable public appearances, lethargic schedule and distain for retail politics, suffers badly when compared to Mr. Huckabee’s considerable charm and energy. It often seems that Mr. Huckabee is the actor and Mr. Thompson the small-state governor. Mr. Huckabee may not have the profile or resources to win the nomination, but he could do serious damage to two contenders who have yet to get their political acts together. In that regard, he may well live up to his hype."

The Huckabee Boomlet--Dick Morris

Interesting observations from Dick Morris THE HUCKABEE BOOMLET. One paragraph:

"Huckabee, who has risen rapidly without either money or organization, is the most interesting phenomenon in either party's race (and the only surprise). He finished second to Romney in the Ames, Iowa straw poll with 18 percent. That's significant because you had to pay $35 to vote. Romney wrote out checks for anyone and everyone, but Huckabee said, 'I can't afford to buy you. I can't even afford to rent you' - and came in strong anyway."

HT: I Heart Huckabee.

"Traction"

From the folks at Rasmussen Reports™:

"Rudy Giuliani remains precariously atop the pack with support from 20% of Likely Republican Primary Voters nationwide. Fred Thompson is close behind at 19% while John McCain enjoys a second straight day in third place with 14% of the vote. Huckabee continues to gain ground and is just two points behind McCain at 12%. This is the first time all year that Huckabee has surpassed Mitt Romney. The former Massachusetts Governor slipped another point and he is now at just 11% nationally. No other Republican attracts more than 3% support while 18% are undecided. (see recent daily numbers). Given Huckabee’s progress in the polls, Rasmussen Reports will add his results to the daily tracking history table starting on Monday."

(emphasis added). While I think the poll numbers in early primary states are more significant, Huckabee is polling in a virtual tie for second with Thompson in Iowa.



Cross-posted at wisdomisvindicated.

Huckabee second by a hair in on-line poll, first by a mile on-site

Jonathan Martin reports from the "Value Voters Summit"("A tale of two polls" - Jonathan Martin's Blog - Politico.com) :

Mitt Romney was announced from the podium Saturday afternoon as the winner of the Family Research Council’s “Values Voter Straw Poll,” narrowly edging Mike Huckabee.

. . . .

Although the audience at the Washington Hilton was not told, the crowd favorite among the 952 attendees who voted in person turned out to be Huckabee by a mile. He got 51 percent of the in-person votes, compared to just 10 percent for Mitt Romney.

Even in the on-line poll, Romney merely edged Huckabee by .47%. That's less than half a percent.


cross-posted at WisdomisVindicated.

Wow: Huckabee and Thompson tied for second in Iowa

Poll of likely Iowas caucus goers

"The first Rasmussen Reports poll of the Iowa Republican Caucus for 2008 finds former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney enjoying a six-point lead while former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee are virtually tied for second.

Romney attracts 25% of the vote from Likely Caucus Participants, Thompson earns 19%, and Huckabee is at 18% in the poll. National frontrunner and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani is the only other Republican in double digits at 13%. Arizona Senator John McCain, once considered by some to be the GOP frontrunner, gets just 6% of the vote. Kansas Senator Sam Brownback (3%), rounds out the field with Congressmen Tom Tancredo (2%), Ron Paul (2%), and Duncan Hunter (1%). Eleven percent (11%) are undecided (see crosstabs)."

Liberal jaws dropping 'round the world.

Well, it has been less than a week since Liberals appear to have first realized that Jesus was intolerant of other gods (and that Christians believe what Jesus said!!), but here's another newsflash:

Conservative persons of faith believe that sex outside of marriage is wrong, even if it is "safe." Sexual intercourse with someone infected with an STD is very dangerous, even when a condom is used.

In an awkward response (here) to a question about whether he would support giving $50 billion toward a-moral condom distribution to less-than-first-world countries beset by AIDS and other sexually transmitted disease, Mike Huckabee responded as follows:

"If we really are serious about stopping a problem, whether it's drunk driving...we don't say "Don't drive 'as drunk'?" ...This is an illogical thing that we apply to that one area that we don't apply to any other area. And I'm open-minded to all the arguments, if someone can convince me a little reckless behavior is OK. Maybe that's the message. But it would seem to me that if we're consistent in saying reckless behavior is undesirable we should ask people to move their behavior to the standard and not move the standard to the behavior...We don't say that a little domestic violence is OK, just cut it down a little, just don't hit quite as hard. We say it's wrong."

Though Huckabee is pretty-much known (to persons other than rabid Libs) for non-threatening and reasonably-framed policy statements, he seems to mishandle this question by failing to hide his tough pill (response) in peanut butter or flavoring it like cotton candy.

Granted, wife-beating is more than "reckless behavior" and drunk-driving victims rarely have consented, but when the question is related to a proposal to throw condoms at persons living in an STD-permeated context, Huckabee's answer is not quite as jaw-dropping. Ironically, the UN has a poor record on combating AIDS, and the organization seems more interested in defending a worldview than in saving lives.


hat-tip, huffingtonpost.com.

Cross-posted at WisdomisVindicated.

Maybe they're right about Coulter . . .

Yikes. Ann Coulter has turned her high-caliber pen on GOP candidates Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee. ("Fred Sawyer and Huckabee Finn"). Coulter raises some fair criticisms of Huckabee and Thompson, but they seem much less fair absent the prospect that she will provide withering critiques of each of the candidates. It doesn't appear that she has that in mind, closing her piece thusly:

"If you're bored with our top candidates, go see a slasher movie. Don't take it out on a presidential election."

I believe Ann Coulter is exceptionally gifted as a thinker and communicator, but I am incredulous about her assertion that interest in Fred Thompson or Mike Huckabee amounts to boredom with the "top candidates."

Cross-posted at Wisdomisvindicated.

Are Republicans Crazy? Is Doug Bandow a Republican?

Though his name seems to evoke "Conservative Pundit" from my memory banks, I have to admit I had lost sight of Doug Bandow. But over the transom today came this op/ed ("Are Republicans Crazy?") about the prescience of Ron Paul and the ignorance of all the "other" Republican candidates for president. I say "other" because I think Paul is a fair-weather Republican and his candidacy, if Republican, is quixotic.

If the title doesn't give you the gist of the article, the fact that the article's google pole position is held by antiwar.com should. But here's the thesis of the article:

"The bell is tolling for the GOP warmonger caucus. Unless the leading Republican presidential contenders join Ron Paul – soon – in detaching themselves from the failed Bush policies, many more Americans are likely to conclude that the Republicans are crazy. And to vote accordingly."

Bandow is beside himself that Republicans (not just the GOP presidential candidates) don't agree with him and Ron Paul and Usama Bin Laden about the Global war against Jihadists, and he r_e_p_e_a_t_e_d_l_y proclaims that Paul is not "blaming America" when he says that we are the subject of the Jihad because we have a military presence in that part of the world and because we have been bombing Iraq for the past decade. It sounds to me like Paul is saying that we are causing Jihadists to hate us or that we are forcing them to defend themselves, doesn't it to you?

But that is a semantic game Paul is playing and it isn't really the issue. We have interests in a stable middle east. Israel deserves our support. Oil is a commodity that we need to be able to buy. We cannot allow Jihadists to plot, scheme, train, and arm themselves unhindered in their war against us. A decisive number of GOP primary voters understand this; ergo, it stands to reason that all (save one) persons seeking to win a GOP primary understand (or at least pretend to understand) this.

But even a Republican candidate for president who doesn't view foreign affairs the same way as George W. Bush (or W's zionist neo-con puppetmasters!!!!) can appreciate that Republican voters balk at suggestions that Bush's motives for this war were nefarious; that the mistakes or misjudgments made in this war--as opposed to every other war in history, were extraordinary; or that we will be safe from Jihadist designs if we simply pull our troops out of Iraq (and are on our best Jihad-neutral behavior indefinitely).

Maybe if GOP primary poll samples included Liberal journalists and other pacifist-lite Americans Ron Paul would be polling higher than 2%. Maybe.



cross-posted at WisdomisVindicated.

Top-tier fundraising effort

According to the WSJ's John Harwood (here),

Among major Republican candidates, only late-starting Thompson and longshot Huckabee claim to have beaten second-quarter haul.

MSM: Huckabee, we hardly knew ye . . .

This kind of thing will get you uninvited on "The Daily Show" . . . Huckabee slams Clinton on Petraeus vote. Oh well. Not many GOP primary voters tune in anyway.

Here's the money quote:

"'If you can't get your lips off the backside of George Soros long enough to use those lips to say it's wrong to declare a sitting general ... guilty of treason, how would you ever expect to have the support of the very military you might have to send into deadly battle?' Huckabee told the Times."

And speaking of Soros, I guess you've heard that he has been shoveling money to a NASA-employed, vocal scientist and global warming alarmist. What's that about BigOil financing faux science about global warming?
Cross-posted at WisdomisVindicated.

Thompson's alternative view on homosexual marriage

I've been out of town (and the loop) for awhile, but here's something of note.

This is actually the first time that I'd heard this proposal, and I'll hand it to Thompson--it won't please any of the activists on the issue. That might be the secret to Thompson's appeal: blunting controversial issues with unorthodox proposals and a trustworthy demeanor. Thompson: Let states decide on gay marriages - USATODAY.com:

Thompson was asked during a campaign stop in Sioux City if he supported a federal ban on gay marriage, which most but not all of the candidates seeking the 2008 GOP nomination support.

He responded by suggesting the U.S. Constitution be amended to bar court decisions in one state on gay marriage from being recognized in another. The provision is part of the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act, which Thompson voted for in the Senate.

. . .

"In the Register's May poll, 73% of likely GOP caucus-goers said it was 'extremely important' that, when choosing a candidate, that their preferred candidate feel the same way they do about gay marriage. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Arizona Sen. John McCain oppose a federal gay marriage ban. Most of the other candidates, including those campaigning aggressively in Iowa such as former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, favor the amendment."

As I mull over the proposal, I am definitely open to a states' rights argument, but the reality is that a law on marriage has ramifications far beyond something like the speed limit or right-to-carry laws. I'll have to disagree with him on this.

Cross-posted on WisdomisVindicated.

A forfeit = a win, especially if your opponent is ducking questions

As Time Magazine's Jonathan Alter reports on MSNBC.com ("Only Two Republicans Show at Cancer Forum'), it seems that Huckabee's GOP opponents are afraid to answer certain questions. Here's Alter's first 'graph:

"On the second day of Lance Armstrong’s Livestrong Presidential Cancer Forum, only two of the eight invited Republican candidates showed up—a reflection of some poor thinking in the GOP. But it didn’t matter too much. Attendees at the Cedar Rapids, Iowa event may look back at two “surges” that began here—one a boom in health care as a major campaign issue for Republicans; the other the emergence of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee as a serious candidate for president."

Murdock Clubs Romney

Deroy Murdock does the type of analysis of Romney's record in Massachusetts ("Mitt Romney vs. Rudy Giuliani" on National Review Online) that you'd expect the Club for Growth to do. Of course, that presumes the Club for Growth is interested in reflecting poorly on anyone other than Huckabee.

After comparing Romney's economic record unfavorably to Giuliani's, Murdock writes:

"It would be easier to draw parallels if, like Giuliani, Romney had won reelection, rather than duck a second-term bid that experts widely predicted he would lose. Romney explained to the Boston Globe that he stood aside because, “There was very little that had to spill into a second term that we had any prospects of ever getting done.” So, what remains to recommend Romney? No doubt, he showed how to succeed in business by founding Bain Capital, which flourishes today. Also, Romney is smooth, charismatic, and handsome. Someday, he could portray George Clooney’s older brother in Ocean’s 14. But, given his flimsy gubernatorial legacy, that doesn’t mean much. In essence, Mitt Romney is just another pretty face.

Ouch.

Huckabee video bio

Here's one of those great candidate bio videos about Mike Huckabee. Pop some popcorn and take a peek . . .



HT: IHeartHuckabee and Mike Huckabee08 blogs.

Xposted at WisdomisVindicated.

Front-runners fading?

Joel Belz of World Magazine "Finding a front-runner" revisits his prediction from May of this year that some of the front runners for the GOP nomination would fade from (and drop out of) the race in due time. He interviewed a disenchanted voter at the Ames Straw Poll who was not inclined to support any of the current "top tier" candidates and wrote about what he found:

But [the dissatisfaction] comes far more from the discovery by the voters that the 'Big Three' (in both parties) just maybe aren't all that big. In my May prediction, I suggested that one or two candidates would say something dumb and then crash and burn. That hasn't happened yet—at least the crashing and burning part. More likely, I said, some front-runners would just wear out. I think you're watching that. And all that is what prompted the young mother to say so fervently:

"Ahhh. I finally found a candidate I can support. Mike Huckabee. It was like he was speaking to my heart. I think I even got teary. I'm not saying Mike Huckabee's the man. I am saying it's becoming altogether likely that an unlikely man with an unlikely name will push the front-runners aside."

I think Belz' marathon analogy (hinted at here but fully discussed in his op/ed) is appropriate. Perhaps, in this election cycle more than any other before, it is possible for a tortoise to beat a hare to the finish line.

Huckabee rebuts Club for Growth

Huckabee is gracing the cover of the current edition of National Review "Another Man from Hope" by Byron York), and the article provides Huckabee's rebuttal to the Club for Growth's charges (here, here)that he is weak on economic issues:

"The area where Huckabee has encountered the most flak from conservatives is taxes. In the week before the straw poll, the Club for Growth spent nearly $100,000 to run ads portraying him as a profligate taxer and spender. “There once was a governor from Hope, Arkansas, who raised taxes like there was no tomorrow,” the ad began. “Who is that liberal tax-and-spend Arkansas governor? Bill Clinton? No. It’s Mike Huckabee.” Specifically, the Club for Growth hit Huckabee for, among other things: supporting taxes on Internet sales and access; signing sales-tax increases on gas, cigarettes, and nursing homes; opposing repeal of the sales tax on food and medicine; and allowing a 17 percent sales-tax increase to become law. “All of those allegations have pretty much been debunked, repeatedly,” Huckabee tells me. For example, “I have always staunchly opposed any tax on Internet access. I am adamantly opposed, always have been. For them to say anything otherwise is an outright lie.” As for the Internet sales tax, Huckabee argues that he supported proposals — also supported by other Republican governors — to let states collect sales taxes on goods sold on the Net by out-of-state vendors. “It’s simply a way to create a level playing field for taxes for Internet merchants as well as Main Street merchants,” Huckabee says. “It wasn’t a new tax at all.”

On the gas tax, Huckabee points out that Arkansas’ interstate highways were in terrible shape — among the worst in the nation. In 1999, the legislature approved an increase in the gas and diesel taxes, and Huckabee, who believed the increase was a good idea, signed the measure. Along with the gas tax, there was a $575 million bond issue for further improvements, which was put to a statewide vote in June 1999 and passed by a landslide, 80 percent to 20 percent. “I would argue that we did rather well on that.”

On the grocery tax, Huckabee stresses that he “philosophically” supported its repeal, but he felt that in the money squeeze that beset Arkansas in 2001–02 the state couldn’t afford it. “It was not that I philosophically opposed [repeal], because I have always philosophically supported it,” Huckabee tells me. “The only thing they’re going to hit me for is that I opposed it in the 2002 election, because I knew that we had already made deep [budget] cuts, and if you cut the grocery tax, there was no way to make it up.”

The biggest tax increase during Huckabee’s tenure was the sales-tax increase, which went to education, and it began not with Huckabee but with the Arkansas supreme court. In 2002, the court ruled that the state’s system of funding its schools was unconstitutional and ordered the state government to come up with ways to spend more money on education and distribute it more equitably among the state’s school districts.

Huckabee had to do something. And with a heavily Democratic legislature, it was a sure bet that more money was going to be raised and spent on schools. So along with a tax increase, Huckabee attempted to fix Arkansas’ amazingly chaotic school-district system. The state has 75 counties, and at the time it had 310 school districts, each a separate fiefdom with its own budget and bosses. Some school districts had as few as 100 students in K–12. Huckabee wanted to consolidate districts so that each would have a minimum of 1,500 students. He lost that fight, with the legislature choosing to make the minimum size 350 students. Still, that meant the consolidation of the smallest districts, with significant savings for the state. Even so, when the bill got to Huckabee’s desk, he declined to sign it, knowing that it would become law anyway. “I thought that we were not pushing for the level of efficiency that we should have,” he says.

So what does his record add up to? Well, the charges have not, as Huckabee claims, been pretty much debunked. Some of them are true. But Huckabee also cut taxes on several occasions, and he argues that, in contrast to the senators who want to be president, he was the man in charge who had to make hard decisions. “Unlike the federal government, governors don’t get to print money,” Huckabee tells me. Besides that, a number of his actions were undeniably popular with most Arkansans, with Huckabee working to meet the state’s needs while hewing to conservative principles."

York goes on to describe Huckabee's seal of approval from Grover Norquist, head of Americans for Tax Reform, and from FAIR tax supporters. Read it for yourself . . .

Incidentally, the Club for Growth's original "white paper" on Huckabee is here.

See also at WisdomisVindicated.

Even Obama likes Mike

It appears that even Sen. Barack Obama likes Mike Huckabee. (ABC News: "Obama: GOP Field 'Outbidding Each Other'"): In an appearance on "The Daily Show," Obama acknowledged that governors have an advantage in running for President:

Obama suggested that presidential candidates who have been governors have an advantage over those who have been in the Senate, which he described as "paralyzed" and "designed for you to take bad votes."

"A governor is more likely to set the terms of the debate," he said. "They can give a speech, they can say, 'This is my initiative, this is my proposal. I won't sign it unless I agree with it.' Dealing with senators, you end up, you know, having to actually vote on stuff that has no relevance whatsoever but can be used later on to attack you."

And he also singled out Mike Huckabee for "faint praise":

"Asked if he admired any of the Republican candidates, Obama offered faint praise: 'Yeah, I think some of these folks are decent people.' Obama cited only former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee by name. Then he criticized the GOP field for 'outbidding each other' while arguing that the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, should be expanded rather than closed."

In an awkward (IMHO) exchange (at least it ought to be awkward for peacenik Democrats):

Noting that Obama has been criticized for lacking experience, Stewart asked, "Have you thought about running a smaller country first?"

Obama smiled and said, "You know, what I did think about though was invading a smaller country ..." He suggested the island nation of Grenada.

X-posted at Wisdomisvindicated.

Sarah may be crushing

Some kind (and un-shilly) words for Mike Huckabee from Nashville blogger Sarah Moore MooreThoughts » I Feel a Crush Coming On!.

Bully Pulpiteer v. Bully

Here's an interesting article from Politico Huckabee: 'I'm a Main Street Republican' - W. James Antle III - Politico.com. James Antle argues that Mike Huckabee, like a number of pseudo-successful Republican candidates before, is attempting to combine economic populism and cultural conservatism:

"But only Buchanan enjoyed significant electoral success combining economic populism with cultural conservatism. The problem for Huckabee is that a conservative alternative to the GOP front-runners will need support from both the economic and social right. And fiscal conservatives aren't fond of men from Hope who accuse tax-cutters of greed."

While I think Antle correctly characterizes Huckabee's message, I think he overstates the significance--in practical terms, of Huckabee's rhetoric.

I think there is a difference between (a) using the bully pulpit of elected office to influence the culture and (b) using one's office to impose your values through laws and regulations. I think Huckabee fully appreciates the difference. And while I don't think Huckabee is disingenuous in speaking up for values like "greed is immoral," I don't think he has any plans to outlaw greed.

A candidate's values and character--even if not directly translated into policy, can bolster his credibility and assuage or blunt the edge of policy proposals. For those candidates of the Libertarian or Conservative persuasion, it can be especially important to give the voter confidence that your rationale for not wanting to, for example, open up the public coffers for any and every supplicant is not rooted in enmity or hard-heartedness. And if a voter is convinced--by looking at Huckabee's life and record and rhetoric, that he is sympathetic to "middle class" or "blue collar" concerns then that voter will be more inclined to accept Huckabee's Conservative solutions, solutions which rarely are as "generous" as their Liberal counterpart.

I think people like Nashville blogger Sarah Moore appreciate this quality about Mike Huckabee, and I it is perhaps his greatest strength as a candidate.

Also over at WisdomisVindicated.

NHites have surprised many a "front-runner"

David Broder ("the Dean of the Washington Press Corps"!!!) opines that New Hampshirites might hand a surprise to the current GOP frontrunners--as they have before David S. Broder - The Next Huckabee Surprise? - washingtonpost.com:

"Buoyed by his surprise second-place finish in the Iowa Republican straw poll, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee is plotting an even bigger coup against Mitt Romney in the first presidential primary, in New Hampshire. His inspiration for the audacious plot comes from two unlikely people: Pat Buchanan and Bill Clinton."

You should read the article, but I personally don't think that Rudy/Mitt/Fred are comparable to Paul Tsongas (Clinton's major opponent in 1992), or that Huckabee inspires rebellion like a Pat Buchanan (HW's opponent in the same year), or that Huckabee has the same squishy appeal that John McCain has (W's opponent in 2000). I guess time will tell . . . meanwhile, Charles at Evangelicals for Mitt concludes that such speculation reflects Huckabee's new status as the media's favorite candidate.

Huckabee-- LIVE with The King!

Here's a funny pic of former Governor Mike Huckabee playing on-stage in Ames, Iowa with "Elvis."Hymns proclaim White House poll - World - theage.com.au

Rich Lowry on Sam Brownback

Yikes. National Review's Rich Lowry )"It's Quittin' Time" -- National Review Online) makes a pretty compelling case for Sen. Sam Brownback to drop out of the GOP race. I am kind of surprised to see such a thing from a prominent Conservative pundit at this early point in the race. Lowry must be pretty serious about his challenge.

Here's a generous portion, but there's even more over at NR:

"Sometimes a campaign can be about delivering a message over and above any concrete political considerations. But the truth is that the Brownback presidential campaign is doing the senator’s moral cause no favors. If anything, say to say, his cause is being hurt by the association. First, there’s the negativity of his campaign. I don’t have any problem with negative campaigning and there’s obviously nothing wrong with Christians engaging in political and intellectual combat, but the spectacle of such a self-consciously Christian candidate running perhaps the most negative of any of the campaigns is jarring and discomfiting. Second, there’s the fact that Brownback hasn’t shown great aptitude for politics at the presidential level. At the outset of a campaign in which support for the Iraq war is crucial for conservatives, Brownback opposed the surge. At a time when opposition to illegal immigration was becoming the hottest hot-button issue on the right, Brownback endorsed last year’s Senate amnesty bill, before backtracking and opposing this year’s (somewhat tougher) amnesty bill, before twisting himself into the spectacular act on the Senate floor of voting for cloture on the bill right before voting against it. Sam Brownback is a principled and sincere man. He can do lots of important work promoting the cause of protecting and honoring the dignity of all human lives — in the U.S. Senate."

WSJ, new hope and old pic for Huckabee campaign

Aside from the Doughy, dated image of Huckabee (though Romney's image is a little pudgy, too) this WSJ article reports how significant this day in August may prove to be for the Huckabee campaign. Huckabee, Iowa Poll's Real Winner? - WSJ.com:

"AMES, Iowa -- The biggest winner of Iowa Republicans' weekend straw poll of 11 presidential rivals may well turn out to be not Mitt Romney, whose first-place finish here was expected, but surprise runner-up Mike Huckabee, the guitar-picking former governor of Arkansas. Should Mr. Huckabee capitalize on his second-place showing here Saturday to get a second look from demoralized Republicans unhappy with their choices -- and to get much-needed funding -- the repercussions could reshuffle the party's contest for its 2008 nomination. Social conservatives, who have come to dominate the Republican party, could decide the candidate they have been looking for has been in the race the whole time, languishing at the back of the pack with little money to promote himself."

What's a Religious Conservative to do?

This is a great article about the battle for the Realigious (sic) Conservative vote in the GOP Primary. (The American Spectator--"Split Decision"). James Antle questions whether events (esp. post-Ames) might be helping to ensure that Rudy comes out of the process as the nominee--despite the fact that Religious Conservatives make up a plurality of the GOP base. Aside from his generally accurate (in my opinion) insights, I had two observations.

First, I think that Antle has a too-limited view of the process; he writes, ". . . the social conservatives in the race have been ignoring the pro-choice, pro-civil unions frontrunner and instead cannibalizing each other." But I think Antle fails to see that some acrimony is inevitable in winnowing out the field or settling on a Religious Conservative candidate. This amounts to "public" vetting of the candidates, as Antle references in the article's first paragraph: "Whenever a top-tier candidate presents himself as a more conservative alternative to Rudy Giuliani or John McCain, disturbing news soon emerges about his past record." There is a similar--more nit-picky process among the second-tier folks, but it is something that has to play out. People are loathe to pick a candidate and then have to admit they settled on him/her in haste.

Second, I think that it will be important for Huckabee to jettison the "Baptist Preacher" label asap. Though I am Southern Baptist in my roots, and though I realize that Evangelical voters will have an inherent ideological comfort level with Huckabee based on this aspect of his resume, I believe that his greatest strength is that he has both real-world executive experience and a fully-formed, seasoned and well-worn worldview. I think too much of the coverage of him to date has focused on the more-marginalizing aspect of his resume (as far as average voters are concerned) than the bandwagon-enhancing aspect of his resume.

Cross-posted at WisdomisVindicated.

Straw poll: Huckabee spent just $58/vote for 2nd; Romney $442/vote

Not bad ROI for Huckabee in Iowa, I'd say, Straw poll: Huckabee spent just $58 per vote for 2nd place and revived prospects - On Politics - USATODAY.com, of course, he had no choice:

"• Third-place finisher Sam Brownback says he spent about $325,000 to win his 2,192 votes. That's $148.27 for each vote. • Second-place finisher Mike Huckabee spent about $150,000 and received 2,587 votes. That's $57.98 per vote. • Winner Mitt Romney has not said how much he spent. The reporting in this Washington Post article suggests at least $2 million and possibly more than twice that much. Assuming $2 million for 4,516 votes, that's $442.87 per vote. But it could top $1,000."

Huckabee has hope . . .

If you can see past Huckabee's wedding tux . . . this is an inspiring video about the other man from Hope.

Huckabee wins the Iowa Straw Poll! (more or less)

I was happy to hear that Mike Huckabee finished in second place at today's Iowa Straw Poll. (from the DesMoinesRegister.com), and based on the circumstances, Huckabee more or less "won" today.

"Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee had said his campaign’s future depended on a strong showing in Ames. He finished in second place, with 2,587 votes or 18.1 percent. Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas placed third with 2,192 votes, 15.3 percent after campaigning aggressively to be the choice of the Iowa GOP’s influential social conservatives. “Obviously this was an incredible day and victory for us,” Huckabee said. “What happened for us today was stunning.” Huckabee said he and his campaign staff had been saying they had momentum and it proved true. “We overperformed,” he said. “The bigger story is we did it with not a dime of paid advertising.” He said he hopes all the people who promised they’d get behind him “if he got traction” will now step forward."

Huckabee's comment about spending for the event is interesting, because if you look at the vote totals, campaigns who don't spend money on the event and don't show up at the event don't get any votes (to speak of) at the event.

Fred, Rudy and McCain--who didn't attend or spend in Ames, finished a DISTANT 7th, 8th and 10th, respectively. Which makes it even more impressive that Huck didn't spend a lot of money and got a lot of votes.

Also at WisdomisVindicated.

Alas, the Iowa Straw Poll . . .

Today's a BIG day in GOP politics, in a couple of different ways, as this Iowa blogger (w/ links) demonstrates The Swamp: Come out and join us at the Iowa Straw Poll today.

Here's an excerpt from an Iowa report:"While the results have no direct effect on the selection of delegates to the Republicans' national nominating convention next year in Minneapolis, a poor showing can spell the end of the campaign trail for lesser-known, lower-tier contenders while a decent showing can help a candidate remain viable for another day. In 1999, when the last straw poll was held, 235 chartered buses traveled to Ames, more than 23,000 Republicans voted and nine members of the 10-candidate field showed up. The presidential campaigns of former Tennessee Gov. Lamar Alexander, former Vice President Dan Quayle and future North Carolina Sen. Elizabeth Dole ended shortly afterward as George W. Bush, then the governor of Texas, easily won the contest with 31 percent of the vote to billionaire Steve Forbes' nearly 21 percent. But the dynamics of this year's straw poll have created questions about the real political value of a top finish and what it means in the larger sphere of an unsettled Republican field."

Fortunately for the second (or third) tier candidates, some of the "front-runners" have chosen not to participate, thus providing an opportunity for some to emerge as viable top-tier candidates.

On the other hand, unfortunately for the second-tier candidates (and GOP voters in general?) . . . some of the "front-runners" have chosen not to participate; thus, the straw poll is likely to only have the impact of giving viability to all of the lower-tier campaigns. In sum, none of them are going to lose so badly (how can some of the candidates do any worse than they are already doing in scientific polls?) that they will fold up their tent. I take that back, Tommy Thompson appears to have flatly declared that he is dropping out of the race if he doesn't come in second place at the straw poll. Kudos, Mr Thompson.

I was glad to hear Huckabee say recently that he, like Thompson, does not consider himself an "issue" candidate--that is, a candidate who is running to push an idea and not to actually get the nomination.

Huckabee's uncommon candor (and humor)

Another example of Huckabee's admirable (in my opinion) candor. This Politico article Mike Huckabee's political ministry - Roger Simon - Politico.com describes Huckabee's use of humor in a recent campaign stop, and then follows with this report:

"But in the question period that followed, the mood instantly got a lot more serious when an elderly woman asked him what he was going to do about the illegal immigrants “who are trying to take over” Iowa and do her personal harm. Some prominent border state Republicans — Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and John McCain for example — have been sympathetic to the problems of illegal immigrants and while Arkansas is not technically a border state, Huckabee shares that sensibility. “Most of the immigrants I know are not coming here to commit crimes, but to find a better life,” Huckabee told the woman. “If I was an immigrant, I would want to come here.” Which is not what the woman wanted to hear. Both Romney and Tancredo talk very tough on illegal immigration and that is a popular position among Iowa Republicans. Huckabee is sticking to his guns, but he does emphasize border security these days. “I am mad at Congress for not building better fences,” he told the woman. “Why should it be harder for me to get on a plane in Arkansas than to cross an international border?”"

Aside: One of the best jokes relayed in the article is this one:

“My dad never finished high school,” Huckabee said. “He was fireman and on his days off he worked in a generator shop. The work of the day was always on his hands. The only soap we had in the house was Lava. I was in college before I found out it’s not supposed to hurt when you take a shower.”

Romney's political heatwave

Here's an interesting article about the increasing heat Mitt Romney is taking for his fairly recent conversion on the abortion issue. Romney Pushed on Conservative Credentials - New York Times I thought this comment, from Steve Deace, a Des Moines talk show host is the root of my discomfort with Romney:

Mr. Deace now devotes almost daily parts of his show to attacking Mr. Romney’s shifts on abortion and other issues, including gay rights. “If he has had a sincere conversion on life, no one would be happier than me,” Mr. Deace told listeners Wednesday as he urged them to be wary. “But what is the source of his conviction?”"

All that being said, I have to admit that Romney showed his political mettle during last week's debate when he announced, ""I get tired of people that are holier-than-thou because they've been prolife longer than I have."

Also at WisdomIsVindicated.

Huckabee: speaking "truth" to primary power

One thing I appreciate about Huckabee is his candor (or what appears to be candor). In this WaPo article Huckabee: Dems Would Label Romney a Flip-Flopper - washingtonpost.com Huckabee (aside from stating the obvious: that changing your opinion 180 degrees on an issue is not a political positive on balance) distances himself from Dubya's foreign policy and Dubya's "enhanced interrogation" policy. I'd say these two positions are--perhaps reflexively (in reaction to DEMagoguery on the issues over the past 6 years), not shared by a majority of GOP primary voters. But they are very reasonable positions and these statements/positions will probably enhance Huckabee's credibility.

Also posted at WisdomIsVindicated.