Dubya likes Mike

To be candid, I've never gotten comfortable with the sports betting or prognosticating phrase, "who do you like in (blank)?" It's a phrase too ripe for confusion, but it appears that President Bush "likes" former Governor Mike Huckabee in that sense. (Plus, I thought it'd be really clever to allude to the "Be like Mike" ads and the "I like Ike" ads . . . get it?)

Here's the meat from the Chicago Tribune: (He wants to be seen as a heavyweight)

"George W. Bush doesn't have to be concerned with any more elections that carry his name on the ballot. But that doesn't mean he isn't intensely interested in the 2008 presidential race, a contest that is almost certain to be seen as a final referendum on his two terms in the White House.

So Bush, we are told, has taken to assessing the field of Republican candidates. He has been known to tell contemporaries that Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the leading GOP candidate of the moment, might not make it. But instead of going down the list of others, such as former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani or former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, the president reportedly says it might pay to watch a candidate who is receiving essentially zero attention: Mike Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas."

I hate to potentially sour people like Sharon Cobb with this tidbit, but for those of us who don't think Dubya is the Fount of Evil in the modern world, his view of the 2008 GOP field is intriguing.


Aside, I REALLY enjoy those "Be like Mike" ads. Go watch 'em. Here and Here

Pelosi's documentary on Evangelicals

This (here) is an insightful article, penned by Middle Tennessee's own Michael Linton for First Things Magazine, about Alexandra Pelosi's HBO documentary about Evangelicals called "Friends of God."

Regardless of how flattering or not a documentary turns out to be, it is tempting to resent merely being put under a cinematic microscope, to bristle in the crosshairs of the documentarian's camera. But Linton accurately (I believe) reviews and draws the proper Evangelical conclusions from the movie: we should be thankful for this frank look at our culture.

Aside from potential disagreement with Linton about how "obedience and sacrifice" factors into a person's "friendship" with God, I heartily echo his thesis.

"Abortion Contortions" of GOP frontrunners

This (Abortion Contortions) is a valuable op/ed from the American Spectator on the issue of current GOP front-runners' positions on abortion. James Antle attempts to explain Giuliani's popularity despite his unabashed "pro-choice" views on abortion.

Here's the money quote:

"Meanwhile, Giuliani soars despite offering social conservatives few concessions. Perhaps the moral of the story is this: If you can't respect life, at least try to respect pro-lifers' intelligence."

I couldn't agree more.

Huckabee visits Nashville

Jay Bush has a great report of a Mike Huckabee meet 'n greet he attended on Saturday in Nashville (Saturday With Mike Huckabee), as do Adam Groves , and Bill Hobbs . Each of these reports reflects that Huckabee is a political talent who can connect with Conservatives, but more importantly, who can connect with "Independents." And he's not much of a bogeyman.

Indeed, the worst thing (to Conservatives and most Americans) you can say about Huckabee--his poor rating with Cato and Club for Growth, may endear him with "moderate" Republicans and shouldn't be too big of a stumbling block for Religious Conservatives, with whom a commitment to both supply-side economics and balanced budgets resonates.

But Huckabee's positive impression on these Tennesseans is interesting in light of the hubbub among Lefty bloggers about this weekend's NYTimes article poking at Religious Conservatives and their effort to find a candidate. The cabal-ish caricature of Religious Conservatives is an important ingredient in "fringing" The Religious Right.

Jay relays this story from the Huckabee event:

Huckabee recalled a meeting he had with former Surgeon General and then Arkansas Director of Health, Jocelyn (sic) Elders at the request of [then-President] Bill Clinton. Elders had called on pastors to "end their love affair with the fetus" and to "stop moralizing" from the pulpit. At the time, Huckabee, a former pastor himself, was president of the Arkansas Baptist Association. Clinton had sought Huckabee's counsel about the political impact Elder's comments would have among evangelicals and asked that he meet with her. After spending an afternoon with Elders, Huckabee, apparently so shocked by the experience, said he went home and told his wife it was time to "get in the game and get our uniforms dirty."

Yes, the Left's often-successful creation of a bogeymovement (Religious Conservatives) effectively diverts attention from people like Joycelyn Elders, M.D.

Bill Hobbs and the religion question

Bill Hobbs has a helpful post about Mitt Romney and his "handling" of "the Mormon question" on ABC News' "This Week" (sorry, got carried away with the qualifying quotes thingy).
Romney Answers the Mormon Question:

"Mitt Romney does rather well, I think, in his encounter with ABC News' George Stephanopolous, especially in the way he (and his wife Ann Romney, who also sat for the interview) handled 'the Mormon question.' ABC provides the complete transcript of the interview.

Stephanopolous hammers away, trying to drive wedges between Romney and Catholics, first, then between Romney and evangelical Christians, and then between Romney and Muslims. The latter is the most absurd as Stephanopolous zeroes in on the Mormon faith's belief that Jesus Christ will reign on earth for 1,000 years after His return.

Stephanopoulos: I wonder how that would be viewed in the Muslim world. Have you thought about how the Muslim world will react to that and whether it would make it more difficult, if you were president, to build alliances with the Muslim world?

Romney: Well, I'm not a spokesman for my church. I'm not running for pastor in chief. I'm running for commander in chief. So the best place to go for my church's doctrines would be my church.

Stephanopoulos: But I'm talking about how they will take it, how they will perceive it.

Romney says its true that Mormons believe that Jesus will return and reign in Jerusalem for a thousand years, but Our belief is just as it says in the Bible, that the messiah will come to Jerusalem, stand on the Mount of Olives and that the Mount of Olives will be the place for the great gathering and so forth. "That that being said," Romney says, "How do Muslims feel about Christian doctrines? They don't agree with them.""

Aside from the particular issues of Romney or his religious beliefs, I hope that he and other candidates will have more opportunities during the course of the campaign to demonstrate that while a candidate's religion should certainly influence his/her worldview, and while his/her worldview should certainly influence his/her policy positions, the fact that someone is more than a closet "person of faith" or "devout person" doesn't mean that they are going to create a state religion and force everyone to join up. Frankly, I believe orthodox Islam is an exception to my point, but last time I looked, there aren't any Muslims running for President.

Edwards bloggers show the Curse of the Christian-Bashers

I've posted on this previously (here), but the Edwards bloggers episode portends a singular challenge of the contemporary Democrat Party. Here's a key excerpt from a WSJ op/ed (Curse of the Christian-Bashers) on the subject:

"For what the blogger tempest really illuminates is a fact that could come to haunt the Democrats as they vie for national office: namely, that their past few wilderness years have also been boom years for the church-loathing liberal/left punditry. As a result, anti-Christian invective now graces (or disgraces) many of the books, magazines, Web sites and blogs to which liberals, including the Democratic elite, habitually look for ideas. One motto of this cottage industry is that the most serious threat to the American republic can be found in, no, not those religious fundamentalists, the ones that first leap to mind after 9/11; but, incredibly, certain other believers--our nation's Christians."

If you don't feel close to Religious Conservatives . . .

This Orlando Sentinel report about the National Religious Broadcasters' (NRB) annual convention highlights the importance of reaching out to this audience if one is a Republican presidential candidate.

The interesting thing about the article is the turn at the end of article, emphasizing that no Democrats will be dropping by the event. GOP candidates turn up volume for broadcasters:

"Some attending the NRB convention said they wished Democratic candidates also would come to Orlando.

'In my view, there's often way too much Republican flavor at NRB,' said Rusty Wright, a California author, lecturer and radio host. 'I'd like to see more bi-partisanship.'

For Democrats, to write off potential evangelical supporters because of the historic support for the GOP is like Republicans writing off black voters for the same reason, said Erwin McManus, pastor of the Mosaic Community in Los Angeles and a convention speaker.

'I think the Democrats should have showed up,' said McManus, noting that he estimates that 80 percent of his 3,500-member congregation opposes the war in Iraq. 'I feel frustrated. I'm open to candidates in both parties. I would be far more excited and open about going to the Republican receptions if there were Democratic events as well.'"

Good point Mr. McManus, but--as the saying goes, if you don't feel close to Evangelical Christians--the largest consumers of religious-themed broadcasting, then guess who moved? No doubt, there is an emerging bloc of government-is-the-answer voters who are increasingly asserting that they are also religious. However, that phenomenon merely demonstrates that a person's worldview--more than a person's religion, is the best predictor of how that person votes.

On another note, I see that my favorite band--Little Big Town is performing today at Sea World . . . I hope that all of these candidates adopt some boondocks philosophy.

BREAKING: Huckabee and Brownback lead Romney in Iowa Poll?

Here's an interesting report of an as yet unpublished poll showing Mitt Romney trailing Brownback and Huckabee in Iowa. Of course, Brownback and Huckabee still trail McCain and Giuliani by wide margins, and the large number of "undecideds" is significant (28%), but such numbers--if true, would undermine the "top tier" classification of Romney's candidacy. Students for Brownback » Blog Archive » BREAKING: Brownback places third in Iowa Poll to 50,000 homes — Beats Romney

Top Tier Candidates?

Looks like the Boston Globe may have "tiered up" Huckabee and Brownback. Promising a 'new American dream,' Romney formally launches White House bid - The Boston Globe:

"In launching his campaign, Romney joins one of the most wide-open presidential contests in decades. His Republican challengers, aside from McCain, include former mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York City, Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, and former governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas."

Big SC endorsement

On the other hand, it doesn't hurt to make a principled (that is, on a principle higher than "what horse do I want to be riding after the GOP primary") commitment to a lesser-known candidate. As a NY Times political blog reports, 2008: Endorsement Draft - The Caucus - Politics - New York Times Blog:

"Mr. Huckabee did manage to land a major conservative endorsement in South Carolina yesterday. Iris Campbell, wife of Carroll Campbell, a former governor and conservative icon, signed on as honorary chairwoman of Mr. Huckabee’s campaign in her state, and her son, Mike Campbell, will actively run the campaign there."

SC is traditionally viewed as the first "social conservative" winnowing state primary.

Why wait? Endorsement abstinence . . .

I haven't taken the time to put these ideas into a post, but this article about efforts by McCain and Romney to sign up supporters among Religious Conservatives provides a perfect jumping off point.

The article references a Religious Conservative leader in Iowa--Marlys Popma, who has joined with John McCain's campaign, because, according to the article's author Popma couldn't "sit out" this election.

My message to Religious Conservatives: you aren't "sitting out" an election by choosing--21 months before the election, not to pick a candidate. It's an interesting article (here):

"Amid the near-constant pitches for support by the aspiring presidential candidates, some social conservatives are urging peers to refrain from any choice.

Steve Scheffler, president of the Iowa Christian Alliance, said he has been approached by several campaigns but has chosen to stay out of the endorsement game for now.

'Anytime you side with a candidate and work for them, you alienate people and you are not able to talk about the issues as much as you would like,' Scheffler said."

Yes, it kind of reminds me of a "run" on a bank. And that scene from It's a Wonderful Life comes to mind. I hate to say it, but I perceive that too many people joining the MSM-coronated "top tier" campaigns may sacrifice what's best for everybody (especially the grassroots constituents they purport to represent) by trying to make sure they get their plum spot in a campaign.

Huckabee foes take fundraising head start

Despite the headline for this article, it appears Huckabee is not doing badly for a "second-tier" candidate in regard to fundraising. It kind of depends on whom you consider Huckabee's "foe" at this stage of the game.Arkansas News Bureau - Huckabee foes take fundraising head start

And another thing that jumps out from this article is how money "fuels" a campaign as opposed to merely supporting it; it isn't just useful for hiring employees or media buys . . . it actually wins you favor with others in the business of politics who need their own money to "play."

Huckabee's reasonable-sounding-ness

A meaty post arguing that Mike Huckabee should not be running for president. (here).

Though the post is persuasive, I couldn't help but think that Huckabee's "moderate" rhetoric--if it isn't so substantively squishy/"blasphemous" that it forecloses support from Conservatives, is well-suited for attracting non-partisan voters. The first comment (from Jim) expresses a sentiment I've heard from local bloggers--that is, Huckabee is "reasonable"-sounding; ergo, he doesn't sound like a "Conservative." It may be the sister souljah distancing required in our never-ending, toxic, full-court partisan press.

Taxing for income redistribution

Sam Brownback and Mike Huckabee have both launched (sort of--"exploratory committees") campaigns for President and announced support for an overhaul of our Federal Income Tax system, namely the "Flat Tax."

This article is interesting because it reflects a Liberal's view of the "flat tax." (here) Here's an excerpt from the article, but suffice to say, the (Liberal) author is most concerned about giving gov't the power to redistribute income.

"Whatever the actual advantages of a flat income tax might be, the conservatives surely must appreciate the fact that flat taxes make government redistribution of income much, much harder. This could well be the real reason why this misguided proposal has cropped up again."

To which I'd reply, where do I sign up?

"Broader" or repackaged agenda?

There's an interesting op/ed over at The American Spectator entitled "Tithe and Spend" Republicans. (Here) One excerpt from the article shows the purportedly broader agenda of Religious Conservatives Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback.

The longtime Southern Baptist preacher [Huckabee] sounds the usual conservative themes on abortion and marriage, but like a growing number of high-profile evangelicals, Huckabee tries to tie his socially conservative values to a broader agenda. "I earn the right to push for a strong pro-life agenda only by making sure I'm concerned about poverty, hunger and homelessness," he told a columnist for the Des Moines Register. "If I don't care about those issues, then my faith is incomplete."

So while Huckabee favors President Bush's capital gains tax cuts, he also wonders if his faith "confuses Republicans who are only concerned about how we preserve wealth." He is for a flat tax while also advocating increased funding for arts education, No Child Left Behind, the Medicare prescription drug benefit, and an enlarged government role in preventive health care.

While I agree that "my faith" (as applied to gov't policy) is broader than opposing abortion or homosexual "marriage," I hesitate to agree that it is little more than increased spending on existing, fundamentally flawed gov't programs. I personally believe that gov't intervention (you might want to take a seat, Liberal readers) often exacerbates problems or certainly masks the real problem and ultimately ends up costing more (or causing more/greater problems) in the long run than the original problem did.

So, yes, I'm very concerned about children and education and the environment; I'm just less convinced than Statists that a new agency or more gov't spending is the way to accomplish good for said subjects. In sum, I hardly share Statists' faith in government.

As was not done (or not the case) with "Compassionate Conservatism," Huckabee and Brownback must tread lightly to establish that such rhetoric is actually just a different way of presenting the Religious Conservative agenda, as opposed to a "broader" agenda.

Who's in charge of "tiers"?

This write up about the 2008 GOP field is getting some broad circulation--in part because it refers to the GOP pack as Lemons (as far as the GOP "right" is concerned). But it is an interesting piece because it is so "media-" and "registered voter-" centric. And I wonder why Rush Limbaugh (quoted at the beginning of the article) is so readily following suit. (here) Here's an excerpt:

"'Where do social conservatives go?' asked Dan Schnur, a California-based Republican consultant who worked for McCain in 2000 but is staying out of the 2008 contest. 'They've been the determining force in the nomination process for a generation and they've got no candidate in the top tier.'

Plenty of people are trying to prove Schnur wrong. McCain's advisers are betting that the disdain toward the Arizonan among many of the most vocal activists will not prove representative of primary voters. Running in a party that counts many Baptists, Romney may find a sympathetic audience for his story of conversion on social issues -- if he can convince people that he saw the light on the road to Damascus, not the White House."

My question is where's the home office or star chamber determining which "tier" a candidate belongs in? Uh, when did so-called Mainstream Media folks become reliable guides about who is or is not "credible," "electable" or even "likeable"? And since when is a poll of "registered voters" a reliable indicator for what primary voters are thinking?