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.