Huckabee 2008, indeed

Here's a compelling op/ed about a viable campaign for Mike Huckabee in this two thousand and eighth year of our Lord (Libs, don't freak out, that's just an expression, not code for "theocracy") . . . challenging incumbent Mark Pryor for the U.S. Senate Seat.(Phil Kerpen on "Mike Huckabee for Senate"). From the article:

"In contrast to the drama unfolding in the Democratic presidential race, the Republican contest has been reduced to one mild amusement: What is Mike Huckabee doing? He has already established himself as a brilliant natural campaigner with a strong base of support within the party. He will be a GOP force in years to come, and just may make another run for the White House. But for 2008 he has been mathematically eliminated, his quip about miracles notwithstanding. So why continue? If he really wants to serve his country and his party, while consolidating support for the long-term and advancing his policy ideas, Mike Huckabee should step out of the presidential contest immediately and put his energy into a run for the United States Senate."

This recommendation resonates with me because, even assuming the GOP failed to pick a nominee in the first round of voting at the Convention, I'm not convinced that Huckabee would be "the Conservative choice" (as Huckabee is asserting) of the GOP's delegates.

Why? I think much of the resistance to Huckabee--from day one, was his Evangelicalness. Simply put, I believe a majority of GOP stalwarts are plenty happy to have Religious Conservatives in the fold, they (the stalwarts) just aren't interested in a Religious Conservative playing Alpha. That's fine, but it really bothers me when the contempt for Huckabee (or similar Religious Conservatives) is cloaked in "fiscal conservative" or "corruption watchdog" smears. Huckabee was no worse on either of these counts than any of the other GOP candidates this cycle . . . he just wasn't. Now whether he would have been the best GOP nominee or not is another question, but his record did not warrant the special targeting of Club for Growth, unless you factor in his so-called "social conservatism."

All that being said, Huckabee isn't likely to be the candidate of choice of a majority of GOP establishment types, so I don't think that he would emerge from a brokered convention as the nominee. There's just too much "history" (from this particular primary) and too much resistance to his Social Conservatism (in general) for Romney delegates or McCain delegates to jump to Huckabee's ship. So, I say why not force the Democrats to at least defend Pryor's seat and at best start down the path to someday becoming the third sitting U.S. Senator to successfully run for the White House?

Also on WisdomIsVindicated.

Dobson endorsement of Huckabee is huge

Although people like Mitt Romney are now arguing that it is time to unite behind John McCain for the GOP nomination, news today (here) that James Dobson has given his personal endorsement to former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee demonstrates that at least some Religious Conservatives plan to contend for the steering wheel of the GOP. This is interesting because it throws down the gauntlet for the many Evangelical Republicans who have yet to cast a ballot. This is huge.

Though Dobson stated earlier in the week that he did not intend to support a McCain candidacy,* endorsing Huckabee is a whole 'nother level of fuel for the "Not McCain" movement. I don't think that people like Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or Laura Ingraham are likely to rally around Huckabee, but I don't think that matters many people who fit into the "Religious Conservative" category. If nothing else, this can perhaps motivate McCain to pay attention to the largest single voting bloc in the GOP. This is huge.










*In a letter released on the Laura Ingraham show, Dobson wrote:

"I am deeply disappointed the Republican Party seems poised to select a nominee who did not support a Constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage, voted for embryonic stem-cell research to kill nascent human beings, opposed tax cuts that ended the marriage penalty, has little regard for freedom of speech, organized the Gang of 14 to preserve filibusters in judicial hearings, and has a legendary temper and often uses foul and obscene language.

"I am convinced Sen. McCain is not a conservative, and in fact, has gone out of his way to stick his thumb in the eyes of those who are. He has sounded at times more like a member of the other party. McCain actually considered leaving the GOP caucus in 2001, and approached John Kerry about being Kerry’s running mate in 2004. McCain also said publicly that Hillary Clinton would make a good president. Given these and many other concerns, a spoonful of sugar does NOT make the medicine go down. I cannot, and will not, vote for Sen. John McCain, as a matter of conscience.

"But what a sad and melancholy decision this is for me and many other conservatives. Should Sen. McCain capture the nomination as many assume, I believe this general election will offer the worst choices for president in my lifetime. I certainly can't vote for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama based on their virulently anti-family policy positions. If these are the nominees in November, I simply will not cast a ballot for president for the first time in my life. These decisions are my personal views and do not represent the organization with which I am affiliated. They do reflect my deeply held convictions about the institution of the family, about moral and spiritual beliefs, and about the welfare of our country." (emphasis added)

This is huge.

What is "Fiscal Conservatism"?

I went to the Mike Huckabee campaign blog Mike Huckabee for President - Blogs - Romney is leaving race... to see what they were saying about Romney's departure, and for some reason, this comment jumped off the page (By the way, the campaign has officially said next to nothing about Romney's decision, but there are tons of comments.):

"Mike Huckabee is a true fiscal conservative."

It occurs to me that "fiscal conservative" means different things to different people.

In our family's finances, being "fiscally responsible" means spending less (or certainly not more than) what is coming in, right? But what about taking on the debt of a car loan or mortgage? Our family's income/revenue is the proper context for knowing how much debt is "safe," right?

I caught some of Dave Ramsey yesterday, and heard him counsel a caller that she and her husband needed to focus on increasing the income side of their ledger instead of just sitting tight and slowly paying off a debt . . . is that "Conservative"?

I perceive that--among the general population, the understanding of "fiscal Conservatism" is rather cloudy. When I use the term I have in mind small government (hence a small-er gov't budget) and low taxes, in sum supply-side economics, but I think others focus more on the balanced aspect of it and don't give much thought to where the money is coming from--as long as they perceive that it comes from someone else. Democrats have capitalized on this confusion in recent decades, seizing on the appearance that Reaganomics--in and of itself, is somehow fiscally irresponsible.

Another element of this issue that bears on the current campaign is that increasing spending on government programs--if existing spending is perceived to be too low, is not anathema to the average voter.

I suspect that Mike Huckabee's fiscal record in Arkansas (and McCain's reputation as attacking pork but not so much buying the supply-side argument) are having a significant impact on how the GOP race has played out. It will be interesting to see how the issue of "fiscal Conservatism" will play out in November.

Cross-posted at WisdomisVindicated.

And then there were two . . . Romney out

Mitt Romney announced in a speak before CPAC2008 that he is dropping out of the race for the GOP nomination. ("The Page "- by Mark Halperin - TIME). Here is the key passage from his CPAC speech this a.m.:

"Even though we face an uphill fight, I know that many in this room are fully behind my campaign.” You are with me all the way to the convention. Fight on, just like Ronald Reagan did in 1976. But there is an important difference from 1976: today… we are a nation at war.

And Barack and Hillary have made their intentions clear regarding Iraq and the war on terror. They would retreat and declare defeat. And the consequence of that would be devastating. It would mean attacks on America, launched from safe havens that make Afghanistan under the Taliban look like child’s play. About this, I have no doubt.

I disagree with Senator McCain on a number of issues, as you know. But I agree with him on doing whatever it takes to be successful in Iraq, on finding and executing Osama bin Laden, and on eliminating Al Qaeda and terror. If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.

This is not an easy decision for me. I hate to lose. My family, my friends and our supporters… many of you right here in this room… have given a great deal to get me where I have a shot at becoming President. If this were only about me, I would go on. But I entered this race because I love America, and because I love America, I feel I must now stand aside, for our party and for our country."

It's a great speech, by the way.

Also at wisdomisvindicated.