Huck2008

Huckabee 2008, indeed

2008-02-25T14:36:00.001-06:00

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

2008-02-08T16:57:00.000-06:00

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"?

2008-02-07T13:22:00.000-06:00

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

2008-02-07T12:20:00.000-06:00

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.

I'm endorsing Mitt Romney

2008-01-30T15:03:00.001-06:00

I know this post will come as a shock to many of you visiting the blog. Hopefully no readers will take offense, but regardless, I hope you'll better appreciate the complexity of choosing a candidate in the primary process.

Things are happening fast and furious in the political world. John Edwards drops his official bid for President and begins his official bid for vice president.

And on the GOP side . . .:

"John McCain’s wave of political momentum is building as he comes off a major win in the winner-take-all Florida presidential primary and prepares to receive the endorsement Wednesday of one-time Republican national frontrunner Rudy Giuliani."

At least for me, the decision to back a candidate is generally very complex. Character. Political positions. Track Record. And finally, "electability."

The GOP primary in Tennessee is in less than a week. The GOP race has (likely) narrowed to McCain, Romney and Huckabee (oh, and Ron Paul). And despite much research/consideration, I have long been unsure about whom I would be supporting for the GOP nomination. But the deciding factor for me was the extended conversation I had today with a former Arkansas state legislator who worked closely with former Governor Mike Huckabee while they both were in office. In sum, all the negative things I've heard about Huckabee's views on spending reminded me too much of former Tennessee Governor Don Sundquist. And all the negative (regarding fiscal policy) things I've heard from Huckabee's detractors were accurate. That being said, I still disagree with the focus by Huckabee detractors on Huckabee (to the exclusion of other candidates). But that leads me to my last point: electability.

In light of recent GOP political developments, I do not believe that Mike Huckabee is going to become the Republicans' nominee for President. With or without my support . . . with or without my vote. And among the two Republicans likely to be in the running at the end of the day, I unreservedly believe that Mitt Romney is the better candidate.

Now where can I get a yard sign . . .

Duncan Hunter endorses Huckabee

2008-01-24T12:11:00.000-06:00

Huckabee has passed a significant milestone in his campaign for presidency: he has gained the endorsement of a former rival for the GOP nomination:

"Mike Huckabee got a welcomed endorsement today from one of his former rivals for the GOP nod to the White House. Rep.Duncan Hunter (R-CA) endorsed Huckabee, citing his”outstanding character and integrity.”"

I think this is significant on a number of fronts, but particularly in Huckabee's case, it counters the perception pushed by some in the GOP that his is an "outlier" candidacy.

And I think Hunter's statement is significant in that it focuses on Huckabee's character. I think a candidate's dependability and forthrightness are even more important in a campaign where issues (and past records) aren't providing an obvious standard bearer for the Party.

Cross-posted at Wisdomisvindicated.

Who's hurting the Reagan Coalition?

2008-01-23T10:54:00.000-06:00

This story from Orlando (Mike Huckabee for President - Newsroom) is an example of Mike Huckabee's seemingly unique abilities (efforts?) to appeal to what used to be called "Reagan Democrats." For the first time in its 119-year history, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers is "endorsing" a Republican primary candidate.

I'm not sure whether it is because Huckabee, alone among the GOP candidates, is willing to speak to such audiences (ref. NH chapter of the National Education Association); or whether it is his message, but it does resonate with me that the Conservative (or modern-day Republican) message would be appealing to such audiences if they heard it from the right messenger or were just willing to listen to the messenger. It makes me wonder if a lot of our failure to appeal to traditional Democratic audiences is simply because we don't try.

This is an issue of rhetoric, I'd say, and I've long perceived that much of the criticism of Huckabee is related to the fact that he articulates his policy views in a way that is inoffensive to "non-Republicans."

Cross-posted at Wisdomisvindicated.

Theocrat my ear

2008-01-21T00:31:00.000-06:00

I was a bit out of pocket at the end of last week, so I didn't get the opportunity to respond to the religion-baiting based on Mike Huckabee's "easier to amend the constitution" statement from last week.

Take a deep breath, Libs. You, too, squishies. Huckabee's comment (which is either intentionally or ignorantly quoted without context) was in reference to claims by some Republicans that attempting to pass a Human Life Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not possible, or not wise (or whatever). Frankly, I think that various Republicans have discovered "Federalism" as a Stephen Douglas-like middle ground on issues like abortion and homosexual marriage. "I'm not for slavery, I'm just for Federalism." Okay, whatever. But back to Huckabee.

Huckabee thinks that humans in the womb are deserving of protection. This conclusion is based on the sacredness of innocent human life as nobly advanced in the Bible (aka "the living Word of God"). Of course, there are compelling non-Biblical, scientific, secularly philosophical bases for protecting innocent human life prior to birth (bases for which "Pro-Choicers" likewise have no compelling answer). Were Jim Crow laws consistent with the Bible? How about the laws upheld in the Dred Scott decision?

In the context of questioning whether Christians should ignore fundamental values (like, say, the ones that motivated Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to demand social change) because they happen to be rooted in the Christian faith or because they may require some hard work . . . the answer's kind of obvious, isn't it?

Also at wisdomisvindicated.

Why not McCain?

2008-01-20T16:34:00.000-06:00

George Will opines about John McCain and provides some perspective for the "wide open" Republican primary race ("Waiting for Straight Talk"). I'm not sure that he can be accused of not "talking straight" for espousing his all-over-the-map political views (historically and even in the present). I think he's just being himself--a career politician with a seemingly undisciplined mind, respected by almost all Americans for his pre-political biography and beloved of the MSM for his propensity to make mischief in the opposing political party.

Kicking the snot out of that strawman

2008-01-15T10:21:00.000-06:00

Writer Jeffrey Lord has a rambling, bullying op/ed at The American Spectator On-line about some Mike Huckabee statements in reference to American corporate greed as reflected in CEO salaries. I say "bullying" (and "rambling") because Lord spends way too much of the piece beating up on a strawman . . . perhaps he's actually building the strawman for most of that copy--I don't know.

But the important thing to remember is that such rhetoric is usually called forth in service to some other purpose, and it isn't "Conservatism" with a capital "C" or "the movement" (unless you're referring to a particular candidate). I will say up front that populist rhetoric from a candidate raises a red flag with me. That's probably because Democrats have long used those words or themes to demonize the affluent, foster class envy and argue for redistributing wealth (read: trusting gov't to determine what is a fair distribution of material things). Jeffrey Lord hammers that point and loosely connects it with allowing gov't to determine whether human life in the womb should be protected). From the beginning of his article:

"CEO pay and abortion.

On the surface, there would appear to be no connection. But that appearance would be wrong.

One of the more startling aspects of this GOP primary season is to hear a serious Republican candidate like Arkansas ex-Governor Mike Huckabee make an issue of executive pay in the private sector. Huckabee is not thrilled at the salaries paid various CEO's (not, I should say, this one!) by the freely elected boards of directors of free market companies. He leaves hanging the populist implication: let the government decide who gets paid how much compensation."

But as I've observed this campaign and thought about the 2006 campaign and witnessed how the Left (and its willing accomplice--the MSM) has much of the populace effectively sensitized to inequities in our system and in our economy. That's fine; nothing new there, but the problem comes when we (Conservatives or Republicans) categorically dismiss concerns about inequities in economic outcomes while ignoring inequities in economic policy. So-called "corporate welfare" and government bailouts and corporate lobbying scandals reflect that government is very involved in how corporations are run and how much profit corporations "make" and so on and so on. Something can be wrong or immoral and still legal. And law or government policy is a mishmash of such distinctions.

Mike Huckabee isn't proposing--as Jeffrey Lord and other interested parties have implied, that government regulate the salaries of CEOs. But what Huckabee is saying sure resonates with almost all those Americans who are not able to have their cake and eat it, too when it comes to advocating for a market free of government interference.

Also at WisdomisVindicated.

Paul Supporters Target Fox News . . . and Republicans

2008-01-14T10:10:00.000-06:00

This article about how Ronbots were mobilizing against FoxNews caught my eye a week or so ago. Ron Paul's supporters are indeed impressive--for their idealism if not for their ingeniousness. That being said, unfortunately (for Paul's supporters), their candidate's message is not resonating with voters--despite respectable fundraising . . . despite tireless politicking by supporters. Because I have long felt that paring down the number of candidates in debates is essential to have meaningful debates, it is completely appropriate to begin weeding out un-credible candidates.

But I thought this comment about why Ron Paul deserved to be included in any GOP debate was hilarious. Washington Wire - WSJ.com : Paul Supporters Target Fox News:

"An accomodation should be made for Ron Paul. His supporters are highly educated (but not necessarily via the formal route of college), have studied his voting history, have read his policy proposals, and have judged his ethical standard to be acceptable. Though polls indicate that Paul ranks in the high single digits, the quality of Paul’s supporters is extremely high.
.
By contrast, most supporters of the other candidates ignore the voting records of the candidates, ignore their policy proposals, and shockingly ignore their ethical standards. What counts for these supporters is gotcha’s, imagery, and glitz. Just look at all the dumb image posturing before the start of the Iowa caucuses. That posturing occurs because the candidates know that the typical American (who enthusiastically supported sending a too small military force of 170,000 soldiers to Iraq) is an ignorant fool who is easily swayed by some sound bites."

Attaboy . . . that's how you attract support. And there's even more to this comment. Is it any wonder that most Conservatives aren't interested in Paul? That sounds like a comment from a Liberal, pseudo-intellectual if there ever was one.

Also at WisdomisVindicated.

Club for Loathing

2008-01-14T10:02:00.001-06:00

This video clip kind of reflects the suspect obsession of Club for Growth's Pat Toomey with Mike Huckabee--even the host (Chris Matthews) seems to point it out.

It's one thing to pick between two candidates in a primary so as to advance a group's particular issue (actually, CfG is one of the few special interests who is willing to do this--to their credit) but targeting a single candidate in a crowded field of candidates with inarguably mixed records on economic policy is, frankly, suspicious.

Also, at WisdomisVindicated.

Picking a candidate

2008-01-05T11:49:00.000-06:00

Party politics are fascinating to me. Why? Because of the organic/complex process by which people pick a candidate. You could call it "messy."

And the process for special interest groups is almost as messy. I've commented extensively on the Club for Growth and its extraordinary opposition to a single candidate--Huckabee, early in the GOP primaries.

And today I've gotten several emails noting Fred Thompson's endorsement by pro-life organizations in Wyoming and New Hampshire. This follows the November endorsement of Thompson by the National Right to Life Committee.

In November, the largest factor in the process was Giuliani's perceived front-runner status, and the importance of folks-for-whom-Giuliani-was-not-acceptable (for policy or other reasons) coalescing behind another candidate so as to deny Giuliani the nomination. For Social Conservatives (wary of Romney's reliability and averse to McCain) Thompson seemed like the best bet at the time, and the NRLC even said at the time that he was the most electable candidate. And "single issue" organizations are rarely "single issue" inasmuch as they have to consider the issue of whether a candidate could ever be in a position to influence policy.

Well, today the landscape is different. Huckabee, once viewed by Social Conservatives as a hopeless underdog, is well-positioned to get the nomination, and his record is plainly, demonstrably more "Pro-life" than that of any of the other credible candidates. There is more information available about him and his record at this juncture, but the same can be said of all the candidates (and I'd submit that the information is not as cut and dried as many pretend).

So, "single-issue" Social Conservative organizations, by choosing someone these groups either (a) are more interested in other issues on which Huckabee is purportedly "weak": immigration and spending or (b) are concerned that Huckabee cannot win in a general election or (c) view Huckabee as too independent of them (read: less dependent on their endorsement). Or it could be a combination of these factors . . . see how complicated this is?

I'd say that emphasizes the respect and charitableness with which we should treat others' good-faith conclusions in a primary race.

Also at WisdomisVindicated.

Say what you mean . . . and don't be mean

2008-01-04T15:15:00.000-06:00

Byron York reports ("Byron York on Iowa Caucus" on National Review Online) about the Iowa campaigns of Huckabee and Romney and hints at what is perhaps the key to Huckabee's success:

"[Romney Spokesman Eric] Fehrnstrom, like the rest of Romney’s team, was unfailingly professional. But his analysis pointed to a blind spot in the Romney campaign, a blind spot most likely shared by the candidate himself. For all his money, and all his energy, and all his organizational skills, Romney could not put to rest the doubts many Iowa Republicans felt about his genuineness, or lack of genuineness. As they paid more attention to politics in the days leading up to the caucuses, some of those voters came to believe that Huckabee had more of that indefinable something that they want in a candidate. In the end, the race wasn’t about infrastructure at all — something Romney never figured out but Huckabee knew all along."

I think that Huckabee's appeal actually hinges on his seemingly un-Conservative message and--here's the point, his willingness to stand by those sentiments. His famous line, "I'm Conservative, I'm just not angry about it," encapsulates this quality well.

Now I'm not convinced that his governing philosophy is as un-Conservative as his "soft" rhetoric sounds, but I think that people are attracted to someone who believes what he believes and seems willing to stand by those beliefs, even when it seems in his interest not to.

Also at WisdomisVindicated.

The Club for Growth: slouching towards irrelevance

2008-01-04T11:02:00.000-06:00

I have long supported the mission of Club for Growth, but I have been concerned by their--in my perception, exceptional attacks against Mike Huckabee in the GOP primary.

Courtesy of Blue Collar Muse at Tennessee ConserVOLiance is an interesting discussion of the subject ("The Club for Growth: slouching towards irrelevance"):

"Over the next few days, we will hear a great deal about the meaning of the Iowa Caucuses, as pundits and bloggers will sift through the demographic data to interpret trends, and voter preferences. There were two obvious winners. There were several losers.

The Big Loser tonight in Iowa: The Club for Growth.

I’ve written quite a bit about The Club for Growth’s ongoing jihad against Mike Huckabee.

With each salvo launched by Pat Toomey and the Club for Growth, the Huck has seemed to gain additional momentum. Each time a new “White Paper” has been released (there have been three so far) the level of skepticism towards CfG has grown. Among a large portion of the conservative coalition, the Club for Growth is no longer viewed as an honest broker. After spending upwards of $700,000 in attack advertising with the stated aim of derailing Huckabee, and future buys pending in Carolina, Huckabee went from low single digits in the polls to this solid victory in the opening act of the 08 election.

Toomey will, no doubt, claim that the message just isn’t getting out, and will order his troops to increase the volume, exaggerations, demonizations, polarizations, and continue the promotion of small-tent conservatism that continues to drive the Club towards irrelevance."

Perils of political procrastination

2008-01-03T11:04:00.000-06:00

I've always struggled with procrastination. So even though I am very interested in politics, and even though I KEEP UP (much to my wife's chagrin) with politics, I still feel like I'm cramming for the GOP primary; scrambling to pick a candidate.

In any event, I'm taking a second look (not in the usual way) at Huckabee. I always bristled (here, for example) at the term "Compassionate Conservatism" particularly inasmuch as it was crafted (and claimed) by a purported Conservative. It implies that "compassion" is anomalous with "conservative." And I may be concluding that it will be hard to support Huckabee for president. I know that sounds squishy or waffly, but I am just keeping it real. This may be an example of the dog who caught the car . . . Huckabee's ascendance was always a long shot, and I wanted to make sure that the GOP candidate wasn't selected for me by the "GOP establishment" or the MSM, so I have long considered supporting him. Unfortunately, I now have some misgivings which are the result of all the disclosures and discoveries that come out over the course of a campaign.

It's Huckabee's premises that concern me. I concede that we as individuals are more interdependent than ever in the history of America, and that our interdependence blurs lines between accountability and how my life affects others. But I don't think that it has to be that way, and it is a wrong direction to go in arguing that "healthcare costs" will be less if I let the government/state encourage/underwrite others' efforts to lose weight, for example.

Take this recent Time op/ed:

When the Republicans met in Dearborn, Mich., to debate the economy, most of the candidates maintained that times were good and that people who thought otherwise just hadn't seen the statistics.

Huckabee had a different message: "For many people on this stage, the economy's doing terrifically well, but for a lot of Americans, it's not doing so well." He talked about people who have trouble paying their rent or getting health insurance or paying for college. Huckabee does not always have convincing answers to these problems, but at least he recognizes them.

On environmental issues, too, he has broken from the pack. Only John McCain and he have urged the Federal Government to combat global warming. "I'm one of the few Republicans who talk very clearly about the environment, health care, infrastructure, energy independence. I don't cede any of those to the Democrats," he says.

In addition, while acknowledging the importance of magnanimity and Huckabee's appeal to moderates (largely due to his "presentation"), I think Huckabee--like Dubya, may be too inclined to compromise.

Believe it or not, Huckabee's alleged siding with Liberals in the struggle within the SBC is a significant issue for me. His seeming pragmatism in rolling-over for or compromising with Democrats in Arkansas in regard to any and every taxing/spending issue. The potential–as evidenced by his SCHIP debate comment (seeming to say he would not have vetoed the Dems’ bill), to act the same way if he were to get into the White House concerns me.

From a John Fund article about Huckabee.

Rick Scarborough, a pastor who heads Vision America, attended seminary with Mr. Huckabee and is a strong backer. But, he acknowledges, "Mike has always sought the validation of elites." When conservatives took over the Southern Baptist Convention after a bitter fight in the 1980s, Mr. Huckabee sided with the ruling moderates. Paul Pressler, a former Texas judge who led the conservative Southern Baptist revolt, told me, "I know of no conservative he appointed while he headed the Arkansas Baptist Convention."

To be clear, I have never "endorsed" Mike Huckabee, though I admittedly have been eager for him to get a fair listen and for his articulation of social conservative principles to be heard. I started blogs for him and Sam Brownback at the same time (and reserved blog names for a handful of other potential acceptable-to-socially-conservatives candidates at the same time). I have attempted to give fair consideration and critiques to all the GOP candidates (except for Ron Paul and some other Grandstandidates ©) It may seem odd to say that but I have long worried that accelerated primary schedules coupled with the dominance of "the Media" in shaping perceptions (and a desire so to shape, frankly) can result in voters making hasty and perhaps ill-advised decisions about whom to support for President. I am just thankful that I'm not going to have to vote tonight on who I want to represent the GOP in '08.

I'm leaning Thompson (you can do a search of a particular candidate's name to get a feel of my feelings about him/her).

I like his demeanor/temperament, his communication skills, his charisma and his rather consistent conservative record. I think that the MSM (and any Republican already committed to another candidate) have a stake in hyping the perception that Thompson is lazy or disinterested or arrogant. This Newsweek article from September provides both sides of this argument, I think.

But as soon as I'm close to picking Thompson, I get an email notification of some lame google hit piece (here) from the Thompson campaign. Face it, people . . . there is plenty of legitimate stuff with which to hammer Huckabee . . . and that stuff resonates with me. The other stuff just irritates me and reflects poorly on your boy. And news like today's report that Thompson would back McCain if he dropped out concerns me . . . I'm not a McCain fan.

As I wrote to David Oatney earlier today, I--like most people, have a number of variables that I'm considering before making my choice, and despite what supporters of various candidates say, there's not a no-brainer choice.

Cross-posted at WisdomisVindicated.

Not going negative, seriously

2007-12-31T23:11:00.000-06:00

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

2007-12-31T13:34:00.000-06:00

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

2007-12-28T12:59:00.000-06:00

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

2007-12-22T14:38:00.000-06:00

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

2007-12-22T14:25:00.000-06:00

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?

2007-12-19T16:29:00.000-06:00

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

2007-12-08T21:52:00.000-06:00

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?

2007-12-08T13:25:00.000-06:00

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

2007-12-07T14:25:00.000-06:00

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

2007-11-30T22:33:00.000-06:00

(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?

2007-11-30T00:18:00.000-06:00

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

2007-11-29T00:47:00.000-06:00

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

2007-11-21T23:38:00.000-06:00

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

(Another) Poll finds Huckabee at Romney's heels

2007-11-18T22:44:00.000-06:00

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

2007-11-18T16:19:00.000-06:00

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

2007-11-17T23:30:00.000-06:00

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?

2007-11-14T16:07:00.000-06:00

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?

2007-11-12T18:08:00.000-06:00

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

2007-11-12T16:03:00.000-06:00

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 . . .

2007-11-09T21:10:00.000-06:00

at a Hillary fundraiser?

Dobson leaning Huckabee?

2007-11-09T14:38:00.000-06:00

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

2007-11-08T10:50:00.000-06:00

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

2007-11-06T16:05:00.001-06:00

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

2007-11-05T14:32:00.000-06:00

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

2007-11-05T10:03:00.000-06:00

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?

2007-11-03T10:52:00.000-05:00

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

2007-11-02T23:00:00.001-05:00

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 . . .

2007-11-02T15:45:00.000-05:00

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

2007-11-02T10:05:00.000-05:00

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

2007-10-30T13:31:00.000-05:00

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

2007-10-26T17:05:00.000-05:00

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"

2007-10-26T16:51:00.000-05:00

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

2007-10-20T22:24:00.000-05:00

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

2007-10-17T23:04:00.000-05:00

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.

2007-10-17T22:08:00.000-05:00

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 . . .

2007-10-15T15:30:00.000-05:00

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?

2007-10-03T21:55:00.000-05:00

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

2007-09-28T20:54:00.000-05:00

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 . . .

2007-09-27T22:46:00.000-05:00

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

2007-09-11T14:41:00.000-05:00

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

2007-08-29T17:01:00.000-05:00

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

2007-08-26T23:20:00.000-05:00

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

2007-08-26T14:30:00.000-05:00

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?

2007-08-25T22:45:00.000-05:00

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

2007-08-25T22:25:00.000-05:00

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

2007-08-24T09:34:00.001-05:00

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

2007-08-21T15:30:00.000-05:00

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

2007-08-21T15:08:00.000-05:00

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"

2007-08-18T22:07:00.000-05:00

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!

2007-08-15T13:15:00.000-05:00

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

2007-08-15T13:08:00.000-05:00

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

2007-08-13T11:31:00.000-05:00

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?

2007-08-13T11:06:00.000-05:00

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

2007-08-13T00:15:00.000-05:00

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 . . .

2007-08-12T23:51:00.000-05:00

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)

2007-08-12T00:50:00.000-05:00

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 . . .

2007-08-11T09:23:00.001-05:00

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)

2007-08-10T14:56:00.000-05:00

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

2007-08-09T23:35:00.000-05:00

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

2007-08-09T23:13:00.000-05:00

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.

"They like Mike" - Politico.com

2007-08-05T22:57:00.000-05:00

Mike Allen of Politico.com reports on an intriguing focus group of today's GOP debate:

"DES MOINES -- Going into Sunday's Republican presidential debate, most of the Iowans noshing on English muffins in the sun room of the neon-bedecked Drake Diner had never heard of Mike Huckabee, or knew very little about the ex-preacher and former governor of Arkansas.

But by the debate’s end, they knew a lot more — and liked what they saw."

Read the rest of the article here ("They like Mike" - Mike Allen - Politico.com)

Cross-posted at WisdomIsVindicated.

Mitt on message; obnoxious host on Mitt

2007-08-05T15:49:00.000-05:00

Over at Jonathan Martin's blog Jonathan Martin's Blog - Politico.com I read about this contentious exchange between Mitt Romney and a local talk radio host in Iowa (when you watch the video you'll see why he is likely to remain "local").

I think that Romney needs to be asked tough questions--regarding his evolution on various issues dear to the GOP base, but there's a difference between asking a candidate questions and acting as know-it-all, wannabe campaign consultant.

Also, Jonathan Martin also has some interesting comments about Romney's challenge as a devout Mormon--or devout member of any religion, running for President. Running as a Mormon is unique in that most Americans are not Mormons, but I agree with Romney's position (as stated in the video) that it is important for Religious Conservatives to demonstrate how they will scrupulously not impose their religious beliefs on others.

If you watch the full video you'll see that Romney is very disciplined about staying on message. And I agree with his message.

A great one-liner and article . . .

2007-08-04T23:08:00.000-05:00

The Other Man From Hope: "Muscatine, Iowa
Here in this small but engaging river city, known for its watermelons and sunsets, Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas and now a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, wants the two dozen Iowans seated around him in Green's Tea and Coffee to know that he's 'leading' in the polls. This is startling news, since Huckabee has never polled above single digits in any survey. But Huckabee proceeds to explain. He cites the AP's interpretation of a recent Associated Press-Ipsos poll saying that no top-tier candidate--not Rudy Giuliani or John McCain or Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson--did better than 'none of the above.' Pausing, Huckabee announces, 'Well, ladies and gentlemen, I am 'none of the above.'"

Huckabee: Trim Waist, Hefty Record

2007-08-04T21:04:00.000-05:00

I just came across this flattering article about Mike Huckabee who was chosen in 2005 as one of the Governing: 2005 Public Officials of the Year/Huckabee. From the article:

MIKE HUCKABEE

Trim Waist, Hefty Record

Mike Huckabee is probably best known nationally for having recently shed more than 100 pounds after being diagnosed with diabetes. As the governor of Arkansas for the past decade, he has done just as much to reshape government, forcing changes in most important areas of state policy.

It's a pretty good overview of his time as governor.

Photo by Sean Moorman

Arkansas Blog: Huckabee gets clubbed

2007-08-03T22:48:00.000-05:00

Via Jeremy at Huckabee.wordpress.com I learned of this likely explanation for Mike Huckabee's recent bushwhacking at the hands of Club for Growth. Arkansas Blog: Huckabee gets clubbed.

Huckabee had recruited Madison Murphy, Jackson T. Stephens Jr. and Jim Walton a number of years ago to bankroll his Next Step foundation to work for education reform. Over time, it became clear that Huckabee's aim was more about the governor's political advancement than the sweeping reform the barons had envisioned.

Anyway, along the way, another important issue came up. At a Mansion meeting brokered by Jay Dickey, Huckabee met with Stephens, heir to part of the Stephens Inc. fortune. Stephens, who had toyed with the idea of running for governor, was backing an initiative to remove all the sales tax on groceries. Huckabee promised him he would not be actively involved in the issue. Then he reneged. He came out -- commendably -- against the ruinous proposal. If we had to guess, we'd put DFA boss Richard Weiss at the top of the list of suspects who helped convince Huckabee that his weight was needed in opposition to a government-crippling idea. The initiative failed by a huge margin. Stephens never forgave Huckabee for breaking his word. Stephens is a major supporter of the Club for Growth. Follow the dots.

Follow the dots, indeed . . . and connect the money.

Club for Growth's inexplicable attack on Huckabee--update

2007-08-03T15:09:00.000-05:00

I have to say that the Club for Growth's $85k attack ad buy this week (ironically, masked as "call Mike Huckabee and tell him . . ." ads) seems a bit out of whack. Real Clear Politics - News - Mid Term Elections - Elections 2008 - Opinion - Commentary - TIME. I am familiar with Club for Growth's work--heck, I'm a "member," and I generally support the values of the Club for Growth and I certainly support the idea of working to help a good candidate emerge from a primary.

Likewise, I won't deny that a couple of Huckabee's decisions to condone or advance tax increases while governor of Arkansas aren't easy to defend. By saying that, I'm not conceding that any defense amounts to shilling; I'm just saying that a Conservative voter has a right to ask why Huckabee failed to categorically oppose tax increases. I think he has a legitimate explanation.

But I'm more interested in Club for Growth's explanation for going jugular via a massive media buy against an admittedly second-tier candidate more than six months prior to the election (and one week prior to the Ames Straw Poll). If Huckabee is so bad on taxes and spending (economic issues) then surely the other front runners are as suspect . . . Rudy? Romney? McCain? These guys don't have comparable economic blemishes? Then--as top-tier-types, wouldn't they be more suitable for attack? If the answer is that they're not competing in the Ames Straw Poll, then it appears that Huckabee is being targeted in favor of some other second-tier candidate, no?

UPDATE: It appears that the clubbing isn't so inexplicable . . .

Will converting to Catholicism suffice?

2007-08-02T11:09:00.000-05:00

I was trying to be sympathetic to Brownback in regard to anti-Catholic comments by a Huckabee supporter, but I'm starting to get annoyed. Brownback Campaign Again Calls Huckabee to Denounce 'Anti-Catholic' Slur | Christianpost.com It really is hard not to conclude that Brownback et al are trying to make hay of this incident.

Cross-posted at WisdomisVindicated.

Maybe Brownback should check his inbox before calling his Press Secretary

2007-08-01T10:38:00.000-05:00

I just saw this AP report . . . Senator Sam Brownback says Mike Huckabee should apologize for anti-Catholic comments made by a supporter of Huckabee in an email. 3 senators call for regional primaries for 2012 election - The Boston Globe:

"Brownback wants apology
WASHINGTON -- Republican presidential hopeful Sam Brownback said rival Mike Huckabee should apologize for a supporter's 'prejudiced whisper campaign' against Brownback for being Catholic."

I certainly understand Brownback taking offense, but anyone who is paying attention (vs. someone who is trying to make political hay of the situation?) would know that Huckabee has already attempted to make amends.

Cross-posted at WisdomIsVindicated.

Good coverage of anti-Catholic comments by Huckabee supporter

2007-07-31T23:11:00.000-05:00

If you haven't heard, one of Mike Huckabee's supporters in Iowa (ironically, a minister named "Rude") made some anti-Catholic comments in an email sent to Evangelical supporters of Sam Brownback.

Well, I just came across this excellent coverage of the situation. The Maritime Sentry: Catholic League Responds To Bigoted Comment By Rev. Rude - UPDATED WITH GOV. HUCKABEE'S STATEMENT

Updated:

Here was Huckabee's statement (received via email) disclaiming the (Rev.) Rude comment:

Former Gov. Mike Huckabee Issues Statement About Campaign Supporters

July, 31 2007

LITTLE ROCK, AR – Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee Tuesday issued the following statement in response to media inquiries about an e-mail issued by Rev. Tim Rude in Iowa:

“We are glad that Rev. Rude issued an apology and clarification for his comments. They were not authorized by, disseminated by, approved by, or condoned by the campaign. Our campaign enjoys strong support from Catholics as well as evangelicals, and for that matter, from people whose support is not faith-based at all. I have spoken in Catholic churches and maintained a strong relationship with Christian brothers and sisters from many denominations.

“While I’m deeply grateful that many people of faith support me because they know I represent views compatible with theirs, I know that there are many others who support me because of an effective record of achieving results. Either way, I’m grateful for the support.

“I consider Sam Brownback a Christian brother and know that he feels likewise toward me. Like Senator Brownback, several key members of my staff are Roman Catholic. As believers, we don’t have time to fight each other. We need to focus on having a servant’s spirit and bringing hope to those who have given up.”

Can't a guy get any respect?

2007-07-22T22:23:00.000-05:00

Many Democrats (begrudgingly) praise Mike Huckabee (for his temperament and winsomeness), but calling him a Democrat is a bit much, I'd say. I just came across this article ("Plight of the poor emerges as an issue / Candidates Edwards and Brownback offer heartfelt proposals") from the San Francisco Chronicle that puts Huckabee in the "D" column:

"By early summer, the Pew Forum had posted anti-poverty profiles for 10 candidates: Sam Brownback, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney on the Republican side, and Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Mike Huckabee, Barack Obama and Bill Richardson among the Democrats."

Anyway, let me say that I always bristled at Dubya's use of the qualifier "Compassionate" with the word "Conservative," and I reject the notion that a candidate only cares about "the plight of the poor" if s/he proposes some gov't scheme to seem to be doing something about it.

On the subject of poverty, "John Edwards Vows To End All Bad Things By 2011," | The Onion - America's Finest News Source.

(You'll also find this posted at WisdomisVindicated.

Huckabee and others viable despite numbers

2007-07-17T08:44:00.000-05:00

This report Arkansas News Bureau - Huckabee touts momentum, not money explains how candidates like Huckabee cannot be counted out--so many Republican voters are still "in play"

: "Despite the widening money gap, Goldford and others said the former Arkansas governor still has a chance to emerge as the Republican choice since many party voters remain undecided six months ahead of the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses."

. I sure hope so.

That being said, Fred Thompson's "official" entry into the race will help many voters make a decision . . .

cross-posted at WisdomisVindicated.

Irony of the Day: Michael Moore, Inc. accuses someone of media stunting

2007-07-12T17:16:00.001-05:00

I just read (via sloanereality.blogspot.com) that Michael Moore Inc. and Mike Huckabee are mixing it up a little. ("Huckabee : Filmmaker Moore an example of health care problems").

It appears that Huckabee was asked during a 7/11 conference call with journalists to comment on Michael Moore's crocumentary "Sicko." As Huckabee often does, he turned the discussion about healthcare toward preventable maladies like obesity and heart disease.

But both the AP writer and the spokeswoman for Moore imply that Moore is the target of mean ol' Republicans or just greedy/contribution-hungry ol' GOP Presidential candidates.

"Looks like Mike Huckabee is auditioning for some insurance company dough, since he's raised just about no money and sparked zero interest since jumping into the race," O'Hara said in a response provided by Moore's production office. "I wonder what the good governor would say to the French, who drink more, smoke more, eat more cheese and still live longer than us despite paying less for health care?"

. At the end of the article, they reference Fred Thompson's youtube RESPONSE to a verbal assault from Michael Moore earlier in the Summer. In that instance, Moore threw some elbows at Thompson in an apparent effort to generate attention just prior to the release of "Sicko," but now it is handy for characterizing Moore as a Republican punching bag.

Further irony is that Huckabee is probably most sympathetic to Moore's premise that something has to be done to reform the American healthcare system. But I guess a knee jerk reaction by Moore is predictable given that Moore can only conceive of one prescription for everyone else's problems: socialism.

Huckabee Blogcall -- 7/11/07

2007-07-11T16:21:00.000-05:00

I participated in a blogger conference call for Huckabee today, and have a couple of observations. I asked two questions on the call, both related to Sen. Sam Brownback--Huckabee's main competition for Conservative Republicans.

First I asked Huckabee to comment on Brownback's votes last week in favor of and then in opposition to cloture on the "Immigration Reform" bill. Huckabee's response was very gracious, but substantive. He said (and I'm paraphrasing),

"It demonstrates the difficulty of running for president after having served in the senate–you are vulnerable to challenges for having taken both sides of issues."

Later I asked his Iowa Campaign Chair, Bob Vander Plaats, what his reaction was to the Brownback campaign's announcement of his "Faith and Family Leadership Committee"--a group of 50 Iowan Religious Conservatives backing him for president.

I have to admit I was surprised by the news report ("Religious conservatives get behind Brownback in Iowa")--though I wouldn't be able to judge--from looking at the names, how "impressed" I should be by the announcement.
But I was more surprised to hear Vander Plaats say that he wasn't aware of the announcement, an announcement that I heard about on July 7th. Like me, Vander Plaats said that he would have to see the list of names to be able to comment on the import of the announcement. (Here's the list.) But he also said (and I'm paraphrasing) “Iowans aren’t as impressed with who endorses a candidate as they are with the candidate.” I suppose that's true in most campaigns aside from certain EXCEPTIONAL endorsers.

All in all, another great opportunity to witness Huckabee's noteworthy ability and willingness to answer any and every question posed to him.

also posted at WisdomisVindicated.

Romney and his stem cells device

2007-07-10T13:32:00.000-05:00

I inadvertently came across an op/ed from the Mitt Romney campaign today and it struck a bad note with me. Mitt Romney on Stem Cells on National Review Online. While I want this blog to focus on Huckabee's strengths rather than other candidate's weaknesses, I feel like this is a good opportunity to articulate why at this stage of the contest I prefer Huckabee over Romney.

Romney's piece is intended--I would surmise, as a means for Romney to demonstrate his ability to see beyond politics (and the subset of that, "be above the DC/Federal/Partisan game"). It also can serve to signal to the casual reader/voter/thinker--who also happens to be "socially Conservative," that Romney has this issue on his mind. This last use is valuable because Romney asserts that his "conversion" on the abortion issue (a couple years ago) happened in the context of this debate while he was Governor of Massachusetts.

But I have some problems with what Romney writes. First, Romney implies that people on both sides of the stem cell debate are extreme:

Opposing advocates (ed.: that's an interesting phrase--"opposing advocates"; in any event that's folks like me) told me that the pluripotency of stem cells — their ability to become a very wide variety of different cell types — would not be of great therapeutic value, and that other sources of tissues and cells could serve the same purpose. But they ignored the unique role pluripotent cells could play in basic science.

Uh, not exactly; no one on my side of the debate was ignoring anything, it's just that someone whose position on this is based on the principle that innocent human life--regardless of the stage, is sacred does not feel compelled to accept embryonic harvesting (and certainly not taxpayer funding of such) just because there is some advantage to humans at other stages of development; and the argument is even less compelling when such advantage is merely potentially advantageous.

Next, Romney seems to say that it's about time that everyone began to adopt his prescient position on the issue. Writing in light of (and in reference to) medical discoveries only coming to light in the last few months, Romney implies that his position has always been based on an understanding that adult stem cells contained the same pluripotency (so to speak) as embryonic stem cells:

Couldn’t the strongest part of each side’s argument — the utility of pluripotent cells on the one hand and the importance of protecting human life on the other — be brought together? I studied the issue for many months, and entered into conversation with experts from across the nation who were looking for consensus solutions, like Stanford’s Dr. William Hurlbut. In the end, I became persuaded that the stem-cell debate was grounded in a false premise, and that the way through it was around it: by the use of scientific techniques that could produce the equivalent of embryonic stem cells but without cloning, creating, harming, or destroying developing human lives.

A number of such techniques have begun to emerge in recent years, and as last week’s exciting scientific publications showed, some of the world’s best stem-cell scientists are hard at work bringing them to fruition.(emphasis added)

Frankly, the difference between now and then is that some people were willing to destroy human embryos for research and others said, we have to find another way. These new developments merely make the principled position easier to swallow.

Romney correctly points out that these developments change the dynamic of the debate and that Democrats--for apparently political and certainly intolerant reasons, aren't interested in fighting the stem cell battle on these new terms. After all, it is easier to demagogue the issue and characterize Conservatives as anti-science, fanatically-pro-life, and compassionless on the old terrain. But Romney's corollary theses are insulting to me.

I doubt Romney contemplated that this latest communications tactic on the stem cell issue could be a slight to "social Conservatives"; however, Romney's op/ed is only slightly more generous (toward Religious Conservatives) than the Democrats' treatment of the issue. That's unfortunate, and it is one reason I am supportive of someone like Mike Huckabee, whom I'm confident has not had a "Road to Des Moines" experience on an issue this important to me.

Dem opp research in full swing v. non-candidate

2007-07-09T15:08:00.000-05:00

An article I've just read helps demonstrate the problem with endorsing a candidate too early or before "all the facts" are in; though, I'm not sure about the implications of such reports on a Thompson campaign.

The L.A.Times ("Thompson star dims on abortion issue") is getting up to speed on its opposition research, especially in light of the fact that Fred Thompson is technically still only considering a run for president. Either they're doing some extraordinary digging, or they're lapdogging the abortion-is-AOK lobby. Witnesses and corroborating witnesses et al are being sourced for the story that Fred Thompson lobbied on behalf of the chipper-sounding "National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Assn."

But I like this choice paragraph from the article: "In 1991, according to several people then affiliated with the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Assn., [Thompson] accepted an assignment from the association to lobby the White House to withdraw or relax a 'gag rule' that barred abortion counseling at clinics that received federal money."I like the convoluted way they describe the legislation; I guess it was a little difficult to craft a sentence that used the term "gag rule."

Of course, this news (even with the denials) will serve to unsettle Conservatives, but many are opting for ultra-pragmatism going into '08 . . . emphasis on "ultra" and "going into" . . . there's plenty of time between now and the primaries. Even John Kerry had to mortgage his wife's house to stay afloat after losing in Iowa. But too many Republicans are obsessing on guessing what voters think (or will think) come some future date against an unknown candidate that they're choosing the the "lesser of" before a choice is necessary. Come on folks, just because Huckabee hasn't been a national celebrity to date doesn't mean you should dismiss him.

More or less crossposted at Wisdomisvindicated.

Newsmax's Huckabee hit piece

2007-07-03T12:30:00.000-05:00

As I've noted elsewhere this morning (here) , I am kind of disappointed in Newsmax.com for publishing a hit piece today about Mike Huckabee. Here's the link. Huckabee's Record: Anything But Conservative.

The reason I categorize it as a "hit piece" is because the article is listed under "Top News" yet it merely recycles a lot of old data/news and it is more or less an op/ed. In sum, it wasn't "news" and it wasn't a "report."

Oh, and it was published on the day before almost all "news" will go silent for the Fourth of July holiday--it's what Conservative news junkies will be reading during this slow news period. I personally don't read Newsmax, but I know it is a favorite site for many in the so-called GOP base.

Regarding the substance of the hit piece, I've posted a little bit in the past about Huckabee's economic record.

Huckabee Blogger Conference Call and Home Ec hardballs

2007-07-03T10:49:00.000-05:00

I commend candidates like Mike Huckabee and Nashville Mayoral candidates who are reaching out to bloggers, but--especially on the Presidential level, it is a serious risk for the campaign . . . a risk that your candidate will react the way a normal non-candidate would to some of the stupid questions they are asked. This reminded me of Fred's touch-down in Nashville last week.

I guess there is the same danger with a professional journalist audience; but it's kind of a different type of "danger." I was eager to get Huckabee's reaction to what has all the appearances of a hit piece in Newsmax.com today--I say "hit piece" because it is recycling a lot of old data, is categorized under "Top News!" and it has a thesis akin to an op/ed and unlike a news report.

I was also interested to get his reaction to disappointing fundraising numbers for this quarter, but, alas, some blogger used precious con call to follow up their question (from the last conference call) about teaching home economics in schools.

The savvy and kindness with which Huckabee handled the Home Ec hardball is a credit to him and his strengths as a candidate . . . but the buzz in the blogosphere on the subject of Huckabee today is not likely to focus on the value of teaching teenagers how to make french toast.

cross-posted at WisdomisVindicated.

Huckabee unscripted

2007-06-27T21:32:00.000-05:00

I don't know if any other campaigns are doing this, but Mike Huckabee has been holding fairly regular conference calls for bloggers. Here's a link to audio of his latest such call. ("Huckabee Blogger Conference Call 6/26") It is noteworthy that Huckabee will submit to unscreened questioning by for all purposes "unknown" bloggers.

This particular call may not appeal to some--both of the guests on the call are Social Conservative figures, but here's another example.

also posted at WisdomisVindicated Blog

Huckabee's example

2007-06-27T10:36:00.000-05:00

Here's an interesting article about former Governor Mike Huckabee's discipline in staying fit. Huckabee's run hinges on his running - Politico.com.

Such a trait is perhaps the single best indicator of success. I suppose most people would be glad to know this about him.

hat tip, the Corner: NationalReview.com

cross-posted at wisdomisvindicated

Huckabee on McCain-Feingold

2007-06-25T15:28:00.000-05:00

I found this information about Mike Huckabee's view of McCain-Feingold this afternoon: (here):

"Political Free Speech

Maximizing prosperity requires sound government policies. When the government strays from these policies, citizens must be free to exercise their constitutional rights to petition and criticize those policies and the politicians responsible for them.

Governor Huckabee is on record criticizing the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform, though the majority of his criticism has focused on discriminatory measures that allows senators to transfer money from Senate committees to presidential runs, but deny governors the same freedom to move state funds into federal accounts. While he called for less restrictions and more disclosure regarding campaign contributions (The Hill 11/29/06) and okayed unlimited soft money provided full disclosure (Arkansas Democrat-Gazette 03/10/00), Governor Huckabee is also on record favoring limiting individual, PAC, corporate, and political party contributions to state candidates (votesmart.org 2002)."

The last section refers to this report which is essentially the law as it stood (in relation to Federal Elections) prior to McCain-Feingold.

According to this Club for Growth press release from March, Huckabee and other potential GOP nominees have expressed "strong opposition" to McCain-Feingold.

also posted at WisdomisVindicated.

Huckabee passes McCain in Iowa poll

2007-06-20T16:57:00.000-05:00

I'm pleasantly surprised to see that Mike Huckabee has passed John McCain in a recent Mason-Dixon poll of "likely caucus-goers" in Iowa. (here) In a way, this doesn't surprise me, given McCain's past disdain for the GOP base and his current disdain for sane Immigration policy. Add to this his disdain for the Ames Straw Poll, and I think it shouldn't be that big of a surprise. Of course, this is probably more a story about McCain's descent than anything else, but it is nice to see what appears to be an ascent for Huckabee.

I read one Lefty blog that mistakenly claimed McCain's declining poll numbers have something to do with his support of Bush's Iraq strategies . . . uh, I don't think so. I plan to post more about this later, but this reflects the Left's incomprehension of the GOP voter's unwillingness to leave the President out on a limb in the face of outrageous attacks from the Left. Bush may be a failed military strategist, but he's not evil or a criminal, and he's our failed military strategist.

Cross-posted at WisdomisVindicated

Early endorsement of Huckabee by HSLDA

2007-06-20T16:55:00.000-05:00

“We believe that Mike Huckabee , (former) Governor of Arkansas, should be elected the next President of the United States ,” [Home School Legal Defense Association] President J. Michael Smith said in a call-to-action letter to members. Smith said [the 80,000 member] HSLDA is taking this “historic step of an early endorsement” because [] the process of electing the president is based on a radically different timetable in this election.

Smith touted Huckabee’s record as governor of Arkansas, pro-life, pro-family conservative values and presidential campaign platform, which includes a pro-defense plank and support for the FairTax, as reasons his organization stands behind Huckabee. There are a few other candidates in the race who are properly described as principled conservatives, but none of the media’s “frontrunners” would qualify for this designation, he stated.

“We believe that Mike Huckabee is by far the best communicator in the race – he is able to articulate his conservative principles in an incredibly winsome and articulate manner,” said Smith.

Noting that Americans have not elected a member of the House or Senate to the office of President in nearly half a century, Smith said: “Moreover, among the principled conservatives, Huckabee is the only one who has been a governor.”

cross-posted at WisdomisVindicated

Dreher likes Mike

2007-06-18T14:29:00.000-05:00

Rod Dreher (whom I know primarily from National Review Online) is feeling it for Mike Huckabee (Beliefnet: Crunchy Con - "Huckabee Love") Linking to Huckabee's comments at a recent Forum, Dreher writes:

"I'm really starting to dig this guy. "

Cross-posted with a lot of other profound stuff at wisdomisvindicated

Is Romney's Pro-Life Conversion a Myth?

2007-06-15T12:53:00.000-05:00

ABC has a pretty comprehensive look at new challenges from Romney's GOP rivals concerning his claims that he changed his mind on abortion during a famed 11/04 meeting with a Harvard stem cell researcher. Is Romney's Pro-Life Conversion a Myth?. The challenges are based on two "revelations" about un-"pro-life" actions by Romney after his supposed epiphany. Read it for yourself.

I've not hidden my questions about Romney's sincerity on this issue, and that was without even knowing about some of the things reported in this article. For example, one bit of "old news"--it appears, was that McCain's campaign was already chewing on Romney on a different, but related point:

This week, the campaign of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., blasted Romney for saying in May 2005 that he was "absolutely committed to my promise to maintain the status quo with regard to laws relating to abortion and choice" -- six months after his position changed on abortion.

Cross-posted at WisdomisVindicated.