The Club for Growth: slouching towards irrelevance

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."

Huckabee rebuts Club for Growth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See also at WisdomisVindicated.

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

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 . . .

Arkansas Blog: Huckabee gets clubbed

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.

Murdock Clubs Romney

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

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

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

Ouch.

Huckabee 2008, indeed

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

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

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

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

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

Also on WisdomIsVindicated.

Club for Loathing

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

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.

Huckabee on McCain-Feingold

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 visits Nashville

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

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

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

Jay relays this story from the Huckabee event:

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

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

My, what pointed questions you have . . .

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