Huckabee Does Not Exist

Mike Huckabee does not exist. It's just not possible. At least not the version presented to us by his detractors.

We are to believe that Mike is, at once, both Bill Clinton and Pat Robertson. He is a knuckle-dragging caveman and a hillbilly in one breath, and a Rovian genius, churning out brilliant ads choked with subliminal message for true believers only, in the next breath. He is Pat Buchanan and John Edwards. He's Jimmy Carter & Jerry Falwell. He is left of Dennis Kucinich and right of Jesse Helms.

It's dizzying.

There's an old adage in both politics and journalism that if you're being attacked from both sides, you must be doing something right. FDR also supposedly was quoted along those lines back in the mid-30s, right before he went out and won another term with over 60% of the popular vote, and a landslide % of the electoral college (97%), losing only 2 states (Maine & Vermont).

I'm also reminded of a 70s rock tune "Stuck in the Middle With You" by Stealers Wheel. (And not because someone's gonna get their ear cut off, a la Reservoir Dogs, a movie I haven't seen.) I amended the lyrics for Huck…

Clowns to the left of me
Jokers to the right
Here I am
Huck in the middle with you

It's time for a re-read of The Party of Sam's Club. It's time for a Grand New Party. Or just understanding the party we already have. The coalitions that already exist. So even if a pundit-created Mike Huckabee does not exist, the real Mike Huckabee does, and he best fits with where America is today.

Counting the Delegates

I've been analyzing the caucus and primary schedule through February 5^th, the so-called Super Tuesday, attempting to apportion the GOP delegates. If my math and sources are correct, there are just over 1300 delegates available in the 29 states. Most pundits and prognosticators talk about who's going to "win" a given state, but what goes unsaid is that delegates in most states are assigned proportionally. Most states are not winner-take-all. I suspect most of the winning talk is geared around the notion of momentum. In a normal year, momentum is pretty important, and it won't be without merit this year, but do not expect a coalescing around a single candidate. This thing is going to remain fractured, with at least 2 viable candidates going into the convention. That hasn't happened in so long that most observers dismiss it out of hand, but when you count up the delegates, it's hard to see it any other way.

If a state is not winner-take-all, it will generally apportion its delegates by primary vote portions, statewide and/or by congressional district. A few have thresholds, where a candidate needs to break a certain barrier (say, 10% or 20%) to get any delegates. The WTA states are (with delegate counts): New York (101), Connecticut (30), Delaware (18), Arizona (53), Utah (36), and Missouri (58). Besides the home-state wins in NY/AZ/UT (I'm counting Utah as a home state for Romney), I predict that Rudy Giuliani will take CT (solid) and DE (iffy) and that Mike Huckabee will take Missouri. (On further research, it appears that some other states have changed their rules to be WTA. I updated the delegate table below, but not this paragraph.)

Another aspect to keep in mind is that the GOP has awarded bonus delegates to states with Republican governors, senators, and further representation. That gives a boost to the delegate counts in Southern states, a strength for Huckabee. And the GOP has penalized those states holding primaries before Feb 5^th, impacting Michigan, New Hampshire, Wyoming, South Carolina, and Florida. Those states will have their delegate counts cut IN HALF.

Here's how I see the rest of the first 29 states going. I have a detailed spreadsheet backing this up, but I'm not going to post it all. So I'll follow convention and list my predicted winners. And by winners, I mean the candidate that I expect to receive the most delegates from a given state.

Candidate		# States Won	List of States Won
Mike Huckabee		10	IA, SC, AL, AR, GA, MO, MT, ND, OK, WV
Rudy Giuliani		7	FL, CA, CT, DE, IL, NJ, NY
Mitt Romney		6	MI, NV, ME, CO, UT, MA
John McCain		4	NH, WY, AZ, MN
Fred Thompson		1	TN
Ron Paul		1 (throwing a bone)	AK

And here are my projected delegate counts through Feb 5^th, not including the national superdelegates.

Candidate	# Delegates
Mike Huckabee	423
Rudy Giuliani	359
Mitt Romney	194
John McCain	205
Ron Paul (and others)	73
Fred Thompson	59

I'll check back after Iowa & New Hampshire to take a look at the post-Feb 5^th primaries. Will we get more clarity by then? Well, if my prognostications are close to correct, Fred Thompson will not be in the race by mid-February, and I believe he'll endorse fellow Senator John McCain. Mitt Romney will have a difficult decision to make. Does he continue spending his fortune when he may be in 4^th place? If we are truly heading to a fractured convention, then he might be smart to stay in the race, and position himself as a compromise candidate (a tough sell given his incessant attacks on Huckabee and McCain, and the notion by then that McCain is the better compromise candidate).

In fact, I'll go on the record right now that the GOP candidate will be either Mike Huckabee (on the 2^nd ballot) or John McCain (on a later ballot after intense backroom wrangling, and with Huckabee as his VP). Wow.

The Real Reason BK Discontinued the Whopper

You may have the seen the humorous and clever marketing campaign from Burger King called the Whopper Freakout, using the prank that their signature entree, the Whopper burger, has been discontinued. Here at HTS, we have discovered the real reason why BK cannot make the Whopper anymore - Mitt Romney has cornered the market on whoppers, and there are no more to be had.

WaPo weighs in with Four Pinocchios
Battleground Iowa's take

The Dangers of the FairTax Platform

This is not about the merits of the FairTax itself, but about whether Mike Huckabee will be helped or not by his advocacy of the radical tax plan to replace most all current taxes with a national sales tax. I believe it is a dangerous, risky stance for Mike. Here's why…

• While not nearly as complicated as I expected it to be, the FairTax is such a radical change in our tax policy that the average voter will not immediately grasp what it's about. Even some should-know-better reporters are spouting falsehoods about it. To the extent that it is reducible to a soundbite, it is much more likely for that soundbite to be a negative one used by opponents of Huckabee and/or the FairTax.
  
• Continuing that point, detractors will make no effort to fairly portray the plan, even if they do understand that. We already see the merging of these 2 points with media assertions that the plan is overly regressive and, most damaging, that it will cause prices to rise by over 20%. Neither is actually true, and the latter charge is not even close to being true.
  
• The point about illegal immigrants and under-the-table earners now paying their fair share is a rhetorical winner, but it can be intellectually challenged by the expectation that a new underground economy would arise. The blackest of black markets.
  
• Given the criticism of Mike thus far about his record in Arkansas with taxes, and the skepticism by hardcore fiscal conservatives that he is bona fide, the FairTax is especially problematic for him. Given the first 2 points about confusion and obfuscation, voters, unable to sort it all out with facts, unsure whom to believe, might use the FairTax as a sign that Mike's opponents are correct. It does require a huge outlay of federal funds with its prebate (what makes it not regressive). Of course, the prebate is essentially a refund of taxes paid, so financially for the government it is not an outlay, but a wash. Will voters take the time and effort to figure that out, or will they be hoodwinked by devious ads and mailers saying "see, we told you this guy was a big-government conservative. See how much money he wants to spend."?
  
• Likewise, detractors will deviously assert that the FairTax is a big tax hike. "See, we told you this guy was Tax Hike Mike. He wants you to pay 23% more for your groceries. Will you even be able to afford that next new car?" In a soundbite world, can you make voters understand that CURRENT prices already reflect the cost of taxes, and that the FairTax wouldn't cause prices to rise materially, if at all?
  

Keywords: Take Control & Keep It Simple

The best pithy argument for the FairTax is not the abolishment of the IRS (even though that is a catchy line), but about Americans being more in control, and about making taxes simpler to understand. Fiscal conservatives talk about "starving the beast" of government, but how do you do that with an income tax (not to mention all those other federal taxes)? For most of us, we can't just stop making an income, so we have to keep feeding the beast. Sure, we can seek out tax shelters and such, but generally speaking those are marginal effects, and so the beast gets fed. With a sales tax, effectively kicking in above and beyond basic needs, taxpayers do have more control over how much food to put in the bowl, by way of discretionary spending. Of course, there are macro-economic impacts to those spending decisions which should not be ignored, but I would argue that for the most part, these would be purchases delayed, not purchases avoided altogether.

How would that work? Well, it might not work, given how hard it is for the federal government to pay attention to us. But you do what you can, and if you don't like the way the government is operating, or disagree profoundly with how it spends its money, you can "vote with your wallet". A drop in the ocean, it may feel like, but no less important than your single vote among millions. Even if there is no direct impact or benefit, there would still be a psychological or symbolic benefit for taxpayers. In short, a sales tax is more in line with the precepts of "of the people, by the people" than is the income tax.

Mike should also hammer away at the idea of making taxes simpler. You shouldn't need a CPA to understand how your government is funded. The current system is so complex that even the experts can't figure it out. Such a setup fosters discord and distrust that weasels will not pay their fair share. It breeds anxiety that the taxpayer is a sucker unless he ponies up for expert help.

Both of these rhetorical approaches connect at the point of governmental transparency, a big hot button for young voters. And so while the FairTax platform for Huckabee presents some difficult challenges, it also affords an opportunity to connect with voters if handled correctly. Governor Huckabee has demonstrated an ability to lead and persuade on issues important to him, and I have confidence in him on this subject, despite its risk.

Hometown Paper Comes Through

Growing up in Dallas, the premier (and only surviving) newspaper was the Dallas Morning News. Today, they endorsed Mike Huckabee for the GOP nomination for President. It's a nice write-up, with a great conclusion:

Plain-spoken and eloquent, Mr. Huckabee strikes us as decent, principled and empathetic to the views and concerns of others – an antidote to the power-mad partisanship that has led U.S. politics to a dispiriting standstill.

"I'm a conservative," he likes to say. "I'm just not mad about it." Along those lines, what sold us on Mr. Huckabee is a sense that of all the Republicans, he is the change agent the nation most needs...

America needs a clean break from the bitter politics of the recent past. From the right, Mike Huckabee, a progressive conservative with a pastor's heart, can deliver.

Audacious!

It was the most audacious event in world history. God, creator of the universe, comes to earth in the form of one of his loftiest creations. Entering the world in the shared and natural humility of childbirth. God as man, with a wrinkled crying face, a crown of mussed hair topping a misshapen head, robed in delivery goo. It was the coming of Christ.

We now celebrate this audacious event with our culture's most involved holiday which we call Christmas. The coming of Christ. The gathering of Christ. As Irenaeus put it almost 2000 years ago, "God became man so that we could become divine." (Irenaeus also said one of my all-time favorite quotes: "The glory of God is man fully alive.")

I like how this one blogger put it.

Christmas is a celebration of three comings of Christ. First, we celebrate the historical coming of Christ. The readings in the Church proclaim the story of Jesus' birth to a young virgin. We are reminded of his lineage, the conditions of his birth in the poverty of a manger, the angelic proclamation to the shepherds, his presentation at the temple, and the visit of the three wise men. The stories are told in the opening chapters of the gospels of Matthew and Luke for those who would like to read the narratives on their own.

Second, we celebrate the presence of Christ come among us today. Christians believe that the Spirit of God is always active in the world, gently guiding us and prodding us toward conversion. Nothing happens without a reason. There is not a stray molecule anywhere in the universe. Christmas is a celebration of God coming among us today! The Church often uses sacraments and symbols as signs of grace, and people are often aware of the power of the Spirit present in these activities. However, God's grace surrounds us all the time. Christmas celebrates God’s coming into our everyday lives - our work, our family, and our friendships.

Third, we celebrate the hope for the day when Christ will come in glory to gather the saints. One day, all who are being saved will be with the Lord in paradise. Whether we come to the Lord through natural death, or whether the Lord will come to us at the end of the world, Christians look forward to eternity with God. This will be our greatest happiness! As children anxiously await the arrival of Santa Claus, the Christian waits in joyful hope for eternity with our God!

Huckabee

So what does all this have to do with Mike Huckabee? Well, Mike had the human audacity to actually mention Christ when speaking of Christmas, as he attempted to set politics aside during the Christmas season, in a Christmas card ad that is all the buzz.

Now a Ranger

I finally got my activation code from the Huckabee campaign to become a "Huckabee Ranger". This means i am a dedicated and passionate supporter pledged to help raise funds.

Consider any contribution as an investment in a better future for America. Let's not let power entrench in only the self-appointed elites, the big media, mega-wealthy backroom dealers, cash-burning lobbyists. To steal an old slogan, Power to the People!

You can find my Ranger link on the top right. Or click here.

Let's do this thing. Mitt & Rudy have their wall street cronies. Fred & John have their Capitol Hill connections. Hillary & Barack & the other John all have their hollywood pals. Huckabee has and needs you, the everyday Americans. The folks who, in the words of George Bailey (from my favorite movie of all time), "do most of the working and paying and living and dying in this community."

Don't sit back and expect someone else to do it for you. It's time for you to get in the ring and fight. I close with the words of Edward Everett Hale, former chaplain of the US Senate:

I am only one, but I am one. I can't do everything, but I can do something. The something I ought to do, I can do. And by the grace of God, I will.

Right Smart - Excellent Blogger

I really like what J. Ritterbush is doing over at Right Smart. In fact, he's so good, and so prolific, that i despair of what else there is to say. Right Smart is especially good at looking into Mitt Romney's campaign tactics and past record.

He covers everything so well and so quickly. I link a lot of blogs over there on the right, but this may be the only one worth checking out on a daily basis.

Not (Merely) Republican or Democrat, But American

Underscoring my point from Friday, Rick Scarborough presents this anecdote about the support of Mike Huckabee.

This week an activist in Iowa made an interesting comment to me about the Mike Huckabee phenomena. While the Romney campaign has spent millions in Iowa to attract voters, the Huckabee campaign has aired few commercials because, until recently, they couldn’t afford a full campaign staff--let alone spend money on media buys. Yet Romney is falling like a rock in the polls and Huckabee’s numbers are soaring. This long time activist in Iowa politics said of Huckabee that rank and file people of both parties in her state are attracted to him because he is neither Republican nor Democrat, but American.

As I pondered her statement I thought, how refreshing, and perhaps how insightful. Huckabee has rankled the ire of many traditional conservatives with his unorthodox politics; while being unapologetic about his traditional social views, he challenges some of the conservative conclusions with many of his views regarding taxes, immigration and education. That mix usually spells disaster among Republicans yet he is leading the pack at present.

There are many speculative reasons offered for why he holds those views, but my friend’s comment that he is American resonates with me. Could it be that people are drawn to him because in him they see a genuine, authentic American, who embraces biblical truth and is attempting, in his humanity, to apply it to public policy? No one will ever get it completely right, and Huckabee won’t, but people like the fact that he is trying and not affected by the attacks from both the left and the right. And I believe that true Americans like the fact that in his campaign, “they,” not the handlers, nor the money people, nor the media, nor the political hacks, are driving his candidacy. His campaign has lacked money but it has generated what millions cannot buy--true believers.

Well said. That's how we Huck the system.

A Leader of All

Despite the punditocracy attempt to marginalize Mike Huckabee as a single constituency candidate, as merely a pastor catering to evangelicals, the governor takes a higher road and seeks to serve all Americans, as he has stated time and time again. He champions "vertical politics", as witnessed in an answer to one of the questions at the most recent Iowa debate.

It's a resonating message. To wit, in the latest Newsweek Iowa poll, Governor Huckabee draws as much support from non-evangelicals as does Mitt Romney, with the two governors tied for the lead among that group with 24% a piece. If you still think this is Pat Robertson redux, you will be surprised, as you have been until now.

Apologies: A Study in Contrast

This has been the week of apologies in the presidential races. In one example, Hillary Clinton apologized to Obama for the comments of one of her (since resigned) top staffers, who brought up Obama's drug usage.

But let's take a look at two apologies (and i use the term loosely, as you shall see) - one from Mike Huckabee, and then one from Fred Thompson.

First, Governor Huckabee personally apologized to Mitt Romney for the way his question about Mormon beliefs, as posed to a NYT reporter, had been misconstrued and blown up by the media into a big to-do. You can hear the governor discuss it in this interview on Morning Joe, about 4 minutes into the video.



That's how an honorable man does it, how a leader handles things. By all accounts, Romney was gracious and accepted the apology, as both governors hoped to move on.

Contrast that with this "apology" from Fred Thompson. An excerpt:

"We apologize for telling reporters that a BA in Biblical Studies from Ouachita Baptist University doesn’t, in fact, make Huckabee more qualified to fight the war on terror than say…Fred Thompson."

Besides being quite rude, this missive fails not only on the humor meter, but also on the truth meter. It is the typical sort of politics that turns off so many Americans. Throw out a bunch of half-truths and spin, and hope your voters aren't smart enough to see through it. It is not the best of America. We can do better.

At the youtube debate, when each candidate was permitted to air their own 30-second ads, only Fred Thompson went negative. I immediately thought, "this is the end of the Fred Thompson campaign." And repeated polls confirm that Fred is falling more out of favor every day.

• In Iowa, Fred polls in the single-digits, and i predict he'll curry fewer delegates there than does Ron Paul, of all people.
• In New Hampshire, Fred is polling at HALF the level of gadfly Paul.
• He's in single-digits in Michigan.
• He lost the lead in South Carolina, and is closer to 6th place than to first place.
• Huckabee outpolls Fred by 3-1 in Nevada.
• Fred is in single digits in Florida, where Huckabee just pulled into the lead over Giuliani.
• In fact, if you look at all the posted December polls at Real Clear Politics, you cannot find a single one, nationwide or for any single state, where Thompson is favored over Huckabee.

It seems clear to me that the people have weighed the two men, and have made their choice. One guy is positive; the other is nothing but snarky and negative. In my experience, in a contest like this, people turn negative about others when they can't think of anything positive to say about themselves.

Must-Read Blogger

Many of the Huckabee focused blogs, while well intentioned, are little more than echos of the main site, merely cut/pasting stories. Shadow sites, essentially. That's cool. And some are self-admitted cheerleader blogs. That's cool, too. I do that here from time to time.

But i do wish more Huckabee bloggers would craft original pieces. Do some analysis. Tie broad policy positions to their unique life situations. Tell us a story. Something new and different.

One blogger that is doing a great job with that is Joshua Trevino. I would direct everyone to his posts from today (12/12) and yesterday (12/11), defending Governor Huckabee on his 1992 AIDS isolation comments and on his foreign policy experience, respectively. He expertly takes mainstream conservative media (Wall St. Journal and National Review) to task over slipshod reporting on these two topics.

These are must-read entries. And Mr. Trevino goes on the blogroll.

New Huckabee Ad

I love this ad. It's my favorite one yet. I wish it had been ready for the Youtube debate, and we could have avoided all this distraction over the use of the label "Christian Leader".

What i like best about this one is that it highlights the "competency" leg of my 3-legged presidential stool.

Tribute to Henry Hyde

We take a break today from our regularly scheduled blogging to pay tribute to a great American, Henry Hyde. Mr. Hyde served in Congress, representing Illinois for over 30 years. He recently was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, America's highest honor for civilians. The citation noted:

A veteran, a lawyer, and a public servant, Henry Hyde has served his country with honor and dedication. During his 32-year career in the House of Representatives, he was a powerful defender of life, a leading advocate for a strong national defense, and an unwavering voice for liberty, democracy, and free enterprise around the world. A true gentleman of the House, he advanced his principles without rancor and earned the respect of friends and adversaries alike. The United States honors Henry Hyde for his distinguished record of service to America.

He is best known to me as a champion of pro-life causes, most notably as the author of the Hyde Amendment, which halted federal funding of abortions and abortion advocacy groups, both in the US and around the world.

His approach and demeanor for congressional politics fits in well with our theme here at Huck The System. True political leadership is about making the country better, not consolidating your power and position. Consider this comment in Rich Lowry's column about Hyde:

He once told incoming congressmen, in the political axiom he lived by, that they "need to be at least as clear on the reasons why they would risk losing as they are on the reasons why they wanted to come here in the first place."

Here's a nice video of fellow congressmen & women paying tribute to Hyde. Note the bipartisanship.



Other good youtube links:
More tribute
Series of videos from fellow representatives

Video of the Day: Anderson Cooper

That guy driving the SUV is Drake, whom we met last night. He's a recent graduate of Wake Forest. He's also the guy that got shoved aside and to the floor by a reporter after a recent debate.

Quite the gig he's drawn.

Meet the Huckabees

Well, we're back from the Huckabee reception. It was a great night.

The Scene

The fundraiser reception was held in a private home (I don't know whose) in a very nice part of Greensboro. I had been hoping to get there early, but babysitter troubles (Caroline had swim practice) and heavy traffic (have you ever seen a clog because drivers are slowing down to read one of those big message signs over the roadway? That's what happened on the way through downtown Winston, as the sign flashed info about a "fugitive alert") conspired to slow us down, and so we arrived just at 6pm, the scheduled start time. So, I missed the media pow-wow.

We found a (illegal?) parking space a block behind the house, and walked past the media trucks and what we first thought were placard-waving protesters, but they turned out to be supporters of the FairTax. Around to the front lawn where we queue up in the frigid cold, inching forward toward the sign-in table in the home's foyer. A couple of college republican co-eds are welcoming at the front door, and I quip that I had expected to be the youngest folks there. Good to see that we weren't.

It seems we all had arrived around the same time, and so it took a while to get in the house. I wasn't sure how many to expect, but I didn't expect this many folks. We estimated about 250 people were crammed in the main floor area, like a packed-house college party, except with a bunch of old rich folks. After signing in, and paying our "entry fee", we could see Governor Huckabee and his wife Janet in the next room, having photos taken with supporters. That area was choked-full, so we snaked down the hall to enter that room by its other door. That's when we realized that we had unwittingly sidled into the photograph line.

Another long wait, and I wondered what it must be like for the Huckabees to stand there, photo after photo, with the same pose, the same nice true smiles, probably engaging in the exact same small talk. It's nice to meet you. So glad you're here. Keep up the good work. Hang in there. We're praying for you. As we get toward the front of the line, Julie overhears someone remark that you're supposed to have a star on your nametag to get a photo opportunity. We don't, but the photographer and the intern coordinating the line are both young, and so we stand out among our elders, and we are put through. I'm not sure if Julie heard correctly, but even if she did, Mike just won't say no, and they end up taking photos for a very long time.

The Moment

It's our turn! I think I was awake half of last-night thinking through what I'd say if we got to meet Mike. I wanted it to be memorable (avoid the above small talk banalities), but it had to be quick. This is what I said, after the introductions: Let me tell you the story of a young boy named Mike, who was born on August 24^th. Sound familiar? That's the start of it. There's more.

The Governor perked up and immediately said, "oh, but what year?" 1965. And then he said, "10 years different. But you know what, 1965, that's the date I was born-again." I was engaged, "really, you were born-again exactly on your 10^th birthday?" "Yep, at a vacation bible school." This exchange was face-to-face, eye-to-eye, but we soon drifted into photo poses, side-by-side.

I kept on. And I grew up in small town near the Ark-La-Tex border. Oh yeah, where was that? Terrell, Texas. Yes, I know where that is. Out on I-20. And I went to the largest Baptist college in my state. That's, what? Howard Payne, I forget. No, Baylor. Oh, yes, Baylor, sometimes I forget it's Baptist. Hey now! (yes, I did actually say that, like one frat brother to another).

That's really it, at least all I can recall with detail. We exchanged departing pleasantries, and they were on to the next group of supporters, probably with real stars on their nametags. For another small contribution, I'll be able to purchase that photo, and I will. I might even post it here. I wished later that I had mentioned that I was a Huckabee blogger, but there was no natural place to mention it in our unique exchange. Or it could be just that I froze after getting through my initial lines.

The Speech

After the photo, we finally made it to the food. Pretty much every nook was crowded with people, until we found some breathing room in the kitchen, next to the desserts (of course). Then, we wanted to get back into the open corner of the photo room, where everything was happening, and where I expected Mike to be when he started talking. But we couldn't get through the door without appearing forceful or rude, so we drifted into another open room. It was there that I ran into a guy I had targeted to meet, after researching the bios of the various hosts and sponsors. He had an interesting background, and so I engaged him in conversation about his work, about his writings, about energy independence & the FairTax. Then we heard the applause, so I darted into the hall to get a good spot to hear Mike. He was stationed at the front door in the foyer, and we couldn't get within 10 yards of him, and were stuck in that hall. Fortunately, though, the acoustics were perfectly suited in that hall, and so we could hear it all clearly.

Mike was introduced by an older man whom I couldn't see, but we believe it was Bill Cobey. He called Mike a man of courage, intellect, a true leader, a man of God. Mike opened by saying that it was Bill Cobey who kept encouraging him to run for President, way back before anyone else was thinking that, and thus how all this pretty much started with North Carolina. Most of his subsequent remarks were standard stump speech material that I've heard many times (since I pretty much devour all I can about Huckabee). The lava soap anecdote, etc. Which is not to suggest in any way that it was boring or mundane. The guy is a phenomenal speaker. There's not an ounce of slick in how he comes across. He just takes the floor and weaves through these long paragraphs of passion for America, and what we can do to make it a better country. I almost teared up when he spoke of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. We laughed, we cheered, there were lots of head-nods.

I couldn't do justice to his comments, based merely on my memory. I spent most of the time watching the crowd, looking for signs of resonance. The biggest applause lines were/for:

1. "I know how to and did defeat the Bill & Hillary Clinton political machine. 4 times!"
   
2. The FairTax (this one surprised me, especially among a crowd that is mostly in post-income years – this thing must really be catching on)
   
3. Energy independence (good, this is a big one for me too)
   

Anyone who thinks the Huckabee campaign is merely about Christian conservatives is really missing the boat, and will continue to underestimate Mike.

Meeting the Governor

My wife and i were grateful to receive an invitation to the Governor Huckabee reception and fundraiser tonight in Greensboro. Hopefully, we'll get to meet Mike. Will report back later, though it may be tomorrow.

Video of the Day: Nightline

don't miss my other posts below from earlier today, but here is a good clip on Huckabee from the Nightline news show...

First Place in North Carolina (and the nation)!

The Huckabee surge in the polls has been nothing short of amazing, even for this longtime supporter. The slow & steady climb hit a tipping point in the past few days, and the groundswell shows in recent polls.

In North Carolina, Huckabee garnered an incredible 33% in a poll released today. With this race still so fractured, i am stunned by this number. Mike hasn't set foot in our state in months, that i know of. This success is a result of grassroots support and the free national media exposure. As i've been saying, once people get to know Mike, they like Mike.

Contrast this poll with the same group's poll in October. Thompson led the way with 31% (he's down to 16% now). What did Huckabee get in October? Well, he wasn't even included in the poll question.

When you dive into the crosstabs, you find that Huckabee leads among voters who say that the Iraq War is one of their key issues. Also among those pegging Taxes, Economy & Jobs, Moral & Family Issues, and even Immigration. He leads with both men and women. He leads among age groups 30-45, 45-60, and 60+. He leads in every single area code.

Nationally, i find the numbers even more incredible. The daily tracking poll by Rasmussen shows Mike Huckabee in the LEAD nationally. Huck is at 20%, ahead of dropping-like-a-rock Giuliani at 17%. Two months ago today, he was at 4%.

Typologies & POTUS Vote Patterns

Continuing with our look at the Pew Political Typologies, and what they may tell us about Mike Huckabee's prospects in the 2008 general election. In the previous post, i outlined a few of the groups, the key ones from our perspective. Here, we'll look at how each group voted in presidential elections back to 1980 (though i don't have data for 1988, and for 2000, all i could find was data in the 1999 study on how folks intended to vote in 2000). Still, that leaves us with 6 elections.


Note on the data - when i express a % of votes, it represents the votes for the GOP candidate vs. the Dem candidate. Third-party votes were not taken into account, an important fact to keep in mind when you see the Dole comments. And it doesn't reflect that some portion will not vote at all (that is accounted for in the conclusions section, though).


Enterprisers - the least variance (only a 3% standard deviation) of any group, solidly Republican, always at least 90% for the GOP candidate, ranging from a low of 92% for Dole in 1996, to a high of 99% for Bush in 2004.
2008 Forecast: not tough to predict, really. For the average GOP candidate, i peg it at 97%, ranging from 92% for Huckabee to 99% for Romney. A third-party Paul or Bloomberg could dip into that, but i don't expect that to happen.


Social Conservatives - also solid GOP, ranging from a low of 72% for Dole, to a high of 97% for Reagan 1984. On average, this group is 89% GOP.
2008 Forecast: The red/blue divide has solidified in recent years for socons, and so i expect them to go GOP at a 95% clip, with Huckabee leading the way in the high 90s, and Giuliani trailing at 80%.


ProGovernment Conservatives - averages 78% for the GOP candidate, dipping down to 64% for Dole, and a high of 93% for Bush 2000. Bush 2004 got 84% of this group.
2008 Forecast: another Huckabee wheelhouse. I have him leading this group, too, at 88%. Romney trails the field at 80%.


Upbeats - now we start getting into the swing groups. Upbeats have averaged 67% for the GOP, but there has been a healthy variance. Bush in 1992 got only 36%, and Dole only 47%. Those guys, as you know, lost those races. Bush 2004 got 82%, however. This group, more than any other, tends to go with the most-sunny candidate.
2008 Forecast: Huckabee is the most sunny GOP candidate since Reagan. I can see him matching Bush's 2004 mark. Giuliani would lag here, with Thompson not much better.


Disaffecteds - the KEY swing group, imo. Like the Upbeats group, they have voted with the winner in each instance i have to study. The nadir for the GOP was, again, Dole with 23%. Reagan 1984 crushed it among this group, getting 81%. Over the 6 elections, this group has gone GOP 57%.
2008 Forecast: I think the historical trend will continue, and the GOP will need at least 50% of this group to win the 2008 election. Huckabee, McCain, and Thompson would poll the best with the Disaffecteds, among the GOP contenders. Giuliani and Romney would lag. Huckabee's unusual (for a Republican, sadly) populist messages resonate here.


Conservative Democrats - Peaked in 1984 at 25% for Reagan. Bush 2004 got 18%, about this group's GOP average.
2008 Forecast: I expect a GOP % in the 11-13% range, regardless of candidate.


Of the other voting groups, all strong Democratic groups, i don't see anything noteworthy, other than perhaps a chance for Giuliani to siphon off some of the Liberals, due to his pro-choice views and a perception that he would be stronger on foreign policy than the Democratic candidate. Not enough to make much difference, but i thought i should mention it, in fairness.


Conclusion
When you compare my forecasts with the historical voter turnout patterns by group, you can forecast a general election outcome (again, ignoring possible third-party spoilers). Here's what i get, in descending order of electability...

1. Huckabee - 50.4%
2. McCain - 50.1%
3. Thompson - 48.2%
4. Romney - 48.1%
5. Giuliani - 47.0%

Probably surprising for some readers who hearken to the prevailing "wisdom" that a social moderate is the best bet in the general election. And i know i'm open to charges of hagiographic bias for Huckabee. What hurts Giulini is the double-punch of losing enough social conservatives over the abortion issue, and enough Upbeats due to his tendency to turn dour. What helps Huckabee is that he will pull the best among the two key swing groups - Upbeats and Disaffecteds.

Pew Political Typologies

The Pew Research Center has analyzed the political views of Americans for more than a decade, most notably in their Political Typology reports. The typologies categorize Americans into one of 7-8 groups, based on their ideology, party identification, and values & beliefs.

For example, the Enterprisers group, representing about 10% of the country, is an extremely partisan Republican grouping, driven by a core belief in free enterprise and conservative social values. This group tends to be very patriotic, pro-business, anti-regulation, and assertive with foreign policy. Demographically, Enterprisers are predominately male, white, married, higher educated, and financially well-off. They are not much more religious than the country as a whole. This is the group that follows political news more closely than any other of the Typology groups. In the 2004 election, they voted for Bush 92-1 over John Kerry. (Incidentally, this is the group I end up in, when I take the typology test.)

The other groups, with their portion of the US registered voter population in (paren):

• Social Conservatives (13%)
  
• Pro Government Conservatives (10%)
  
• Upbeats (13%)
  
• Disaffecteds (10%)
  
• Liberals (19%)
  
• Conservative Democrats (15%)
  
• Disadvantaged Democrats (10%)
  
• Bystanders (0% of voters, but 10% of the adult population)
  

I have analyzed the 2004/2005 report in-depth, looking at the viewpoints of each group on key current issues and their voting patterns. I have also reviewed the prior reports, from 1999, 1994, and 1987, paying particular attention to the presidential voting patterns, from Reagan forward. In a future post, I'll outline what I've found there, and how it specifically relates to the 2008 election and Mike Huckabee. I have predicted voting outcomes for each of the groups for each of the top GOP candidates. Based on the last 2 decades, the key swing group is the Disaffected. Other important swing groups are Pro-Government Conservatives, Upbeats, and Conservative Democrats. Let's take a closer look at these 4 groups.

Disaffecteds

This is a politically cynical group that is mostly independent, party-wise. They tend to be dissatisfied with both their personal situation and with the state of the country. This group faces significant personal financial pressures, and is highly concerned with the impact of immigration or anything that impacts the availability of good jobs. They voted for Bush 2-1 over Kerry in the 2004 election, but about 25% of them didn't bother to vote at all. A large majority (70%) have no college education. They skew male (57%), and rural/suburban. This is a group that contains a large number of what used to be called Reagan Democrats.

Pro-Government Conservatives

Formerly termed "Populist Republicans", this group is typified by its strong religious faith and moral conservatism. Unlike other GOP groups, however, they express skepticism about the free market and are favorable toward government programs providing an economic safety net. They went for Bush by a 5-1 margin in 2004, but a fifth of them didn't vote. Demographically, much like a female (62%) version of the Disaffecteds. Nearly half are parents of in-the-household children, and nearly half live in the South.

Upbeats

Optimistic and independent, Upbeats feel good about the country and their own situation. They are more moderate on moral issues. In 2004, they voted for Bush by more than a 4-1 margin. Skew young, white, married, wealthy, educated, and suburban. A large portion of Catholics and mainline Protestants.

Conservative Democrats

Pretty solidly Democratic in recent elections, but distinguished from other Democrats by their religious orientation and conservative views on moral issues. This group contains an over-sample of older women and blacks. They voted for John Kerry as solidly as did the Upbeats for Bush.

More later…

From Pastorate to Presidency

A very nice article from the Concord (NH) Monitor about Huckabee's time in the pastorate in Arkansas. Highlighting some quotes from the article. Unless noted otherwise, the quotes are from the article's author...

• He could deliver a heavy moral message in such a light, folksy way that you didn't even notice the proselytizing. He remembered everyone's name. And he had a way of winning support for his good ideas by making the deacons think the ideas were their own.
• Huckabee says he started each elementary school year with two pairs of blue jeans; by the summer, they'd be cut into shorts. (I included this one because it reminded me of my roots. It's be nice to have a leader with a humble upbringing.)
• He was very serious about his faith, but he was also a fun guy to be around. He was never a religious stick in the mud. -- from Mike's college freshman roommate
• We used to sit in the dorm room and talk about what we wanted to do, around our popcorn popper. [Mike] said, 'What I'd like to do is help Christian people get involved in making our nation better.' - ibid
• If you could have a perfect pastor, he comes as close as anybody. He rejuvenated the church. He blew the back doors, really, off the church. -- from the church historian of Mike's church in Texarkana
• He had the vision, but you've got to sell the vision. And he was able to do that. People caught on and said, 'This is a great idea! This is my idea!' If you use a stick, the horse is going to kick you with its hooves. (Huckabee) was very good with the carrot approach in selling (his ideas). -- from a Texarkana congregant
• Too many people seemed unconcerned about how many marriages were salvaged, how many kids got off drugs, or how many teen pregnancies were prevented. Rather, the chief concerns seemed to be whether the menus for Wednesday night dinners were appetizing, what color the softball jerseys would be, how loud some guest musicians might sing, whether the coffeepot was ready in the Sunday school building, and whether there were paper towels in the women's rest room. -- from Mike himself, and a good summation of my own frustrations with many Baptist churches

Chuck Norris Approved

Mike Huckabee revealed his first campaign ad this morning during his interview on Fox. And it's a doozy. Check it out...



Not what you'd expect from the typical campaign, huh? And that's what i like about it. From a marketing (not political) perspective, it is clearly designed to build awareness, the proper approach for Huckabee at this point. Even on the Fox Sunday show, the sort of TV program made for the highly involved, they introduced the segment with (paraphrasing) "just who is this guy?". This ad will draw interest, create conversation and buzz, and drive interested folks to the website. I doubt it runs all the often as a paid TV ad, but will get plenty of free PR, and will be a viral hit on the web.

And then Mike will follow (quickly) with serious issue-oriented ads, or ads that highlight his engaging personality.

Pocketbook Politics (of a sort)

I enjoyed this article from Mr. Smartypants, about what the candidates might have in their wallets, after he actually did ask Mike Huckabee just that. Below is an excerpt of what he found. Read the article to see the humorous imaginings of what he'd find from Clinton, Edwards, et al.

He carried a handgun permit, frequent-flier club cards, five credit cards, two gift cards, a Marriott card, an AARP card, his hunting and fishing permit, expired duck stamps from last year, a slip listing the contact numbers of his band, Capitol Offense, and about $175 in cash, mostly in small bills.

He needs the frequent-flier cards because he travels on normal planes - US Airways for this trip. He needs the credit cards and cash because he pays for stuff. Some candidates have their staff handle the taxis and tips, but his national field director is his daughter, Sarah, so he's probably used to grabbing the tab.

The wallet tells me Huckabee is a fairly normal guy.

Video of the Day: Politically Uncorrect

Huckabee - politically uncorrect

p.s. Mike moves into a 2nd place tie nationally in the daily tracking poll by Rasmussen. It's time for my friends and family to get on board.

Huckabee's Embryonic Campaign Aborted by the NRLC

I was once a member of the National Right to Life Committee. Not in leadership, by any means, but just a rank & file, dues-paying pro-lifer. I received and thoroughly read the periodic newspaper. In my youth, i even contemplated joining the then-current fashion and getting myself arrested by picketing an abortion clinic while visiting Atlanta for a work conference. I have read and proudly display on my bookshelf such titles as Arresting Abortion by John Whitehead and Chuck Swindoll's Sanctity of Life.

I'm not a member any longer. It would be dramatic to announce that today's endorsement of Fred Thompson by the NRLC was the trigger. Dramatic, but false. I quit the NRLC long ago. Not because i changed my views, but because i couldn't see how my dues were making any difference. I say that not to disparage the organization, which i continued to appreciate, even if i never heard much about them for the past decade or so.

So why should i get worked up over their presidential endorsement of Thompson? It's because it strikes me as an endorsement borne not of principle, but of crass political maneuvering. Call me naive, but i still expect passion-issue groups like NRLC to remain true to principle. And when you have a clear pro-life choice like Mike Huckabee (or even Dr. Ron Paul, for goodness sake), how can you ignore that?

In their statements today, the NRLC reps repeatedly pointed to polls, claiming that Thompson was the most viable candidate behind the pro-abortion Giuliani. They even have a candidate comparison at their site that references, and even sorts by, poll numbers. That's bad enough, but the poll numbers they site there are from early October!

In other words, the NRLC has taken a snapshot of the campaign life at an early embryonic stage, and decided that Huckabee's prospects of a full & happy life as a presidential candidate were not worth it. This was a baby not worth keeping. Look at how tiny it is! How can we consider that truly alive?

So, here we sit, some 5 weeks later, with an updated ultrasound of the campaign. But the NRLC apparently didn't want to see the face of the growing life, much like abortion doctors don't want to show real ultrasounds to their patients.

p.s. I apologize if my theme and post title offend some. I ask that you grant the dramatic license, for the long-run sake of our unborn brothers & sisters. I draw no real parallels between a presidential campaign and the real-life tragedy of abortion. Furthermore, i do not believe that Huckabee's campaign is in any way terminated.

Up to 21% in Iowa!

New Iowa poll just released by CBS News has Mike Huckabee at 21%, trailing Romney at 27%. This 6 point gap is the smallest lead for Romney in some time there. His personally contributed fortune in media buys isn't doing the trick. Well, it got him to this point, but it's looking more and more like it won't be enough to fool the savvy Iowans.

In the same poll, Dead-Fred is sinking like a geode (the state rock of Iowa, and appropriate in that there's no way to tell what's inside a geode until you crack it open), falling into single digits.

There's more to the poll that is quite interesting. I hope to find time later to dive into it.

The Price of Freedom

Here is a great video with a segment of a speech that Mike Huckabee made to the Midwest Republican Leadership Conference earlier this year. It tells the tale of Arkansas high school teacher Martha Cothren imparting a lesson on the price of freedom. If it seems free to some of us, that's because some paid very high prices.

Consider this on this Veterans' Day. And check out Huckabee's proposed Veterans' Bill of Rights for areas where we are falling short.

Three Keys for a President

Today, i want to think more broadly about the Presidency. What are the elements to look for when considering who to select? I employ a three-pronged test, a 3-legged stool, if you will. The best candidates will be those who are strong on all 3 legs.

The Three Keys are:

Competency
POTUS is a huge job, and it takes an intelligent, capable, broad-thinking leader to do it well. In the business world (as in most things that are most purely meritocracy based - sports being a prime example), the best predictor of future success is past success. So, look for someone who has demonstrated success in past leadership opportunities.

Integrity
Here, we are looking for someone who is centered, who has a coherent worldview, a vision for America's future based on creative ideas. Or perhaps this leg is better defined by its absence, since that is more likely observed in politics. By this, i mean the typical political pandering we see. The thumb-in-the-wind guy. The poll react-er. The type that says one thing to one set of voters, and another to a different set. At its worst, we term this "saying anything to get elected". This leg is the most important of the three for me, as i am vigilantly leery of those seeking power for power's sake.

Ideology
Most political discussion centers on this leg, although it may be the least important of the three when it comes to the Presidency. Obviously, we all prefer to have a leader who agrees with us as much as possible. For me, i absolutely want a President who understands that pre-born children deserve protection. I want a President who agrees with the foundational principles of our country. Who will provide a check on ever-expanding state power (and by "state" here i mean a nation). And a few score other issues. I won't say much on this one, as it is easily understood.

So we throw these three elements - competence, integrity, and platform - into the soup, and what do we get? The answer is not always obvious, or perhaps rarely obvious. Sometimes we don't get what we thought we were getting, as in the case of GWB and fiscal restraint.

Surveying the 2008 Candidates

Since this is a Huckebee blog, it should not be surprising that i believe Mike Huckabee comes out with the highest marks in my 3-variable calculation. We are very close in ideology. Not perfectly aligned, but closer than the rest (with the possible exception of John McCain, if you go by those candidate-chooser websites, but those tools didn't ask about my views on campaign-finance reform and its violation of the 1st amendment). I believe Mike is a man of high integrity. I see him as different from the typical politician, and believe he truly desires to lift up America and its citizens.

Finally, on competence, i am attracted by Mike's experience as a governor for over a decade, and his record in Arkansas transforming the infrastructure (the state's highways were truly abysmal, so much so that i would go out of my way to avoid driving through the middle of Arkansas, the natural route when going from North Carolina to Oklahoma - now, the highways are much, much better) and transforming the fiscal mindset to one of family-oriented tax reform (which was the first broad-based income tax cut in the history of that state) and the fiscal coffers to one of surplus (another link).

I won't discuss the other candidates in any detail. I will only say that all of them, again with the possible exception of John McCain, come up short on at least one of the three stool-legs. The Democrats all fail for me, at a minimum, on ideology, as does Rudy Giuliani. Fred Thompson fails on competence, as does Ron Paul. Mitt Romney fails on integrity. (Before anyone jumps on this paragraph, i stipulate that it is decidedly short on argument, and mostly just presents my conclusions.)

Readers, voters, should draw their own conclusions about each candidate. I merely ask you to consider all three elements before deciding.

Abortion, The Princess Bride, and the Hijacking of Language

Mike Huckabee, in his speech at the Family Research Council's Washington Briefing (videos linked in prior posts), spoke about his pro-life views and the "holocaust" of abortion on demand. Those who have been fighting the pro-life battle to end (or at least severely limit) abortion didn't blink an eye at the use of that term, but left-wing bloggers immediately jumped in with frothing indignation, and the ADL called for an apology and a promise to stop using that particular phrasing. I even saw one blogger claim that the word "holocaust" should always be capitalized and can only be used as a proper noun to refer to the Nazi extermination efforts against Jews during WWII. Not as a matter of political correctness, but as a matter of grammatical correctness.

I can't see why one group should get to claim exclusivity of a word, even one so charged as holocaust. It is reasonable to hold all the proper outrage and sympathy for what happened in the capital H holocaust, and still be able to use that small-H version of the word to refer to other atrocities. The fact that there are other holocausts does not any way diminish or detract from the big Holocaust.

Reagan & The Pope

Besides, it's not as if Huckabee stands alone, or that this is some novel linguistic or propagandist trickery. Ronald Reagan, in 1983 during his Presidency, wrote a famous essay about abortion. It was entitled Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation. Well worth the read, still a quarter-century later. In this essay, Reagan refers the reader to a quote from Professor William Brennan:

The cultural environment for a human holocaust is present whenever any society can be misled into defining individuals as less than human and therefore devoid of value and respect.

Reagan also quotes approvingly from a book by John Powell entitled Abortion: The Silent Holocaust. (Not incidentally, Reagan also draws parallels between abortion and slavery, which enraged other interest groups.) While it's true that the President does not, in this essay or anywhere else I've been able to find, directly call abortion a holocaust, I do believe that these 2 references are intentional on his part. If he had any squeamishness about the term, he could have easily found a quote other than Brennan's.

Another noted leader of the era, Pope John Paul II, also saw some commonalities, remarked upon in his book Memory and Identity. This, too, set off a firestorm of criticism, prompting then-Cardinal (now Pope himself) Ratzinger to issue a clarification. JP2 rightly called abortion a "legal extermination" of persons deemed less than human.

It is well worth mentioning, even though it is obvious, that there are key differences between the abortion holocaust and the Jewish Holocaust by the Nazi regime. It is especially abhorrent to seek the absolute extermination of an entire group of people. As a Christian, it is doubly painful that the targeted group were fellow God-disciples.

There's enough pain to go around, though. Calling abortion a holocaust is not an attempt to draw perfect parallels to the Holocaust, or to ride on its outrage-coattails. It is a term to refer to grand-scale killing atrocity, particularly one that is based on dehumanization of the victims. It should not be surprising that pro-lifers feel this way about abortion.

The word holocaust
It's a strange word to use in either case, in my opinion, given its etymology. The word is Greek, and literally means "burned whole". As the link points out, the term was originally a Bible word denoting burnt offerings, but its usage expanded in the mid-1800s to refer to a massacre of a large number of persons. The wiki entry goes into greater detail. Interestingly, what we now call The Holocaust was originally called Shoah, or catastrophe. Theologically, shoah makes much more sense than holocaust, which suggests a sacrifice to God. In that sense, it doesn't make sense to use it for abortion, either.

It's a well-traveled word. You can even find cultural references to the word, such as in the move The Princess Bride, when Westley laments, "Oh, what I wouldn't give for a holocaust cloak." Or a heavy-metal band from Scotland. Or comic-book villain.

Back to Abortion

So what are we to make of the special indignation that greats the use of this word to describe abortion? It strikes me that while some like the ADL are purists in their opposition, others are merely reflecting their politics, objecting as a wedge-point because they do not agree with the pro-life position. One otherwise sober blogger suggests that it aligns the speaker with the forces of intolerance (upon creating the hyperlink here, I note that the author reworded his post to remove the reference to intolerance – I commend him).

I do agree that the term is used to get the audience's attention, and get you to thinking, but it is done not crassly or unsympathetically or certainly not intolerantly. It is an honest accounting of how a pro-lifer feels about the tragedy of abortion.

Must-Sees

There are some things you just have to see or read. Things that don't necessarily need my commentary.

First, Huckabee's outstanding speech (which he wrote himself) at the FRC's Washington Briefing. This was a speech for a specific audience. Part 3 is the best part, when Mike goes into full sermon mode talking about David over Goliath, et al. Part 1. Part 2. I'll try to embed Part 3 here...



Second, this article by Jonathon Alter at Newsweek. If you still have doubts about Mike's electability in the general election, see Alter's take, as he concludes that Huckabee is the GOP's best bet.

Huckabee comes across more hopeful than Giuliani, more believable than Romney, more intelligent than Thompson and fresher than McCain. He would hold the base and capture moderates drawn to his down-home style. His greatest asset is that he alone among the Republicans "speaks American." He connects to his audience with stories and metaphors and a geniality that can't be faked.

Entering a New Phase

On the heels of Huckabee's big weekend (let's call it a long 3-day weekend), when he rocked the house at the "value voters'" Washington Briefing and knocked out the other GOP candidates with a whopping 51% of the onsite vote, and when Mike excelled again in a GOP debate, the Huckabee campaign is entering new territory. It's the terrain of a top tier candidate, part of the Big 5 as the GOP race only gets more muddled over time.

We should expect a ramp-up in attacks, mostly from the blogosphere sniping at Mike's perceived weaknesses. More than a decade as governor provides plenty of fodder for twisting the record. I'll grant that there are a few valid criticisms; it's just that it never stops there. And we may even see some attack ads in Iowa from the Romney campaign or affiliated groups.

It will be interesting to see how the Huckabee crew handles the increased scrutiny. They have been unfailingly nice thus far (perhaps except for the snarky comments about how depressing it must be to have raised all that dough with little to show for it). And on the Huckabee blogs and discussion forums, the Huckabeelievers are almost uniformly polite and cheery folk. Are we prepared for the gloves-off freak show?

P.S. Did we finally get that tipping point in the Chuck Norris endorsement? I was amazed at the press coverage that got. I even had a not-politically-involved co-worker pop into my office Monday afternoon to see if i had heard the news. I have not revealed my Huckabee fandom at work, so that's not why he stopped by. He's just the sort of guy who gets restless or bored and wants to share whatever the zeitgeist of the moment is, whether it be some sports headline or a natural disaster or what have you. Norris on Huckabee fit the bill.

By the way, if you scoff at the notion of Walker Texas Ranger weighing in on politics, well, that was my initial reaction, too. But read the link above. Chuck lays out a detailed, cogent case for our guy Huckabee.

Interview with Grist

Been meaning to link this for a while. Grist specializes in environmental news and issues. I got a kick out of this blurb on their "About Us" page.

Grist: it's gloom and doom with a sense of humor. So laugh now -- or the planet gets it.

They have posted interviews with many of the 2008 candidates, including Mike Huckabee. Mike shares his passion for the pursuit of energy independence, and why it's also a national security issue. He talks about his interest in the environment and conservation from a God-following, let's-take-care-of-His-creation angle.

He reveals this his "environmental hero" is Theodore Roosevelt (woohoo!). And he tells a humorous story about confronting litterers on a canoe trip down an Arkansas river. A very nice interview that is well worth your time to check out.

A Big Day

A red-letter day for the Huckabee campaign, primarily from the fantastic poll results from Iowa, released by noted pollsters Rasmussen. Huckabee has surged to 18%, a nip behind the already-fading Thompson (19%), and within guitar-shredding distance of Romney (25%).

To have reached this level of support with almost no money, and no L&O reruns, is a great testament to the campaign and the candidate himself.

The 2nd piece of news today was a column from Dick Morris, who chronicles the field with praise for Huckabee. Morris said he was "amazed" (in a good way) with Huckabee's approach to issues, calling him a "refreshing change" in contrast to Bill Clinton. Here are some of the other adjectives Morris used to describe Mike:

• articulate
• principled
• knowledgeable
• witty
• sincere
• dedicated
• courageous

Finally, i'd like to call attention to a nice post from Justin in Oklahoma. He outlines 4 areas where he expects Huckabee to get more criticism as he ascends in the polls. You can already see the attacks starting.

Can a Pastor Be President?

Mike Huckabee wears the badge of his last name proudly, despite the inane criticism of it recently. He's also faced criticism from some about the prospect of a Baptist pastor becoming the President. But in this article from the Religion News Service, and published in today's Winston-Salem Journal, Mike makes a cogent case that his minister experience is quite helpful, if not directly pertinent, to the job of POTUS. It, too, is a badge to trumpet, not hide.

Here's the money quote...
“I think it’s the greatest preparation that a person can have for public service. There’s not any social pathology that I couldn’t put a name and a face to. Somebody says they want to talk about the issue of the elderly, I’ve dealt with those folks. I’ve dealt with a 14-year-old girl who’s pregnant and hasn’t told her parents yet. I’ve talked to the young couple who’s head over heels in debt. ... I think it gives you a real perspective about people and what they’re going through that’s important.”

Huckabeelievers will certainly want to read the entire article. If you find the link dead (not sure how long the newspaper will keep it live), add a comment, and i'll come back and post some more of it.

P.S. The United States has already had one pastor become President. James Garfield. Let's pray our guy has a happier ending.

3 Views from First Things

One of my favorite magazines is First Things. It bills itself as a "Journal of Religion, Culture, and Public Life". In their November issue, the magazine presents 3 short essays about the 2008 election. The first, by Village Voice writer Nat Hentoff, focuses on pro-life issues. The third, by FT editor Joseph Bottom, reviews the depressing litany (his view) of candidates, and is annoyingly dismissive of Mike Huckabee.

But i call your attention to the middle essay, by John J. DiIulio Jr., who served as the first Director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. DiIulio looks at the candidates through the lens of economic justice. Who is best equipped to lead the country economically, not merely for the sake of fattening already-fat wallets, but for taking care of all of America's citizens? He concludes that Mike Huckabee is the best of the GOP candidates.

P.S. I am linking, not excerpting, from the columns, due to my confusion over First Thing's copyright policy. Don't want to step on their toes. To find Di Iulio's essay, you'll have to scroll about halfway down the link.

Mike's Last Name

In honor of Mike and his last name...

Huck & The System

Good online interview with Huckabee from Newsweek. Wanted to highlight two excerpts. One explains why i want to shed light on our flawed political system, why i support someone like Huckabee generally. And the other provides a glimpse of why i support Huckabee specifically.

But why can’t you raise more money?
McCain-Feingold is really a very corrupted system. It’s a disastrous system. If you’re a federal officeholder, a senator, you just transfer some money over to your presidential campaign from your Senate campaign and you’ve jump-started the whole process so you can hire fund-raisers, you can send letters, you can do all this stuff that … it takes money to raise money. So you have to have money to start with, or if you’re very wealthy, you write a personal check, you pop it into your account, because you can give unlimited amounts to your own campaign. It’s not because the law restricts me, but my checkbook restricts me. So we have a system that is really tilted toward already entrenched Washington politicians and very wealthy people. We need to be screaming about how the process is really corrupt. But I’m not one of these going around whining about it.

Excerpt #2

Dan Bartlett, former counsel to President Bush, recently remarked that you have "obvious problems" as a candidate. These "problems" were your last name, Huckabee, which he apparently thought was flawed in some way, and the fact that you're from Hope, Ark. What is your response?
My last name has never opened doors for me because it's not the name of a prominent, wealthy or heralded political family. But the Bible says that "a GOOD name is more to be desired than great riches." And my name represents the sacrifice, hard work, and old fashioned discipline that my Dad gave me when he didn't have the education, wealth or position to give me anything else. It's a name I wear proudly—not just for myself, but all those who like me have fought their way beyond poverty to live and love the American dream.

P.S. What the interview doesn't mention about Bartlett's comments is that he called Huckabee "the most articulate, visionary candidate of anybody in the field."

The Michigan Debate

Much has already been written about yesterday's Republican debate in Michigan, focusing on economic policy. For instance, you can find several columns over at RealClearPolitics. And Anthony Palmer brings his typically good analysis over at The 7-10.

I don't have much to add. When i watched online (from work, catching only snippets between work stuff), i felt Huckabee was tight, pressing - using those terms as you might in sports. Trying to hit a home run, if you will. After watching the rebroadcast last night, i softened on that view, although Mike didn't hit a home run this time. He did about as well as he could with the limited opportunities, including the brutal assignment of having to talk about SCHIP.

I did note the contrast between his answer and that of Fred Thompson on that ethanol question. From the transcript, first the question...

Governor Huckabee, the federal government has spent years and billions of dollars promoting ethanol but the result has been a glut of ethanol and gas prices that are still at record levels. Wouldn't it be better to just let the free market determine whether ethanol makes economic sense or not?

Here's Huckabee's answer, blending passion, a goal, humor, and insight:

"I think ethanol and all biofuels are going to be an important part of the future energy needs of the country. But the accelerated pace at which we get there is critical for national security, as well as for our own economic
interest. The fact is, we keep talking about 15-, 20-, 30-year plans; that's nonsense.If we don't start saying we'll do this within a decade, we're never, ever going to get there. And we need to approach it the same way that a car does at the Nascar pit-stop -- you rush in, you get it done because you have to.

We're in a race. We're in a race for our lives against people who want to kill us. And a lot of the reasons that we are entangled in the Middle East is because our money buys their oil, that money ends up coming back to us in the way of Islamo-fascism terrorists.

We've got to come to the place where everything is on the table: nuclear, biofuels, ethanol, wind, solar -- any and everything this country can produce. We once had a president who said, "Let's go to the moon in 10 years," and we were there in eight. And we did that when we started with the technology of bottle rockets, when we got the thing launched. And we all saw that we can do it.

But we can't do it when we create this sense of: 'We'll wait until another generation.' We can't wait until another generation. Instead of running it like Nascar, we've been running it like taking the family station wagon in for letting Goober and Gomer take a look at it when they get time, under the shade tree. So it's critical that for our own interest, economically and from a point of national security, that we become energy independent and commit to doing it within a decade."

Contrast that with Thompson's answer, in dire need of a political gibberish to English translation:

"Ultimately, it'll be the free market, but I think, like the governor says, I think that we're in a situation now where we've got to use everything that's available to us. I think renewables and alternatives are a part of that picture. I don't look for it to last forever. When the industry gets up and running and on its feet again, I don't see the need for what we're doing now.

But you have to look at the bigger picture. Most economic downturns over the last 25 years have been preceded by a spike in oil prices. There's probably plenty of oil out there for the indefinite future. But price is an issue.

And that brings in the whole question of the importance of stability in the world. The United States, since the end of World War II, has been a force for stability and democracy, which helps bring about stability, for a long, long time. Our policies with regard to places like the Middle East and Iraq right now are very important with regard to the very issue we're talking about, because instability and crises in the wrong parts of the world are going to cause dramatic results in the upward movement of oil prices, and that could be devastating to our economy."

I believe the main take-away from this debate is not the debut of Fred Thompson, though. It is the shift in tone and strategy for Romney & Giuliani. The two apparently have decided that it's down to one or the other, so they're going to start attacking each other. Paraphrasing Huckabee (i can't find the reference) in post-debate coverage, A & B can slug it out and take each other out, leaving the path open for C. Given his lack of funds right now, it may be best to not be in the top 2 and have to worry about attack ads, or wasting time in silly tit-for-tat spats.

Land’s Miscalculation

Dr. Richard Land, the Ivy-league-educated president of the Southern Baptists' (clunkily named) Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (back in my college days, this was known as the Christian Life Commission, or maybe that was just in Texas, but I digress), wrote a much debated article recently about our moral responsibilities as voters. He uses a barely coded hypothetical election pitting 3 candidates: one you agree with 100%, one 80%, and only 10%. But what if the 100% candidate is doubtful to actually win the election? What should you do? In Land's calculation, you obviously have a moral obligation to support the 80 per center and get him or her into office.

I think that's a reasonable formulation, as the hypothetical goes. But it's obvious that he's referring to the 2008 presidential election, attempting to justify the reticence of conservative Christian leaders to support the candidacy of Mike Huckabee, the apparent 100% guy. Our 80% "hero" here is probably Fred Thompson, or perhaps Mitt Romney, and I would guess that the 10% dud is Hillary.

Dr. Land is a very smart guy and I respect him and the work of the ERLC. But I think he makes a serious miscalculation here. Two, actually. Some might quibble with the hypothetical itself, passionately arguing that we should not compromise principle. These folks find themselves voting for 3^rd-party, fringe-party candidates come the general election. And that's cool with me. But let's take a deeper look at the two miscalculations, one in the context of theory, and the second in the real-world of the 2008 election.

Miscalculation #1 – The Mistake of Timing

I can't say it better than Robert George Dunn did in the comments of Land's article. Dunn writes, "Dr. Land has described the attitude or concept that is best left for the hour of voting, not the trail to the voting booth. If the voter properly practiced their responsibility, they would be doing everything within their power and ability to see to it that the candidate that has the greatest moral fiber or is of the Spirit of God is elected." It's a long time until the election, even with the front-loaded primaries this time around. We're on about Day Two of a Six Day Creation. At this stage, you rally round your 100% guy, and do whatever you can to get him electable, to build the momentum, to raise the funds to ward off opposition-definers, to spread the word.

Miscalculation #2a – Underestimating Mike Huckabee

Land has been quoted as saying that he believes Huckabee has no shot to beat Hillary Clinton in the general election. I'm not sure what tea leaves he's privy to, because I'm not aware of any national polling pitting Huckabee against Clinton. I'm not sure how meaningful it would be anyway, as Huckabee does not come in with the name recognition of a Giuliani or the celebrity of Fred Thompson. I refuse to settle for the celebrity method of picking my presidential candidates. I prefer to see a grassroots campaign, driven by winning ideas, not an accounting of who can buy the most TV ads, especially from the mega-rich. As Huckabee is demonstrating in the places where people are paying attention (noted in previous posts), he is persuading hearts and minds. He is building the momentum needed to actually win this thing.

And I don't mean just the GOP nomination; I mean the general election. I hope to write a future post about what it takes to win the general election, using the Electoral College map and the Pew Center's Political Typologies, but i am convinced that Huckabee can do it.

Miscalculation #2b – Overestimating the Front Runners

The front-runners are already well-known nationally (perhaps only Romney is not), particularly as far as their positives are concerned. If you asked the average voter about Rudy Giuliani, I bet they'd say something about 9/11. But his pro-choice views are still not well known nationally. The average voter is still conflating Fred Thompson with Admiral Painter chomping a cigar on the deck of an aircraft carrier. And yet, when pitted in head-to-head polls against any of the 3 Democratic front-runners (Hillary, Obama, and Edwards), they all get trounced. Especially against Hillary, who is even defined nationally more by her negatives than by the reformation she's gone through in her Senate career.

So it seems to me that the best hope is to find someone more compelling. Someone who can energize the right-wing base (turnout will always be key), while siphoning off enough Reagan democrats to win this thing. Such a candidate would have social conservative bona fides, but would also be able to articulate a vision for all of America that resonates with the middle class. Someone with fresh and bold ideas for lifting America to a higher place, without coming across as slick or scary. Listen and watch Mike Huckabee. He's that someone.