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.

Deeper Dive into Iowa

Looking deeper into the numbers made available at the Des Moines Register for their presidential poll of likely Iowa caucus attendees, with particular attention to what they mean for Mike.

Ruled Out / Might Consider
One interesting question asked if voters had ruled out any candidates, or if they would consider others besides their top choice(s). Not a surprise that the #1 GOP candidate in the Ruled Out category is Ron Paul. Now, I admire Dr. Paul and wish we had a few score more of him in the Congress, but he is not made for POTUS. I don't reject him (my own version of ruled out) because of so-called "electability" (we Huckabee supporters chafe at that dismissal ourselves, for the time being), but because i don't see him as Presidential material, as a leader of all America. In this poll, fully 71% of GOP voters have ruled out Dr. Paul. Businessman (why?) John Cox and Alan Keys (double why?) aren't far behind, with scores in the 60s.

As i read these numbers, 3 candidates have the best chance to move up in the polls. Romney is one, a testament to his current strength in Iowa. Not only does he consistently lead the polls, but he could still increase that lead, as folks are open to him. Another is Fred Thompson, which i attribute to his recent entry into the race. Iowans are fair enough to give him a chance to define his candidacy (beyond golf carts). Whether Fred vaults up or declines is up to his skills as a campaigner. And finally, the 3rd candidate is our own Mike Huckabee. Only 36% have ruled him out, and 49% are open for further consideration as they learn more. That can only be good news for Mike, as he has demonstrated the ability to win over voters once they get to know him.

Truly the Best
Another poll question asks which candidate would make the best President, taking the electability question out of play. This is quite interesting to me, as Romney's support plunges from 29% who have him as their top choice, to only 20% who believe he's actually the best candidate. I surmise this is a picture of electability, a coalescence around a front-runner. Likewise, Big Fred's support is quite weak, as he drops from 18% to only 12%, only 4th place among GOP candidates. This is an expression of hope (sorry to use that word), but i believe it's false hope. Huckabee finishes 3rd on this question, behind Giuliani, with 13%, a shade higher than his 12% first-choice total.

This all bodes well for Mike. The opportunity is right there for the taking. If he can convince the voters that he can win the general election, he can siphon off 3 points from both Mitt and Fred. This is a classic case of a trend needing a tipping point.

Age & Gender
Among republican women, Romney has a commanding lead, at 33%. But Huckabee is 2nd at 14%. Unsure/Uncommitted is 3rd at 13%. Among republican men, Romney also leads with 27%, and Thompson is not far behind at 22%. Huckabee is 4th with 11%. This seems clear to me that Mike should target Romney weaknesses (flip-flopping) with women voters, and Thompson's weaknesses (where do i begin?) with men. If he can figure out how to target his messages accordingly, he could make some inroads. I'm not a campaign strategist by any means, but a good media consultant should be able to figure something out.

Age-wise, Mike is tied with Rudy for 2nd among age 18-44 (a curious bracketing, as there would seem to be little in common with a college voter and someone my age - early 40s). Giuliani gets a huge jump, at Huckabee's expense to a large extent, among ages 45-64. I have no idea what to make of that. But it's better, at this stage, to show well among the young, if you had to pick only one demographic, as the young are normally the early adopters.

Conclusion
That all may be too much info for you, but i see many things here which are good signs for the Huckabee campaign. There's still plenty of work ahead, and this is just one state, but i'm encouraged.

New Iowa Poll Released

On the heels of his breakthrough 2nd place finish in the Ames Straw Poll, Mike Huckabee has to be also pleased with his showing in the latest poll in Iowa, conducted by the Des Moines Register. This is their first major poll since May, and it's interesting to compare the the change in results from May to October.

Fred Thompson has the biggest jump, but that's because he wasn't included in the May poll. He comes in at 18% this time, good for a 2nd place showing. Mitt Romney still holds a nice lead, holding steady at 29% (vs. 30% in May). His personally contributed millions have worked.

But our man Huckabee has vaulted to 3rd place, ahead of McCain (not much of a surprise), but also ahead of Giuliani (that's big news). Huckabee comes in at 12%, fully 3 times higher than he registered in May (4%). By contrast, Giuliani is plunging, from 17% to 11%. McCain has plummeted from 18% to 7%, a sign of his campaign's struggles.

These results are not a big shock to Huckabee supporters. We have been saying that once people get to hear Huckabee, and compare his views and comportment to those of the rest of the field, he will surge. Even on a shoestring budget, Huckabee's message is resonating, and the wave is building.

More later (son has a baseball game)

Why Huck the System?

What is the purpose of this blog, and why that title?

Goals
My hope for this blog is to support the Presidential candidacy of Mike Huckabee, by helping out in various ways.

• Educating readers about Huckabee - what he stands for, what his vision is, his character
• Securing the Republican nomination and the general election in 2008 - this could mean fundraising, letter writing campaigns, asking for votes, etc
• Raising the level of political discourse above the ever-increasing Freak Show
• Convincing you that Huckabee can win
• Filtering through, and bringing you the best of, other Huckabee blog posts

Why "Huck the System"?

On one level, it's just a clever play on Mike's last name. But it also represents, for me, the notion that Mike Huckabee brings a different mindset to politics. He brings a perspective from outside the Beltway, outside the system. The system, in this case, is the politics-as-usual approach that has led to all-time lows in approval ratings for both the President and the Congress. It is a money-driven system. In fact, i would call it not just driven by money, but enslaved by it. It's a system that rewards and feeds on pop-news, personality, and looks. It's a ratings-driven media freak show, which rewards partisan shouting and meaningless soundbites and clever (if not mean-spirited) attacks.

It's not that i believe that one man can change all that. But it is a call to Americans to rise above that, for the sake of our future. To approach divisive issues not only with passion, but with respect and pragmatism. To be watchdogs of the public trust, so that our leaders do not become entrenched, do not seek power over principle, power for its own sake. To be watchdogs of the public coffers (our tax dollars), so that we are not bequeathing loads of debt to our grandchildren for frivolities and power-consolidating moves that drive so many ear-marks in Congress.

Enough! Let's Buck the System. Or, if Huckabee's your guy, let's Huck the System.

Getting on the Huckabee Bandwagon

This long one was written just a few weeks ago, on 9/15/07...

I'd like to invite all my readers onto the Mike Huckabee bandwagon. I hopped on back in February, and the train is gaining steam and passengers. I welcome you aboard!

Mike is, of course, running for President. He is a Republican, and most recently served as governor of Arkansas for 10 years. If you know anything about Arkansas politics, you know how unusual it is to have a GOP governor there. And yet Mike won elections, first as Lt. Governor, and then two different terms as the head of state. I wasn't paying attention to all this at the time, but having watched him this past half-year, i can readily understand how Huckabee won over a majority of Arkansans. He has this engaging, folksy, honest style that really connects with people.

In the course of this campaign, those traits are in full bloom, and the media gushes over him (how often do you see that of a conservative?). When people get to hear his message, and get to know him, Mike wins hearts and votes. So, it's dismaying (if not infuriating) to hear comments like this: "I like Mike, and would support him if he had a chance to win." I can only guess that such comments are based on poll numbers. But early poll numbers are merely functions of name recognition. When you see campaigns in full swing, and voters become engaged in actually making a real decision, Huckabee begins vaulting to the top tier. I firmly believe this trend can continue countrywide, and that Mike Huckabee CAN win. If the people who like him would get behind him, he WILL win the nomination.

I also believe he's the GOP's best chance to win the general election, too. It's easy for me to see Huckabee pulling in moderates, without alienating the conservative base. We don't have to compromise our ardent beliefs for a guy like Giuliani. We don't have to back a trust-fund flip-flopping game-show-host just because he's raised a ton of dough from his Wall Street pals and fellow Mormons. We don't have to settle for a lazy guy who's a front-runner only because he's starred on a popular TV show. With Huckabee, you can cast your vote proudly, without having to hold your nose. We don't have to settle for a phony; in Huckabee, we can get the real deal.

Moderates and political skimmers will be attracted to Huckabee, again because of his engaging nature. He's the consummate Sam's Club (that link is well worth your time to read) candidate, and not just because he's from Arkansas. He connects, through his life history and his easy way of relating complex issues to everyday Americans, with regular folks, the bread and butter of America. I think he's absolutely the right guy at the right time for our country.

If only as a courtesy to my passion, i encourage you to check out Mike's website, and to consider a donation, large or small, to Team Huckabee. Consider it a contribution to an American political process that isn't solely about Hollywood luster or the ability to get millionaires behind you. Consider it an investment in our future. Do it for Mike.

Archive: More on Huckabee

Here's another one, this time from April 2007...

I'm mystified why Mike Huckabee isn't getting more press in his quest for the 2008 presidential nomination. For anyone interested in learning more, he's set up a series of videos on Youtube outlining his views. Pretty much standard fare for a conservative Republican, but if you think like me, you should find plenty to like.

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=explorehuckabee

I also liked his series of 4 videos about his decade as governor of Arkansas. This first one, linked below, covers the interesting story of his on-again, off-again inauguration day. You can find the other links from this one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FazJu0vYs6g

Archive: Another President From Hope?

I first wrote this on my regular blog back in February 2007. I'll be reposting a few entries, the ones about Huckabee, from there to here.

Former governor of Arkansas. Born in Hope. Southern Baptist. Sound familiar? This time, though, make him a truly compassionate conservative, a guy who gets things done, and you've got Mike Huckabee, who's thrown his hat into the 2008 presidential ring. Most pundits think he's got no shot, but those are my favorite kind of candidates.
I won't go into detail here, but you can read as much about Mike as you'd like at the links below (deleted, as they can be found in my links section). But for now, he's my guy. I like Mike!

Bonus: we share a birthday.