Mike at CPAC

Video clip of Governor Huckabee's great speech at CPAC this morning...



You can find the rest of it at youtube, if you just click again on the video. Heck, i'll add the links...

Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

Mitt Romney's Latest Lie

I believe that the word "lie" is thrown around way too often these days. We call
things lies that don't really fit the definition. However, the latest campaign
dirty trick from Mitt Romney is a classic lie.

It appears that Romney is making calls to voters and telling them that the
Republican race is now a two-man contest. The text of the calls is this:

Hello, This is Governor Mitt Romney. The race for the Republican nomination for
president is now a two person race. Our party, I believe, is at a critical
crossroads, and the future of conservatism is very much at stake. I believe the
choice before us is quite clear: Do we support the liberal policies of the
Washington D.C. crowd, or do we want to fight for the conservative principles
that have defined our party for more than a century? I believe that our policies
have to remain rooted in conservative thought. Together, you and I can begin to
change Washington. That's why I need your vote on Tuesday

The fact is that Mike Huckabee is still very much in this race. As oso diablo
and I have both calculated, unless Romney's and the media's efforts to undermine
him work, Mike should be in second place in Delegates after Tuesday. If those
efforts do work, then the media will come out next week and say, "See, we told
you Huckabee wasn't a viable candidate," but the truth will be that they
torpedoed his campaign with this false rhetoric.

The conventional wisdom still claims that without money, a candidate can't win.
Well, Mike Huckabee proved in Iowa that it's not true in all cases.

I implore you, do not fall for the lie that voting for Mike Huckabee hands the
nomination to John McCain. Voting for Mike Huckabee improves the chances that
Mike Huckabee will be the Republican nominee. Don't listen to Mitt Romney and
the Conservative media echo chamber when they lie to you and say this is a
two-man race between Romney and McCain. They think if they say it enough, you
might believe it. And if you believe it, it will make it come true.

Romney Should Drop Out

The conventional wisdom from the meanstream media (stole that from another poster at Huck's Army) is that the GOP race is down to two people – McCain vs. Romney. Mitt, of course, has seized on this theme and has asserted that a vote for Governor Huckabee is a vote for John McCain. If this is truly to become a two-man race, and the goal is to defeat the momentum-laden McCain (assuming last night's woeful performance in the debate didn't stop his momentum in its tracks), then the best thing to do is coalesce around the most conservative candidate, the most electable candidate, the candidate with the most upside. That candidate is not Mitt Romney; it's Mike Huckabee.

Most Conservative

Mitt likes to proclaim himself the standard-bearer on the 3-legged stool of conservatism, with the 3 legs being social, fiscal, and national security issues. Like he triumphantly proclaimed last night that of course Ronald Reagan would endorse him. But just because i can slap on a glove and cleats doesn't mean you should put me in at shortstop. Is Mitt Romney the Sidd Finch of politics? Is there any there there?

Consider the 3 leg formulation.

• Social – even if we believe that Romney has finally hit his conservative political puberty and has truly converted to the prolife position (at most it's a position with him, not a cause) and other social conservative bona fides, he would still lag far behind Governor Huckabee's convictions, record, and prospects on this leg. A big win for Huckabee
  
• National Security – Like almost all governors, you'll find little directly relevant foreign policy experience for either candidate. This would turn on judgment, toughness, and leadership. I'm not impressed with Romney's CEO experience and so don't give the leadership advantage that he surely thinks he owns. I believe Huckabee has better judgment and would be tougher with aggressive regimes.
  
• Fiscal – Romney believes this is his trump card. But here's your trump card...
  

TAX FREEDOM DAY

A tax freedom day is the day in the calendar when you've worked long enough in the new year to afford to pay all your taxes. It's a sad commentary on our times, but this date is usually in April, and seems to fall later and later (see table 1 at the link) all the time. In 2007, it is estimated that the national tax freedom day was April 30th. So let's compare the records of Governors Huckabee and Romney in their respective states, looking at the Tax Freedom Day when they took office vs. when each left office.

Governor/State		TFD – Start		TFD - End	Net Effect
Huckabee / AR		April 22		April 22	Same
Romney / MA		April 21		May 6	15 days WORSE

If you don't mind working an extra two weeks for the government, then by all means believe the talking heads that Romney is the fiscal conservative.

Most Electable

I covered this in my Typologies post, showing the polling evidence that Governor Huckabee would be a better general election candidate than Romney. You can also look at the head to head polls compiled at RCP. Against Clinton, Huckabee fares 2-3 points better than Romney does. Against Obama, Huckabee also fares better than does Romney. Granted, neither candidate is polling well against those two right now, but this has been a consistent pattern – Huckabee trumps Romney. Governor Huckabee is more electable than Governor Romney, based on all the evidence we have to study.

Most Upside

Romney has had the powerful two-pronged advantage of both MONEY and MEDIA behind him, and still hasn't won a contested primary other than Michigan, which is practically home for him, given that his father was a popular governor there.

Think about it. Romney has outspent even his well-funded rivals by orders of magnitude that boggle the mind. Millions upon millions on negative ads, distortions of the records of the other candidates. He has all the power of talk radio behind him, all the conservative establishment media serving as surrogate mouthpieces for his campaign.

And what does he have to show for it? If he hasn't been able to beat McCain up until now, why would he all of sudden start doing it next Tuesday or beyond? If anyone should drop out, it should be Romney. The conservative establishment should try something else. That something else is, of course, Governor Huckabee.

California Debate

The debate was structured to buy into the fiction that this is only a two-man race between Governor Romney and Senator McCain, but if I have one hope coming form it, it would be that everyone could hear Governor Huckabee's response to the final question of the night. When each candidate was asked if Ronald Reagan would have endorsed them for President, Mike said:

I think it would be incredibly presumptuous and even arrogant for me to try to suggest what Ronald Reagan would do, that he would endorse any of us against the others.

Let me just say this, I'm not going to pretend he would endorse me. I wish he would. I would love that, but I endorse him, and I'm going to tell you why.

It wasn't just his specific policies, but Ronald Reagan was something more than just a policy wonk. He was a man who loved this country, and he inspired this country to believe in itself again.

What made Ronald Reagan a great president was not just the intricacies of his policies, though they were good policies. It was that he loved America and saw it as a good nation and a great nation because of the greatness of its people.

And if we can recapture that, that's when we recapture the Reagan spirit. It's that spirit that has a can-do attitude about America's futures and that makes us love our country whether we're Democrats or Republicans. And that's what I believe Ronald Reagan did -- he brought this country back together and made us believe in ourselves.

And whether he believes in us, I hope we still believe in those things which made him a great leader and a great American.

When I can find some video of it, I'll add it. The best part was that this was the very last statement made by any of the candidates in the debate.

WallBuilders

I know that Huckabee's weaknesses aren't in the Social Conservative area, but I felt it would be good to point folks to the WallBuilders Voters Guide.

Governor Huckabee at Heritage

I am a long-time member of (more than that, i make an automatic monthly contribution to) the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank based in Washington DC. Their primary purpose is to assist political leaders, particularly Senators and House members, craft public policy that comports with conservative principles. Well, heck, here is their mission statement.

Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institute - a think tank - whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.

Early in his tenure as Arkansas Governor, Mike Huckabee presented a lecture at Heritage called "Cutting Taxes and Other Great Ideas for Congress". I have highlighted some good excerpts…

• In Arkansas…, there are conservatives who believe that government really does need to get smaller, not larger; who believe that the best government is the most local government; who believe that taxes should be smaller; and who try to bring more efficiencies into what we do in government. And the good news is that this message of smaller, more efficient and accountable government is selling in our state.
  
• The executive branch cannot accomplish anything without working with the legislative branch, sitting down with them, negotiating, and treating the members with respect because they were elected just like I was.
  
• One of the greatest challenges that I faced as governor of a state like Arkansas was that for 162 years the tax burden on Arkansans always went up. It never went down… But, for the first time in 1997 and again this session, the old paradigm was no longer valid. The big battle was no longer, "Which taxes will we raise and by how much?" but, "Which taxes will we cut and by how much?"
  
• We passed a comprehensive income tax relief package, marking the first time in Arkansas' history that the state had seen a major, broad-based income tax cut. This $90.6 million tax relief measure lessened the tax burden on Arkansans in many ways.
  
  • Ended the income tax marriage penalty
    
  • Below the poverty line? No income tax
    
  • Ended bracket creep by indexing to inflation
    
  • Doubled the allowable child care credit
    
  • Eliminated the capital gains tax on sale of primary home
    
• In both 1997 and 1999, we produced balanced budgets with tax relief in the budgets. In other words, we budgeted for tax relief. By finding savings to pay for new programs, we proved it was possible to propose new and needed programs by reallocating resources while still providing tax relief. This has never before been accomplished in Arkansas.
  
• Character-based education has become a very important component of our education structure in Arkansas, and school districts have options on how they implement it… Children need to understand there are consequences for living out virtues, and we've already seen some pretty convincing results: discipline problems are going down and the learning atmosphere has improved dramatically.
  
• In addition to making it possible, through the Fair Dismissal Act, to get rid of teachers who are not doing the job and who are violating their contract, we also passed a bill that will provide financial incentives up to $2,000 a year of additional money for teachers who show extraordinary excellence in teaching.
  
• 44 percent of the people on welfare a year and a half ago are now off the welfare rolls and are in jobs and working.
  
• These are some of the things we've done, and they are proof positive that cutting taxes, making government performance-driven and accountable to the people, and bringing some sense of real fairness to government's overall approach is making life better for all our citizens.
  

Now does that look anything like a liberal to you? Don't believe the nonsense you hear from cranky political opponents. And consider that, around the same time Governor Huckabee delivered this address and set his state on a new path of conservatism, John McCain and Fred Thompson were in the Senate cooking up some new bitter brew called campaign finance reform, and this same duo would soon be strategizing to make McCain the 2000 GOP nominee for president.

Arkansas CEOs: Look Past "Shallow Rhetoric"

Six corporate leaders based in Arkansas today encouraged voters to "look past the shallow rhetoric of yet another campaign season" and truly check out the stellar record of leadership from Governor Huckabee in their state.

Here's the entire statement (emphasis added)...

Columbia, SC - Today, the following businessmen from Arkansas released a statement in support of former Arkansas Governor, Mike Huckabee: Scott T. Ford, President and CEO, Alltel Corporation; Warren A. Stephens, President and CEO, Stephens Inc.; Madison Murphy, Former Chairman, Murphy Oil Corporation; John Tyson, Chairman of the Board, Tyson Foods, Inc; and French Hill, Chairman and CEO, Delta Trust and Banking Corporation:

"We are a traditionally bi-partisan group of executives of several of the largest corporations headquartered in the State of Arkansas, each with considerable exposure to the Administration of Governor Mike Huckabee. Of late, Governor Huckabee has attracted what we believe to be unwarranted criticism regarding his business record."

"Our experience with Governor Huckabee indicates that he not only values greatly the freedoms of religion and liberty, but of the free market as well. He is an atypical leader who garnered the respect of not only the professional business community but of the working men and women across our State as well."

"When he became our Governor, he inherited our long sub-standard education system, infrastructure, and regulatory climate. Under his leadership, we were able to grow our businesses, increase our employment, reduce our litigation exposure and enjoy, along with all of our fellow Arkansans, a healthier economy, improved schools, updated highways, and new healthcare delivery facilities."

"In our support of Governor Huckabee's truly conservative, small government business outlook and his pragmatic, yet compassionate style of governing, we invite you to look past the shallow rhetoric of yet another campaign season to see what we have experienced first hand - that with the right political leadership in place, businesses and citizens can jointly prosper and as they do, they contribute so much more to the economic and societal fabric of a community than simply tax revenues."

Issue: Economics

I'm not going to type a long defense of Governor Huckabee's Economic record or plan. Instead, I'm simply going to point everyone to the video of Governor Huckabee's speech to the Detroit Economic Club last Friday.

There should be a new rule that any critic must address what the Governor said in this speech before being allowed to attack him as a "Liberal."


Part 1:



Part 2:



Part 3:



Part 4:



Part 5:



This is one of the best speeches I have ever heard, and I have two degrees in Speech Communication, so I've studied some of the best.

Arthur Branch Lives!

The previously moribund and laconic Fred Thompson fired a broadside against Governor Huckabee in the recent South Carolina debate. Reading from notes, Thompson catalogued a litany of supposed "sins" by the apostate Huckabee. It's true that he doesn't hew to the rabid orthodoxy of talk-show conservatism, and that he confounds the elites. But Thompson's shot represents part of what we decry about the political process. It's barely better than the freak show, reducing nuanced policy positions to half-truth soundbites, in a format that does not lend itself to response. It's time to grow up.

My first reaction was "well, looks like Arthur Branch nailed his lines, and on the first take, too." The outburst reminded me of someone who half-wakes from a dream, and loudly and urgently blurts out something incomprehensible. A mom would sooth, "that's ok sweetie, just go back to sleep."

But that's just me being snarky.

As for the charges themselves, The Calvinator takes on one of them below – school choice and vouchers. As for the NEA of New Hampshire support, i find it foolhardy to eschew the support of a large group of Americans. I'm glad that some of these unions are recognizing that a large portion of their members are conservative, and wish to express their support of a conservative candidate, not just the same-old Democratic entrenchment. Reagan understood that, garnering the endorsement of the Teamsters and PATCO, and 44% of the union vote in the 1980 election. McCain echoed that approach in the 2000 primary.

Blame America first? How can anyone honestly look at Huckabee's platform and conclude that? It's just an immature bromide. I've never heard any leader talk more authentically and passionately about the founding fathers, about the Declaration of Independence. Huckabee is insistent about American sovereignty. He was the first candidate to come out strongly against the Law of the Sea Treaty, due to concerns about our sovereignty. He talks about the pride of knowing you're in a country that people want to break into, not out of. Huckabee loves America.

Guantanamo? Here are Huckabee's comments in a press release from December. He advocates the same position as John McCain, which is that if the legal assumption bears out (awaiting a SCOTUS ruling) that no additional rights would be granted, then there is tremendous symbolic benefit from closing Guantanamo and moving the combatants to Ft. Leavenworth. By the way, i couldn't find any online evidence that Fred Thompson has visited Guantanamo for a first-hand view, as the other candidates have, including Huckabee.

Taxpayer-funded programs for illegals? There is nothing in Huckabee's platform that would do that. In fact, his immigration plan is tough enough for the endorsement of the founder of the Minutemen, Jim Gilchrist. The reference is surely to the college scholarship plan that Huckabee had in Arkansas, where children of illegals could qualify for a state college scholarship, provided they met the academic criteria AND were applying for US citizenship. Besides that, if you think of this issue logically, we already provide taxpayer funding education for illegals, with our K-12 public schools. This position has been enforced by the Supreme Court, and can be justified on economic rationality grounds. If they're here, it's better to be educated than not. The solution isn't to leave them uneducated; the solution is to choke off the flow first.

Ban smoking nationwide? Again, there is nothing in Huckabee's platform that calls for that. He has stated, at the Lance Armstrong Cancer Forum last summer, that if Congress signed a bill banning smoking in public places, that he would sign it, as he did in Arkansas. Based on worker safety issues. It's a reasonable position, though i do agree there is some merit to the federalism criticism that Fred makes.

But the main point of all this is that this Thompson approach doesn't lend itself to a grown-up review of the issues facing us. Thompson earlier called for more substantive Lincoln-Douglas type debates, but then backed off (chickened out?) when Huckabee took him up on the offer. BRING IT ON, i say. His broadside in the Myrtle Beach was the very example of what he had decried about the process. Thompson was right then; what happened?

P.S. Thompson also (tellingly?) flubbed the definition of the "Reagan Coalition", leaving off a big chunk of it. He said the coalition was "limited government and a strong national defense." He made no mention of social conservatives, drawn to Reagan and the GOP for their advocacy of pro-life policies, and a general regard for traditional family values. These voters have flocked to the GOP regardless of their economic position.

Interview Questions

The Huckabee website has a link for bloggers to submit a request for interview. Here's what i would ask…

1. If you are familiar with Christian Just War Theory, how would you assess our current conflict in Iraq in those terms?
   
2. How do you work through which beliefs you hold that should be pursued in public policy, versus those that are better suited for private (or, non-public) pursuit? Are there any general philosophies of government that work well for you to make those calls? (For example, a person might believe that divorce is, more frequently than not, missing the mark spiritually, yet not consider it a problem best solved by prescriptive law.)
   
3. One of the reasons i started this particular blog (and called it what i did) was my utter dissatisfaction with our current process of selecting our political leaders, where it tends to be all about name recognition and the ability to raise mega-millions two years in advance. In most seasons, an underfunded, relatively unknown, but politically talented candidate like you goes nowhere. Any suggestions on how we keep the American political dream alive, where any kid can become president, and, perhaps more importantly, ensure that we don't devolve into a plutocracy?
   
4. As you reflect on your decade-plus tenure leading the state of Arkansas, what do you consider you greatest accomplishment there? Anything you'd do differently (other than the well-hashed case of Wayne DuMond)? What lessons would you take from the Governor's Mansion to the White House (by the way, don't you love it that governors get mansions, while the president just gets a house)?
   
5. One of the criticisms you received from your Arkansas detractors was that you are "thin-skinned". I have to say, I haven't seen that at all during this campaign. Quite the opposite, in fact. Was this ever a fair criticism, and if so, how have you progressed?
   
6. A presidential campaign takes you all over America, meeting tons of ordinary Americans. What have you learned about America in this process so far? What goes under-reported by the media about our country?
   
7. You have made two quite bold proposals in your platform. One, to abolish the IRS and its associated taxes, replacing it with the innovative FairTax. And two, to achieve energy independence by the end of your 2^nd term. Each idea would be worthy of an extended interview by themselves (which i would be glad to conduct someday). But my question now is this: how do you counter or handle the "nattering nabobs of negativity" (to borrow Safire's phrase) who scoff that such things cannot be done?
   
8. There has naturally been a lot of talk of Reagan in this campaign. For me, he is one of the 3 pillars of Republican presidents, the other two being the two guys on Mt. Rushmore – Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt. What do you take from Lincoln and Roosevelt, in terms of your political goals and philosophy, and your leadership style?
   
9. Another potshot taken at you is that you wouldn't fare well in the general election. I don't get that one either. I have analyzed the Pew Political Typologies and their historical voting patterns, and find that you are the MOST electable GOP candidate, due to your ability to hold social conservatives, and pull in key swing groups such as the so-called Upbeats, Pro-Government Conservatives, and Disaffecteds. Take a look at my analysis. Was this intentional, or a natural consequence of meeting the people where they are?
   
10. Another influential read for me has been the Weekly Standard article called "The Party of Sam's Club" (soon to be expanded into a book called Grand New Party). Are you familiar with it, and if so, has it influenced your campaign at all?

David Brooks with another winner

David Brooks has another great column in the NYT. It's not specifically about Mike Huckabee, but it directly addresses the theme of Republican Party shifting that needs to occur, and is in fact happening, at least for some Republicans who get it.

He closes with a reference to the groundbreaking insight from Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam, which i have mentioned a few times. Soon to be a book, it started with an article called the Party of Sam's Club.

Here's a good excerpt from the Brooks column...

The political situation has changed, too. Republicans used to appeal to the investor class with economic policies and the working class with values, crime and welfare policies. But that formula has broken down. The workers are walking away from the G.O.P., and the only way to win them back is by listening to their economic concerns.

As a result, smart Republicans are groping for a new economic model, and as they do, Republican economic policies are shifting. The entrepreneur is no longer king. The wage-earner is king. As the presidential campaign rolls into Michigan, it’s clear that Republicans are adjusting their priorities to win back the anxious middle class.

The Republicans who are reaching toward this new model still sound very different from Democrats. They never describe American workers as victims. They never describe globalization as a remorselessly punishing process. They argue that individuals can still control their own destinies, provided they work hard and get educated. They believe it would be a catastrophe if the U.S. abandoned free trade or adopted a European-style safety net and suffered European tax rates. But they envision a different role for government than the 1980s Republicans.

Brooks outlines 4 "spheres of policy innovation" that Republicans must address to be successful.

1. Human capital agenda
2. Health care reform
3. Resiliency agenda
4. Fiscal rectitude

I had this epiphany more than a year ago after reading that Sam's Club article, and it's one of the things about the Huckabee campaign that appeals to me. If the GOP wants to build a new winning coalition, it must figure this out. Then perhaps, perhaps, the chattering class will get on board, too.

Costanza Conservatism

On the sitcom Seinfeld (the greatest half-hour tv show of all time), a series of episodes centers on the concept of a sitcom within the sitcom, as Jerry is approached by NBC executives to create a pilot for a comedy tv series. Jerry's best friend George Costanza has the brilliant idea to make a "show about nothing". "Everybody's doing something; we'll do nothing." In typical Costanza style, however, he takes his gem of an idea too far when pitching it to the executives. Here's that part of the script…

GEORGE: I think I can sum up the show for you with one word: NOTHING.
RUSSELL: Nothing?
GEORGE: (Smiling) Nothing.
RUSSELL: (Unimpressed) What does that mean?
GEORGE: The show is about nothing.
JERRY: (To George) Well, it's not about nothing.
GEORGE: (To Jerry) No, it's about nothing.
JERRY: Well, maybe in philosophy. But, even nothing is something.
…
RUSSELL: All right, tell me, tell me about the stories. What kind of stories?
GEORGE: Oh, no. No stories.
RUSSELL: No stories? So, what is it?
GEORGE: (Showing an example) What'd you do today?
RUSSELL: I got up and came to work.
GEORGE: There's a show. That's a show.
RUSSELL: (Confused) How is that a show?
JERRY: Well, uh, maybe something happens on the way to work.
GEORGE: No, no, no. Nothing happens.

I feel similarly about some conservatives' view of the proper role of government, at least as judged by their criticisms of Mike Huckabee. Apparently, if you believe government should actually accomplish something, then you are no longer conservative. Rather than a philosophy of limited government, they seem to advocate no government involvement at all (except, of course, for the military). Almost a hyper-libertarianism. If you suggest, as Russell and Jerry do above, that something must happen to truly have a show worth watching, that the government should actually work for the good of the people, then the Costanza Conservatives rant that you just don't get it. No, no, no. Nothing happens.

I get it. I'm a Seinfeld Conservative. The philosophy of nothing is proper, but it is not absolute. The government should have a light footprint in our lives, but not no footprint. It should be limited, but where it exists, it should work. It should be efficient and effective. There should be recognition that some problems, beyond national defense, do lend themselves to governing solutions. Pollution, to take one example of a public-good problem. Or consider the Hurricane Katrina response.

It's easy to sit back and be grumpy, to offer the political equivalent of "hey you kids, get off of my lawn!" It takes work and effort to actually lead, to govern. And if we are to have government, it should be government that works.