A couple interesting stories regarding Mike Huckabee hit the wire. First, Robert Novak reported that Huckabee wants John McCain to lose:

Huckabee’s announced support of McCain is unequivocal, and he is regarded in the McCain camp as a friend and ally. But credible activists are spreading the word that Huckabee secretly allies himself with the bitter-end opposition. That hardly seems possible considering his public backing, but critics of Huckabee’s 10 years as governor of Arkansas say he is all too capable of playing a double game… 

Nevertheless, the word is that some evangelicals dispute Huckabee’s support. One experienced, credible activist in Christian politics who would not let his name be used told me that Huckabee, in personal conversation with him, had embraced the concept that an Obama presidency might be what the American people deserve. That fits what has largely been a fringe position among evangelicals: that the pain of an Obama presidency is in keeping with the Bible’s prophecy.

According to this activist, at the heart of the let-Obama-win movement is longtime Virginia conservative leader Michael Farris — the nation’s leading home-school advocate, who is now chancellor of Patrick Henry College (in Purcellville, Va.) for home-schooled students. Best known politically as the losing Republican candidate for lieutenant governor of Virginia in 1993, Farris is regarded as one of the hardest-edged Christian politicians. He is reported in evangelical circles to promote the biblical justification for an Obama plague-like presidency.

Mike Huckabee has emerged from obscurity to become a major factor in American politics leading evangelical Christians. The McCain campaign counts on him to energize supporters who would rather wait for Huckabee 2012, not to encourage those dreams.

Mike Huckabee responded unequivocallyat HuckPAC:

On another note, I was very disturbed by a column by Robert Novak that quoted some “anonymous source” in saying that while I strongly supported Senator McCain, I thought that maybe America “deserves Obama,” as if to say that I secretly hoped he won.

Where do people dream up this stuff? Forget the “anonymous” sources—there’s nothing anonymous about my stand and here it is. We don’t “deserve” Obama—we DESERVE a President with the character, convictions, experience, and wisdom to see the problems we face and try to lead us to solve them. We deserve a President who truly loves this country and from whom there is no doubt as to his respect for Faith, Family, and the kind of Freedom that those before us have given their lives to pass on to us. John McCain meets that criteria and that’s why I am campaigning for him and not hoping for Obama. The nonsense that I want Obama to win this year so I can run in 2012 is absurd. I love my country more than my own ambition. So let the record and truth be clear. And let the “anonymous” sources either show the courage to stand up and be accountable for their comments or shut up and leave commentary to people who aren’t afraid of their own shadow.

Huckabee is clearly ticked and the denial couldn’t be stronger. For what it’s worth, I think that when it comes to winning elections, Huckabee is like most Republicans. Whatever the problems with McCain, he doesn’t want Obama to win.

However, the story doesn’t end there. Because James Pethokoukis reports Huckabee is the frontrunner for VP and many economic conservatives don’t like it. Given the timing of the two stories, it raises some interesting questions. A cynical person might conclude that the religious conservative leader who spoke to Novak didn’t want Huckabee on the ticket and made the statement in order to cast doubt on Huckabee’s loyalty to stop McCain from putting him on the ticket. Good thing I’m trying to be less cynical or I’d be blaming the whole thing on Mitt Romney’s people.

That said, a McCain-Huckabee ticket makes sense for McCain. One has to take a look at the polls to see why Huckabee is needed. Barack Obama has been giving himself a series of self-inflicted wounds for week upon week surrounding cultural issues and where is McCain at? The latest Real Clear Politics Poll of Polls shows Obama up 4.5%. The national tilt of this election is toward the Democrats and McCain hasn’t been able to stop it. Republicans are unenthused with McCain’s campaign, he’s lagging behind Obama in fundraising.

McCain’s problem is that he inspires no one. There’s going to be a lack of volunteers in the Fall. He’s not going to look as good as Obama in the debates. He hasn’t really been able to capitalize on Obama’s mistakes. Michelle Malkin rightfully pointed out that McCain has his own share of contempt for Americans.

I remain of the opinion that McCain will lose the popular vote. His only hope is to win the electoral college. Obama is most vulnerable in America’s heartland. Places like Iowa, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Missouri, Colorado, and Ohio hold the key to the election. McCain’s problem: While he currently leads the polls in Ohio, it was the narrowest big state in the last election and had there not been an anti-gay marraige Amendment on the ballot, the state’s votes would have almost certainly have gone to John Kerry. Given the current state of the economy, it’s likely to end up falling to Obama.

Of course, Obama may not need Ohio. If he holds America’s blue states, he could win Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa, and Nevada, he would be the next president. If Bob Barr is the libertarian nominee, Obama winning Nevada becomes a foregone conclusion.

Of course, winning the presidency without bellweather states like Missouri, Kentucky, and Ohio would be odd.

This is where Huckabee could help. Huckabee has often been described as a regional Southern Candidate. However, his wins in places like Iowa and Kansas, as well as his strong finish in Missouri suggest he is as one commentator suggested, a heartland candidate. The key for McCain will be winning the heartland of America and Huckabee is an assett.

Huckabee would also help McCain in terms of the dynamism and likability of the ticket. His ability to handle himself on the talk show circuit in an articulate manner will add something to a ticket that features John McCain as a grumpy old man.

Huckabee also has better political instincts than McCain. Huckabee may have ticked off Republicans in his career, but he didn’t make an art of it. He backed off amnesty and would be a valuable advisor if McCain would listen.

Some perceived negatives aren’t there. There are many economic conservatives who will not support a McCain ticket with Huckabee on it. However, most of the people who take that position were going to give McCain little more than their vote.

Huckabee will likely be able to get a sizable number of his supporters to volunteer for the campaign. The McCain campaign is likely to be outspent by a giant margin and Huckabee knows about how to fight. McCain and the GOP faces a passive aggressive stay home vote from Social Conservatives and Huckabee could combat this.

Concerns about Huckabee’s faith should be considered buried due to the Reverend Wright scandal. To attack Huckabee’s religious beliefs and statements would no doubt lead to a resurrection of Reverend Wright, and none of Huckabee’s statements or beliefs come close to the offensive level of Obama’s pastor.

The risk for McCain in choosing a former rival for Veep has had mixed result. The last two candidates to do this Michael Dukakis in 1988 and John Kerry in 2004 found the strategy unsuccessful. In part, the presence of a former Rival on the ticket reminds some people that they would really want the Veep candidate as President and makes them think less of the nominee. You can’t afford to be overshadowed by your nominee. If you’re in camp McCain, Do you really want people to walk away from the Republican Convention talking about how great Huckabee’s VP acceptance speech was?

As for Huckabee, the Veep ticket could do great harm to his political career. If McCain/Huckabee were to lose:

1. The conservative media establishment would lay the blame on Huckabee. “If only McCain had chosen someone else…” would be the mantra. Of course, the same people will blame Huckabee regardless. If Huckabee were to turn down a VP offer, he would be labeled a selfish person who cost the election. And the Novak story sets up a scenario if a Huckabee isn’t nominated for VP where Huckabee is given responsibility for the loss because of a private lack of enthusiasm for McCain that suppressed traditionalist voters.
2. Huckabee’s 2012 campaign would be harder. Because of the blame that would go with being on the ticket, getting nominated would be difficult. After being Gerald Ford’s VP pick in 1976, Bob Dole was pulvarized in 1980. Former Vice-President Dan Quayle had to drop out after being beaten by Alan Keyes at the Iowa Strawpoll. If losing the Presidency is a great way to get the Republican nomination for President, losing the Vice-Presidency is a great way not to get it. The only losing VP candidate to be elected President: 1920 Democratic VP nominee Franklin D.  Roosevelt.

If McCain/Huckabee wins:

1.  He is saddled with being McCain’s man.  This means that all or almost all of the things McCain does to tick off conservatives, Huckabee will have to defend. One would hope that as President Bush has let Dick Cheney publicly dissent from his position in support of the Marriage Amendment, that Huckabee wouldn’t be left in a position to defend Embryonic Stem Cell Research, but you never know with McCain. In addition, a McCain/Huckabee administration would resurrect talk among conservatives that there was a secret conspiracy between the two during the primaries.
2. Likelihood of becoming President increases if he’s elected VP, but it could be a hard road. Since the FDR/Truman years, no party has held the White House for more than 12 years. If McCain steps down after one term or two, the odds of Huckabee keeping the Republicans in the White House for a 4th or 5th consecutive term would be thin, and if Huckabee loses as the party nominee, there won’t be a second act.

 Bottom line: A VP nomination probably does more harm than good for Mike Huckabee’s plans and career goals, but it’s the best chance McCain has.

Mike Huckabee, Republican Vice-Presidential nominee. Mike Huckabee? If you would have said this just a few weeks ago, I would of thought you were crazy. Mike Huckabee has always been the most qualified choice to fill in this capacity. His 10 ½ years of experience as Governor of Arkansas makes Huckabee the most qualified candidate with any Chief Executive experience among Republicans. John McCain is 72 years old and is relatively in good health now. However, the aging process accelerates in the stress-filled world of White House politics. John McCain would need someone in position of leadership to take over the reigns as Chief Executive. No better person then someone who already has the most experience in this category.

 

Secondly, to win the White House, Republicans need social conservatives to get out and vote. If it wasn’t for the record number of social conservatives voting in the 2004 presidential election, the Republican Party would be nominating a candidate to defeat President Kerry. Recent history dictates that when social conservatives vote, Republicans win. John McCain needs someone to shore up his pseudo-social conservative record with someone who not only holds strong social conservative views but also someone who can invigorate the social conservative base to get out and vote this November. Mike Huckabee has the strongest support among middle class authentic conservatives then any other known Republican. This leads to my third point, John McCain is going to need someone with name recognition. There are many Republicans with strong conservative credentials across the country. However, outside their own region, they are barely a blip in the name recognition category. Last year at this time, Mike Huckabee was barely a blip outside of Arkansas. Now he is among the most widely recognized names. His popular appeal not only comes from the firmly held convictions that he shares with many other Americans, but also because of his warm, friendly, and engaging demeanor. This makes him an engaging and entertaining guest among the TV and radio media. Besides being entertaining and engaging he provides insightful commentary due to his vast experiences. This would shore up John McCain’s perceived weakness of being either wooden or temperamental with the media.

 

Mike Huckabee also has a strong appeal with African-American voters. In his re-election as Governor of Arkansas in 2004, Mike Huckabee received nearly 50% (48%) of the African-American vote. The GOP generally considers it an accomplishment when their candidate receives over 10% of the African-American vote in a presidential election. This final point could be very crucial this year when the likely Democratic nominee for president is African-American. Mike Huckabee’s appeal crosses racial lines more so then any other Republican in recent memory. Yes, many will say this is more true of Condoleezza Rice or Michael Steele (former Lt. Governor of Maryland). But Condoleezza Rice is not a strong social conservative and Michael Steele doesn’t have the name recognition. Just another small note, John McCain and Mike Huckabee seem to like each other as well.

 

Despite Mike Huckabee’s overwhelming credentials, even I thought Mike Huckabee’s chance to be selected as VP for John McCain, until recently, was slim. This is because Huckabee has never been taken seriously or was well liked among GOP elites. Mike Huckabee doesn’t really fit well with this crowd and, to his credit, never had a desire to do so. Since bowing out of the Republican presidential race, outside his speaking engagements which are his source of income, he has tirelessly worked to support conservatives running for state and congressional elected offices through his political action committee aptly named HUCKPAC, campaigned with and for John McCain in the south, and championed causes such as diabetes prevention. His appeal and popularity continue to grow and has shown that his agenda isn’t selfish but is in serving his country and the Republican Party. Many vice-presidential polls have been taken by many media outlets. Mike Huckabee continues to perform well in these polls, an indication of his popularity. Yes, many of these polls are nothing more than “beauty contests”, but if you perform consistently well in these polls, this can be taken as an overall popular appeal of a candidate. Also in recent presidential primaries, Mike Huckabee received between 10-13% of the popular vote even though his presidential bid ended on March 4^th. So with this mounting evidence, it appears that the GOP elites who never took Mike Huckabee seriously, realize they can’t ignore him or his views if they are to win in November.

 

It’s still entirely possible that John McCain will choose someone else as his running mate.  However, Mike Huckabee as VP nominee, not as crazy as I once thought it was.

Digg this.

 

Even with many of the pundits auditioning for the role of the “Fat Lady” and Hillary Clinton riling up her supporters by promising to continue the fight after her crushing defeat in North Carolina and narrow victory in Indiana, the loudest clangor in John McCain’s ears is probably the echo reverberating from Pennsylvania throughout Indiana and North Carolina.

 

Despite being the presumptive nominee for over two months now, the Arizona Senator failed to rack up even three quarters of the vote in North Carolina after having experienced the same letdown in Pennsylvania on April 22. McCain barely scraped up three quarters of the vote in Indiana.

 

In Indiana, John McCain collected 77% of the vote in form of over 319,000 votes tallied. Mike Huckabee, who suspended his bid for the nomination on March 4,  came in second with over 41,000 (10%), while Ron Paul garnered upwards of 31,000 (8%) and Mitt Romney, who’s been out of the race for a month longer than Huckabee, managed 19,000 plus (5%).

 

In North Carolina, 381,000 and a handful more (74%) pulled the lever for McCain, while over 62,000 (12%) did so for Huckabee and another some 37,000 (7%) for Paul. More than 20,000 (4%) recorded that they had no preference. Romney wasn’t on the ballot, so many of those “no preference” votes are probably his, like those on the Democratic side were for Barack Obama and John Edwards in Michigan, where Hillary Clinton and the ever-competitive Dennis Kucinich were the only names on the ballot.

 

The point here is this: McCain has spent two months with almost no competition on the Republican side. He’s got less than six months left before the general election, and there are hundreds of thousands of voters who, for one reason or the other, consider it appropriate and necessary to cast their vote for a Republican not named McCain.

 

Of course, this doesn’t even account for those voters who may be “biting the bullet” and voting for McCain in the primaries for the sake of party unity, yet aren’t too excited about it and don’t plan to fight for him.

 

McCain has a little time and one monumental decision which will determine whether he can bring all these wandering sheep back into the fold. That momentous choice, of course, is that of his running mate. The question is this: Will any conservative do? Or does it need to be Mike Huckabee? Or does it need to be anyone but the former presidential candidates?  

 

I don’t have the answer to those questions. But it should be noted that few politicians have as strong and as well-known of reputations on issues such as life, marriage, the Second Amendment, and the Fair Tax as Huckabee has, not to mention his appeal to middle-class voters and Christian conservatives.  

 

Tell me what you think.

 

EDIT/UPDATE: The numbers have been slightly updated. My source has been CNN.

I sort of heard through the grapevine that Barack Obama might be in the market for a new spiritual mentor.

Maybe Obama would benefit a lot from giving Governor and former Pastor Mike Huckabee a call.

Mike doesn’t have a church anymore, since he left the ministry long ago to become a state Governor for 10 1/2 years. But he’s still very spiritual. And Barack might really benefit from a chat with him.

On the one hand, Huckabee seems to care more about Obama as a person today than his former Pastor, Jeremiah Wright, does. Obama’s old mentor doesn’t seem to like him very much. On the other hand, Huckabee has always been complimentary of Obama even though they have very different ideas on politics and policies.

Wright seems to be doing everything he can to nuke Obama’s campaign and to introduce racism into a conversation where race previously hadn’t been an issue. On the other hand, when Obama was at his lowest and most vulnerable point following the disclosure of the  initial set of Wright’s garbage rants, Huckabee took the high road and played peacemaker. While condemning the remarks themselves, the former Governor did not use the situation as an opportunity to pile on. And while not justifying Wright in any way, he encouraged people to try to understand the world from which he came, which is a world that Huckabee himself has some understanding of.

And it seems clear that Jeremiah Wright was spending so much time talking about conspiracy theories and America’s wrongs that he might not have had time to talk about, you know, spiritual things. I’m betting Wright may not have spent that much time talking with Obama about the usual spiritual mentor topics … God, the Bible, and things like that. Huckabee would make a much better mentor in this regard and can talk about both spiritual things and social issues at the same time. And Huck can do this without insulting anyone and without the need for prime-time coverage for himself.

And maybe while they’re talking, Mike can share his perspective on Jeremiah 1:5 (”Before I formed you in the womb I knew you …”) or Psalm 139:13 (”you knit me together in my mother’s womb”). Since Obama is so respectful of people who disagree with him on abortion, maybe this conversation will help him to rethink his “judgement” on the topic. After all, many more Americans have died as the result of abortion than in Iraq. And of all the things Wright has mentioned as being harmful to black people, abortion is hurting us more.

Huckabee can even give Obama some political advice on some practical matters, such as holding a multi-racial and cross-spectrum coalition together in places where it can be hard to form them. You see, Huckabee earned the support of 48% of African American voters in Arkansas - unheard of for a white republican in the very heart of Clinton country. Also, since Huckabee knows quite a bit about balancing budgets and about helping the people to be healthier and have better schools - all without taxing people to death - he might be willing to share his notes on this as well.

Obama needs change in the type of people who give him spiritual advice. He seems open to having a conversation that crosses the traditional political, racial and geographic boundaries. And since he has an opening for a new spiritual mentor, he could learn a lot from taking some advice from a man from Hope who has shown him a lot more kindness and courtesy than the other man from Hope (or others who are on “his side”). This guy is definitely conservative, but, unlike Wright, he isn’t mad about it or about anything else. He’s already been fully vetted. He has a lot of experience as a Pastor and has a lot of good advice to offer. The new guy doesn’t act as if he thinks the whole world revolves around him. And he doesn’t throw anyone under the bus.

“The Values Voter”

I’ve always liked chess.

Can’t say I ever totally mastered it, but I do know that it’s a battle of minds and wills and strategies, and that it doesn’t REALLY get going until some disposable pawns are taken out like so much cannon fodder.

I believe that many online political activists have been reduced to pawns; manipulated, sacrificed, and used to further the agenda of some knights, bishops, kings and queens in the MSM and major league blogosphere.

I’m not a Romney fan… but how did my personal uneasiness about his recent social conservative conversion, become a full blown case of Romney derangement syndrome? I mean, at it’s height I was practically frothing at the mouth in my passionate ‘hatred’ for the man.

I see the same thing from the other side about Mike Huckabee. Sometimes it seems like Romney supporters would love the opportunity to make Mike in effigy and burn him at the stake. The intensity of vitriol is potent, but I doubt at the beginning of January most of them even knew who Huckabee was.

So, the question becomes,  how did we the party faithful end up where we are; full of this unneccessary poison that may end up tainting our ability to reason clearly come November?

The answer I believe, is that we were played as pawns by the conservative and mainstream media and blogosphere both, in their attempts to influence this electoral process in the direction they saw fit.

Lets begin in Iowa … with the unexpected boom in earned media coverage of Huckabee.

The MSM’s experiment with the ‘preacher who would be president’ went through a roller coaster of agendas.

 First he was covered for electoral ‘entertainment,’ not taken at all seriously and not allowed into the hallowed atmosphere of the 1st tier. But Mike is a skilled communicator, and used those apearances to drive up his name recognition and poll numbers, right before the critical first in the nation primary, making him a threat to the then front runner Romney.

This is the critical point at which the general voting public becomes aware of Huckabee and begin to tune in to information about the dark horse candidate.

It is also the first time that many voters become aware that Mitt was running well in Iowa and that there was a contest going on between the two men.

It became the point when the chess masters started manouvring their pawns to get their favorites into a position for checkmate.

The conservative media were already in mid Rudy/Fred propoganda strategy when it became clear that these two would not be players in Iowa, and of the two remaining players, Mitt was clearly more ‘presidential’ in their eyes.

Thus began weeks of intensive interrogation interviews on Fox and the sunday shows, as ’scandal after scandal’ and contorversy were dug up and ’analyzed’ in a constant news cycle in attempts to take the shine off Huckabee’s appeal. Many of the far right giants in the poIitical blogosphere followed suit. Sometimes they even broke the ‘latest scandal’ and fed it into the MSM.

It didn’t help that in the chase for a scoop, reporters cherry picked questions and statements made by both candidates and blew them into days worth of ‘negative’ coverage further inflaming the partisans on both sides of the divide… the now infamous Mormon question by Mike, or the marching with Martin Luther King Jr. comments from Mitt. These were probably not the best comments to make when your every word is going to be dissected, but the damage they did was mainly because of the spin put on the comments by ‘commentators’ and not the comments themselves.

Now, in the minds of Romney supporters Huckabee was a soft on crime, pro-life liberal, knuckle dragging corrupt, bigoted, bible thimping hick. And in the minds of Huckabee supporters, Mitt was a slick opportunist, an empty suit, an elitist  who would say or do anything to get elected.

This maybe wouldn’t have been an unsurmountable problem if the two candidates were covered equally by the one set of commentators that REALLY mattered to the conservative voting public.. but they weren’t.

Because of the clear and OBVIOUS bias of the Hannity’s Ingrams and Malkins against the Huckabee candidacy, Huckabee supporters became livid with the unfair and unbalanced coverage of their candidate in favor of  Romney.

We had no problem with Mike being held accountable for the ’squishy’ areas of his record, but when the conservative media refused to ‘analyze’ the squishiness in Romney’s record, and in effect whitewashed him into Reagan reincarnated, it was very hard to swallow.

Unfortunately, I believe that the steaming frustration we had with the conservative leaders we had trusted to be objective, became directed, unfairly or not, on the object of their affection. Romney.

I began to destest him because he was in my opinion, receiving unfair and perhaps undeserved support from the very people who were doing evrything in their power to negate the candidacy of someone who was a reflection of what mattered most to ME.

It really didn’t help when supporters of both candidates themselves began to spout the media talking points in blog comments, and even went beyond ‘facts’ to the visceral personal character attacks in those comments. I began to percieve Romney’s character as being  the same as the ‘worst’ of his supporters own, and ‘hated’ him even more. I am probably not too far off the mark to say that Romney supporters probably had a visceral reaction to the more extreme presonal attacks on Romney that some Huckabee supporters made as well, and likewise made the leap to attributing those qualities to Mike.

By being unfair in their coverage, the conservative media shot themselves in the foot. They managed to alienate the very voters that they were trying to convince to buy what Mitt was selling. A better strategy would have been to say, Huckabee is good.. but Mitt is better..

Saying Huckabee was a liberal was like telling me and others like me, that I was a liberal too…  “voting bloc overboard!” Not the best way to woo us. It instead created a vicious circle of poisonous dislike that began with the media, but was continued and perpetuated by inflamed supporters.

While the Huckabee supporters waged their war with the conservative media elite, the MSM was still playing with their new ‘preacher Huckabee’ toy, enjoying that it was bothering the GOP elite that they were playing with a ‘pastor,’ and that their apparently unwarranted attention was driving the Romney supporters crazy in their own rights.

In the end, nobody realized that the only winners were the ‘media’ in all its forms, and that the only losers were we the people who cared enough to be actually engage in the political process in action.

Almost all of our ‘frenzy’ is rooted in published and broadcasted material that is written with the intent of being provocative and stirring up hostility between camps. We moved beyond calm and logical opposition on principle, to rabid rival steet gangs, each intent on the destruction of the other.

There are always those extreme, (and immature) characters who will detest and reject a candidate out of hand because of something as personal as their religion.. (on both sides of the divide) But by and large, most of us are just very impressionable, and inclined to believe whatever ‘fits’ with our personal take on a particular issue. If you were inclined to like Mitt, you were more likely to believe and embrace information that reduced Huck’s viability, and vice versa.

Nothing gives these writers and reporters more validation than having 300 comments of Huckabee vs. Romney hysteria posted after their articles. Some bloggers will go so far as to create provocative websites, and then blog about them in a way that provokes controversy.

(I will not go so far as to accuse, but I find it highly suspicious that the huckabee4america.com website was created the same day that it was blogged about on Townhall, in a way designed to inflame Romney supporters against Huck. Further, a google search of the website yeilded only 2 hits, the website and the townhall article. Now, that TH article is being cited as a source by other pro-Romney bloggers in an anti-Huck light.)

Then there is the most recent commentary on Mike’s campaign spin with McCain in Arkansas.

Reported objectively in multiple sources, you come away with a sense that Huckabee and McCain are good friends able to campaign together comfortably because they had a civil campaign.

The exact same conversation reported with an agenda, included the comment, “In a dig at Romney…”

Excuse me.. is that reporter psychic? Can she read minds… how dare she assume that a comment about ‘negative campaigning’ had to be about Romney… did not Fred play dirty, and perhaps hurt Mike even worse that Mitt ever did in SC?

People are playing with our heads… and we’re letting them!

Look, we all have to get to the point where we can say I like my guy more than your guy… but I don’t hate your guy, and I could see some benifits that he could bring to the table.

Neither of these candidates were angels… they are human, and politicians after all. We need to take them down off of their pedestals and accept them for the flawed representatives of our world views that they are.

I’m so tired of being the entertainment or validation pawn for ‘reporters’ or bloggers trying to make their mark on the world with unprofessional provocation.

I’m just not going to play anymore. 

His Handmaiden

Originally posted here.

For the last month and a half, Governor Mike Huckabee spent no time with his boots on the ground in Pennsylvania. In fact, I don’t think he campaigned there period. His voice was not heard on radio ads. His visage was not seen in TV spots. The Hucka-bus did not traverse the turnpike. Calls were not made to prospective voters on his behalf. Any grassroots efforts were independent, few, and far between. No debates were held to match the Democrats.

Anyone up on their politics knows that the reason for this inactivity is the fact that Huckabee dropped out of the race after “Super Tuesday 2″ on March 4th, when it became unmistakably clear that he would not prevent John McCain from reaching the required 1191 delegates. According to his word, Huckabee threw his support behind the Arizona Senator.

Yet, over 91,000 residents of the Keystone State still pulled the lever, if you will, for the former Arkansas governor yesterday. While the mainstream media—and, by the trickledown effect, the rest of us—are enamored by the fracas on the Democratic side, this is a stat that will, in all likelihood, go largely unnoticed. But it should not.

Some may say that this was merely a collection of protest votes. If that is the case, it’s still a big deal. Combined with Ron Paul’s votes, over a quarter of Republican voters said “no”—or at least “not yet”—to McCain. This is a stern warning to the presumptive Republican nominee: He does not have the conservative base locked up; he should not get too cute with his VP pick.

But what if the eleven percent Huckabee garnered is more than a display in Republican “civil disobedience”? After all, Ron Paul reportedly ran radio ads in Pennsylvania, and his supporters are still battling hard with their “Operation Chaos.” Paul actually received almost 128,000 votes, or 16 percent. If people wanted to simply register their disdain for McCain, they’d either write in their favorite candidate or vote for a candidate still in the race (albeit feebly), who hasn’t endorsed McCain, wouldn’t they? (Unless, of course, there’s that much antipathy towards Ron Paul and his non-interventionism.)

Perhaps the people of Pennsylvania were sending a clear message: We like Huckabee. The Keystone State is critical in November, and McCain’s not going to pick Paul (Would Paul even accept the invitation?). So, obviously, that leads us to Huckabee.

Huckabee is the kind of fella who can connect with those “bitter,” “frustrated,” “clingy” small-town Pennsylvanians whom Barack Obama apparently has no qualms about insulting. For those who “cling to religion,” Huckabee is very outspoken and articulate about his faith. He’s a full-blown supporter of the Second Amendment, for those who “cling to guns.” He rejects gay marriage and amnesty, for those with “antipathy” towards those different from them. He even supports a policy of fair trade, as opposed to our broken free trade system, for those who have “anti-trade sentiment.”

Huckabee knows how to reach out to the little guy. He is one himself! People don’t see a lifelong politician, a business mogul, or a big-city elitist when they look at him, because that’s not who he is. Who is he? The type of guy who could help McCain in Pennsylvania this November.

Now, I don’t mean to start a big brouhaha of all the reasons why Huckabee would be a terrible choice. I’ve heard them. I’ve also heard legitimate arguments as to why a Huckabee supporter shouldn’t want McCain to select him. But two points of this post are clear: McCain has a lot of work to do, and he could use someone like Huckabee to help. Pennsylvanians proved that.

Over the past 30 years or so, our two political parties have successfully changed that crown jewel of Jacksonian Democracy, the National Convention into little more than an infomercial, and a bland one at that. Really, I’d be more likely to watch the GOP Convention should Republican speakers demonstrate a new blender or a karate workout, or if John McCain credited his longevity with a new powerful vitamin we can get for the low price of $9.95.  

The Democratic Convention may be interesting. However, it looks to be more of an identity politics blood feud between Whites, Hispanics, and African Americans with a good dose of a personality cult mixed in. Still, it looks to be entertaining, the same way a crash in a NASCAR race is.

Is there somewhere that ideas are fought over and the future is decided in an unscripted event? Where no one knows who will win and the final result could shock everyone? Yes, we find these in the Constitution and Libertarian Parties, where yes, indeed, anybody can win (as Michael Badnarik proved when he defeated Actor Aaron Russo  in 2004. Never heard of Russo? He was one of the more famous LP candidates.)

The Constitution Party is meeting right now in Kansas City. Real business is going on. Candidate debates are Friday. The nomination will occur on Saturday. Yesterday, they had platform meetings and here’s an agenda item that you’ll never see at one of the two party conventions: “Children’s Story Time with Trapper Jim.”

Of course, it’s all about the Presidency and Trent Hill blogs about it on Third Party Watch. With Alan Keyes as a potential candidate of a pro-life Judeo-Christian political party, you’d think people would be excited. You’d be wrong: 

Everywhere there are arguments—based wholly upon the Presidential nomination. People stood around politely talking about the North American Union and the Federal Reserve, but inevitably arguments have broken out left and right. Foreign Policy, Foreign Aid, Mandatory National Service, and Islamofascism—these are all issues that no one expected to be hotly contested issues at the CP Convention. Even myself and Tom Hoefling, Keyes’ political director, got into a heated exchange.

There are more Alan Keyes-friendly delegates than I originally suspected. A couple dozen by my count, and they also have captured the votes of California’s delegation. By my count, this is leading to a fun convention, and one where people’s feelings are going to get hurt. I suspect if Keyes does not receive the nomination, he’ll continue his race for President. I fear that people may see the rejection of Keyes as an anti-catholic or anti-black maneuver, which is laughable considering some of his leading opponents are Paul Venable of Idaho and Ricardo Davis of Georgia—both African-American men.

Never heard of Paul Venable and Richardo Davis? That makes two of us. Apparently if commenters are any measure, a Keyes nomination is trouble, though:

Any chance opf(sic) building the Constitution Party into a replacement party over and above the Republican Party will end up in abortion if the CP nominates Alan Keyes for President. It, the CP, will lose its credibility as as political party that speaks out against unconstitutional, undeclared wars if it nominates the warmonger Keyes. Sorry to say but my conservative and constitutional Christian vote shall go elsewhere, maybe over to the Libertarians who have have the chance tht the CP will thus forfeit.

A party that got 1/10 of 1% of the vote in 2004 is worried about credibility? Makes sense.  

While I’ve been invited a few times to cross over to join a third party, I’ve never taken the plunge despite some disgusting times in the GOP. This post reminds me why.

A successful political movement requires some tolerance, some room for disagreement. People have to be at least a little bit flexible. Nobody wins all the time, and sometimes you just accept that you lost and move on. Perhaps, the GOP’s big tent is at times too big and when people claim the GOP label while caring nothing for its platform and beliefs, it can render the GOP label meaningless.

However, when a party is so far to the right that Alan Keyes is not acceptably conservative, it points to a rigid intolerance that voters will never find attractive. I believe there’s a happy medium somewhere, but we have yet to find it.

The sad thing is that the whole tale is a farce. People who you’ve never heard of have a choice between a candidate you may have heard about and one you’ve never heard of. The candidate you’ve heard of backs continuing the war effort in Iraq despite the fact he didn’t want to go in the first place, because he’d rather not see World War III break out when we leave. The candidate you’ve never heard is solidly anti-war and is the favorite of purists who want to kick the candidate you’ve actually heard of to the curb.

The irony of the situation: Neither Alan Keyes nor Chuck Baldwin (I told you you’ve that never heard of the other guy) have any practical chance to do anything about the war. So thus, it’s irrelevant, but it’s interesting to watch. It’s a convention, as I said the Crown Jewel of Jacksonian Democracy. But the CP convention is, as Shakespeare wrote, “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

You wouldn’t usually put politicians high on a list of people who have an “attitude of gratitude.” I mean, when you think about it, when was the last time you heard a politician say “thank you” and you could tell they sincerely meant it (i.e. they aren’t in a position to get more campaign money for their political campaign, etc).

Well, you watched this morning’s interview of Mike Huckabee on Morning Joe, you don’t have to go back far to find such an example. As soon as he came on with Joe and his co-host, Mike said “thanks for having me.” I hadn’t really noticed it before, but I began to really think about that little one line statement tonight as now more than ever before do I sense that when Mike says that, he really means it and is truly grateful for the opportunities that he has to be in the place that he is.

Too often the attitude among politicians is that they deserve the attention they get. This is one area where I feel that Mike stands head and shoulders above his peers in politics. I don’t get a sense from him that he feels that he is someone super special and deserves the recognition that he receives; he’s merely trying to advance the principles that he knows have made America great in the past and will keep her great for years to come if they are allowed to have a continued elevated place in the areas of public policy.

Thanks for being grateful Gov. Huckabee. We could all learn a lesson from you.

Hillary Clinton has just come off a convincing victory over Barrack Obama in the Democratic primary contest in Pennsylvania. In the most recent of primaries she has not only won Pennsylvania, but also Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island. One might look at this and surmise Clinton has the political momentum in the ever so tight Democratic presidential primaries. That is, of course, unless you turn to the mainstream media (MSM) for your “analysis” for this recent trend. Many in the MSM have announced Clinton’s political obituary and say Obama is the inevitable Democratic nominee. Somewhere, this has brought up recent memories of another MSM “analysis”, that of Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee.

 

Despite winning the Iowa caucus and winning 5 Super Tuesday states, the MSM never considered Governor Huckabee a serious contender. They chose to marginalize him as the evangelical candidate who was more often described as a former Baptist minister then as the former Governor of Arkansas for 10 ½ years even though he hadn’t been a pastor in over 15 years. Also, anytime John McCain was in any news story, the story always began…”The presumptive Republican presidential nominee”. The MSM had already decided John McCain was going to win the nomination…one full month before he actually did. The psychology of hearing this day in and day out normally leads one to two conclusions. First, John McCain already has won, therefore why should I go vote. This would bring a suppression of voter turnout, or a form of voter disenfranchisement. Secondly, the voter will just mark the “X” next to John McCain since they know he is going to win anyway. How do they know he is going to win? The trusty MSM already told them so. This is something Mike Huckabee had to try and overcome day-in and day-out. Not having a personal fortune to put into his campaign to overcome this bias at least partially led to his demise as a presidential candidate. We will never know because the playing field was never level.

 

Barrack Obama has had the perceived media favor during this presidential primary/caucus season. So much so that it has given Saturday Night Live enough material to last at least the next season. The MSM helped lead what has been called Obamamania, where he was treated more like a rock-star than a politician. This glamour blitz led to many of his early season primary/caucus victories and a lead in the delegate vote. Reports from the MSM have come for Hillary Clinton to drop her presidential bid and that she had no opportunity to overcome Obama’s delegate lead. This was even before the March 4^th primaries. Now even when Senator Clinton has been closing in on Senator Obama’s delegate lead with her recent success, we are still hearing that Senator Clinton has virtually no possibility of securing the nomination.

 

I am not a supporter of either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama and plan on voting for neither of them. I say this to show that my axe to grind is not with Senator Obama or his supporters. However, it appears the MSM has had far to great a role in presidential politics than they should and they think the public should follow them like cows being led to slaughter. Apathy is high among voters which has partially led to this intellectual paralysis in politics and reasoning. The only way out of it is for each voter taking the time in making a conscious choice based on facts in what kind of America we want for ourselves and our children’s future. The people has given the MSM their power, its about time we take it back.

First posted here.

More than enough pundits and writers with larger audiences than mine have already pointed out that Barack Obama’s “bitter” comments about small-town Pennsylvanians seem tinged with elitism, incomprehension of sincerely religious people, and the idea that something must be “wrong” with those people who refuse to support liberal candidates. But, although those three promulgations are important, I feel that there are other insinuations in his comments that may be the most egregious of all.

Obama later clarified the statements he made at a private San Francisco fundraiser, saying that when politicians don’t do small-town citizens any economic favors, the latter turn to “what they can count on.” Since they haven’t been able to count on the government to handle the economy well recently, they turn to what’s left: their faith. The inference here is that, if Democrats can just use the government to fulfill people’s desires, belief in God will become unnecessary—or, at least, that festering fervent faith in Him, which dictates the way one votes, will.

This sounds like something straight out of a secular humanist strategy book: the deification of government. When government cares for all our needs like a loving, “heavenly” father (or mother—let’s be politically correct), God can be relegated to a small, comfortable, controllable “box.”

But another intimation underlies Obama’s words. His statements suggest that money drives the most fundamental aspects of our lives. After all, if the government’s bumbling with the economy is what causes us to “cling” to God (or “religion,” as he puts it), then prosperity would naturally trigger a drift away from God, or at least cause us to relax our grip, right? Now, that right there is a biblical concept. Of course, prosperity spawns temptations and lures us into trusting in ourselves and our wealth rather than God; material things can make us lose perspective, and they can grow into our god. On the other hand, we cry out to the Lord in trials and tribulations, and in such situations we often come to the realization of that which is most important. Somehow, though, I just don’t think that’s the point Obama was trying to make.

His reference to guns, hinting at his anti-gun sentiments, carries similar connotations (obviously, as it came in the same sentence). Never mind the foundational principles of self-defense and constitutional rights. According to Obama’s rationale, you have to pry the firearms out of gunners’ cold dead hands—not because they feel so passionately about the right to keep and bear arms—but because they’ve died from economic hardship.

Obama’s policy seems quite straightforward. Pad their wallets, and maybe they won’t notice if you empty their holsters.

Many secularists and anti-gun activists would like a world where faith and firearms are accents, not cornerstones, of our lives. Although I can’t nail down Obama’s position officially on the faith issue, he does seem to be in the same ballpark, which seems odd, considering that he openly calls himself a Christian. I’m not going to presume to know exactly what’s in the deep recesses of his heart, but we must not forget Obama’s political positions on abortion and homosexuality, along with other issues important to Christians. The more people who “cling” to their faith—specifically, Bible-believing, Christ-centered, all-encompassing faith—the worse it is for Obama’s political ambitions. Like an atheist says in Ben Stein’s new documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, religion will ideally become something that people “do on the weekends” for fun as a social event—something that doesn’t really affect the rest of their lives. Obama’s translation? Something that doesn’t really affect their votes.