National Review is set this Friday to release the names of four people it views as unacceptable Vice-Presidential Candidates: Tom Ridge, Charlie Crist, Joe Lieberman, and Mike Huckabee, and frankly I could care less.

 

In December, I listened to and joined in the DC echo-chamber that slammed Mike Huckabee mercilessly. I fed on the constant negative drumbeat of National Review and their relentless assaults on Arkansas’ former Governor. I bought into it, I regurgitated it.

 

I never bothered to look into the facts, particularly in regards to the charges against Mike Huckabee’s fiscal record. If I had, I would have found out that he had two court rulings come out against his state that forced increases in Medicaid and Education, and that on top of that he faced a legislature that was at least 70% Democrat every year he was in office and could override his veto by a simple majority. I wonder which Huckabee critic could have done more for conservative values than Huckabee under those circumstances.

 

If this past election cycle taught us nothing, it taught us that bias exists in the conservative media. The one-sided attacks on Mike Huckabee last December were not only unfair, they allowed the rise of John McCain to the Republican nomination, as the National Review-anointed leader of the Conservative movement surrendered on February 7^th after having won only one competitive primary.

 

Conservative defeat is the legacy of National Review in the 2008 campaign. Why bother listening to them? Last week, I did a podcast in which I began to talk about some of the activities of John McCain, the nominee that obsessive huckacritics pushed over the top by becoming the echo chamber of groups like National Review and the Club for Growth and I wept for what I helped to bring about.

 

I feel as Heritage Foundation Founder Paul Weyrich did when he rose to speak to the National Policy Council to confess, “Friends, before all of you and before Almighty God, I want to say I was wrong.”

 

Over the years, conservative magazines have ceased to speak to common people and explain how and why conservative ideas can make our country better. Instead, the magazines are full of intellectual navel-gazing that no one outside of the conservative movement cares one whit about.

 

They missed, as we all did, the grassroots movement that was Huck’s Army: thousands of grassroots activists producing miracle wins on little money. They missed the optimism and faith in America that Mike Huckabee exuded? Why? He graduated from school they never heard of, he was an Evangelical, came from the rural South, and didn’t embrace Darwinism as unalienable truth.

 

There is much of the establishment conservative movement that represents conservative beltway elitism. There time is ending.

 

There was a time when the New York Times was a Christian-owned newspaper that railed against the evils of abortion and even called it medical malpractice. There was a time when the motto of Harvard was, “For Christ and the church.”

 

These institutions have become shadows of their former selves, enemies of the causes for which they once existed, but truth lives on. It does not live in the hearts of the Wall Street crowd, beltway political manipulators, or self-righteous pundits, it lives in the hearts of people we never hear from at the national level.

 

They’re people who work hard, earning $12 an hour if that. They’re the people Barack Obama thinks cling to religion and guns out of bitterness. They’re the people that National Review thinks only refused to back Mitt Romney because of anti-Mormon bigotry. They’re people the left scoffs at for voting against their own economic interests.

 

But these people really believe in America, and that it’s a place where they can still make a better life for themselves and their children. They believe in a God who still governs in the affairs of men. These are the people who National Review disdains.

 

So, National Review can feel free to lump Mike Huckabee in with liberal Republicans like Tom Ridge and Charlie Crist, and even a Scoop Jackson Democrat like Joe Lieberman. But it is they who are missing the next great wave of conservatives. 

 

Beyond this dark moment in the history of American Conservatism, I see glimmers of hope in those who are heeding the challenge of Alex and Brett Harris to “do hard things.” I see it in people across this country who will bare the battle in the heat of the day for the good of their country. There is hope for our country. It just won’t be found in places you’d expect like the offices of National Review.  

The Club for Growth, which focused on the less conservative parts of Mike Huckabee’s Arkansas record with laserbeam intensity is doing the same thing with Governor Bobby Jindal (R-La.) in order to boost their favorite candidate for the Vice-Presidency, Governor Mark Sanford (R-SC). Writes Nachema Solveichik:

The Jindal love feast is running into some stumbling blocks. The NY Times has an article analyzing Bobby Jindal’s refusal to veto a massive legislative pay increase despite a campaign promise to do so.

The next Ronald Reagan? I don’t think so.

The linked article in the New York Times gives background on the pay increase and why Jindal isn’t vetoing it:

“I will keep my pledge to let them govern themselves,” the governor said in a statement last week after the State Senate passed the increase, backing off a rejection of the raise, though he also said he was “very sorry” about it. Editorialists and radio show hosts have since had a field day juxtaposing that “pledge” to the Legislature with the promise Mr. Jindal made when he was running last fall to “prohibit legislators from giving themselves pay raises…”

The legislators have not had a base pay increase since 1980 and complain that with the governor frequently calling them into special session, their job is no longer part-time. The increase would put salaries in the upper tier for similar part-time legislatures, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Mr. Brandt agreed that some sort of modest raise could be justified — an independent commission recommended a 12 percent increase several years ago — but said the 123 percent rise, with additional increases pegged to inflation, was “problematic.”

Mr. Jindal’s strategy was apparently based on a desire not to jeopardize the other elements he won in his legislative wish list, like a voucher program for private schools in New Orleans, or restoring spending cuts made by fiscal conservatives in the Capitol.

I disagree with the Governor’s decision, but have the Club for Growth and a few Louisiana Conservatives lost all sense of perspective here? You get a School Choice bill, you get a bill through the legislature cutting business taxes (which was the governor’s ideas), you get serious reform of State ethics laws, you get more freedom of discussion on public schools on hot button issues like evolution and global warming. And all that gets dwarfed by a State legislative pay increase that while high (the amount paid is $37,500), I can’t necessarily say is completely unreasonable.

If you take the legislature’s salary of $16,800 in 1980 dollars (last time there was a pay increase), you find that it’s worth $44,167.69 in today’s money, so in reality they’re earning less than they were in 1980 in real money. Hate to say it, but if you want to insure the only people who get elected to office are on the take or are rich and out of touch, setting legislative salary at a pittance and never increasing it is as good of a way to do it as I know.

Jindal is faulted because he’d rather not antagonize the legislature. I would agree that there can be some criticism leveled, but as for Solveichik’s “He’s no Reagan” statement, I would respond that no one can live up to the godlike image of Ronald Reagan that has been created by fiscal conservatives, no one can live up to it-not even Reagan on his California record.

Reason Magazine, in an interview with Ronald Reagan in 1975 summarizes his early record:

 After achieving national publicity for his televised speeches for Barry Goldwater in 1964, Reagan went on to win the California governorship in 1966 and was re-elected to a second four-year term in 1970. Throughout his eight years in office, Reagan stressed the idea of holding down the size and cost of government, nonetheless, the state budget increased from $5.7 billion to $10.8 billion during his time in office.

Reagan did institute property and inventory tax cuts, but during his tenure the sales tax was increased to six percent and withholding was introduced to the state income tax system. Under Reagan’s administration, state funding for public schools (grades K- 12) increased 105 percent (although enrollment went up only 5 percent), state support for junior colleges increased 323 percent, and grants and loans to college students increased 900 percent Reagan’s major proposal to hold down the cost of government was a constitutional amendment to limit state spending to a specified (slowly declining) percentage of the gross income of the state’s population. The measure was submitted to the voters as an initiative measure, Proposition One, but was defeated when liberal opponents pictured it as a measure that would force local tax increases.

Reagan instituted a major overhaul of the state welfare system that reduced the total welfare caseload (which had been rapidly increasing) while raising benefits by 30 percent and increasing administrative costs. He encouraged the formation of HMO-like prepaid health care plans for MediCal patients, a move that has drawn mixed reactions from the medical community. His Federally-funded Office of Criminal Justice Planning made large grants to police agencies for computers and other expensive equipment, and funded (among other projects) a large-scale research effort on how to prosecute pornographers more effectively. He several times vetoed legislation to reduce marijuana possession to a misdemeanor, and signed legislation sharply increasing penalties for drug dealers…

Thus, Reagan’s record, while generally conservative, is not particularly libertarian. But one’s administrative decisions, constrained as they are by existing laws, institutions, and politics, do not necessarily mirror one’s underlying philosophy. We were therefore curious to find out more about the real Ronald Reagan.

Two things. First, Reason Magazine of 1975 showed far more wisdom than Club for Growth or many other conservatives in 2008. Second point, look at Reagan’s record according to Reason and it appears to me that Bobby Jindal’s got a leg up and Mike Huckabee was about even on fiscal matters when compared to the real Reagan rather than the godlike version. This is before even factor in social issues such as the law Reagan signed legalizing abortion and Huckabee’s various pro-life and pro-family measures in Arkansas.

What led to what happened in California under Reagan? State issues that are generally not reported by critical groups. For example on a 24 percent increase in spending which came with a hefty tax increase, Reagan explained.

Oh, for heavens sakes, I don’t know what the percentage was–but you see, the problem was that the state budget we inherited didn’t mean anything. We got in and found that to get through the election year, the previous administration had changed the bookkeeping and had a budget that was financed by 15 months’ revenue. By changing to an accrual method of bookkeeping, what they really were doing was postponing until after the election what they knew was going to have to be a tax increase. We won and found that out to our surprise –because we were quite unable, even in the period between election and inauguration, to get very much information from the outgoing administration. It was not an orderly transition! In fact, the Director of Finance in his briefing said to one of my representatives, “Look, we’re spending a million dollars a day more than we’re taking in–I’ve got a golf game–good luck.” That was our briefing in finance! We had to–much as we objected–institute a gigantic tax increase, and put the state back on a solvent basis. I said at the time that I did not recognize that as permanent–that we were going to try to give the money back to the people, just as we could institute reforms. Over the eight-year period we gave back in the form of one-time rebates, tax cuts and even bridge toll cuts $5.7 billion–which comes pretty close to giving back the amount of that increase.

I would suggest that citizens take a full look at the philosophy of potential candidates, as well as their full record. This goes for Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, and Governor Sarah Palin (R-Alaska) too (who the Club for Growth has castigated for the unconscienable sin of signing a bill barring people from text messaging or watching videos while driving.) If we’re looking for perfection, I’ve got news. Christ will not be a candidate in any upcoming Presidential campaign.

 

What a dumb move

Most people thought that it wasn’t a very smart move for a politician who wanted to have a place in the White House to make.

Mike Huckabee was expected to continue talking directly to the specific group of Republican voters who he’d spent the last few months courting. He was expected to do what was considered the responsible thing and to keep his focus on the campaign at hand and not do something that some thought bordered on indulgence. Huckabee’s move was something that was in contradiction to political common sense - at least many of the highly paid Republican Party political consultants thought so. Why couldn’t he just continue to do what all the other contenders were doing? But Huckabee marched to his own beat and traveled to the end of the country to take his seat in the television studio. Even the travel time was costing him opportunities to mingle with the important people. His competitors laughed at how foolish a decision he had just made.

And then he did it. And the whole country got to see Mike Huckabee spend time joking around with Jay Leno and playing with his band while explaining his political positions in terms that all the people could understand and relate to. The next day, Huckabee won the Iowa Caucuses by more than nine points, beating a man who wildly outspent him and who, unlike Huck, did all the things a sensible politician in 2008 was supposed to do.

And that episode should have been a lesson for those who like to laugh at Mike Huckabee. The lesson that nobody laughs at him for very long. Because in addition to being a very experienced government Chief Executive, Mike Huckabee is also a different type of politician. And like many of our most successful American Presidents, he knows how to use the mass media to talk directly to the people. But unlike most modern politicians, he does it without paying a dime. Pretty dumb, huh?

 

The Unexpected

When the news broke last week that Mike Huckabee had signed a contract to be a regular contributor on Fox News, neither Huckabee’s supporters or critics knew exactly what to make of it. Was this a sign that he had given up on hopes of being McCain’s Vice President or that he knew he wouldn’t be picked? Or was this, as some critics charged, proof that Huckabee was working a personal agenda and wasn’t interested in advancing the conservative cause? Everybody seemed to agree that this was the last thing anyone expected a potential Veep-in-waiting to do. Those guys are supposed to spend their days sitting by the phone and saying nothing outside of the scripted endorsements planned for the carefully staged campaign events that the smart campaign people put together. That is, after all, what the public has been conditioned to expect from the typical politician.

Whether you like or dislike Mike Huckabee, there is one thing you will learn about him if you haven’t already. He’s not the typical politician. He doesn’t often do the expected. In fact, he often does the exact opposite of what you’d think a politician would do. He even surprises his supporters sometimes.

You may be thinking that this trait is a liability. After all, it surely must be better to be buttoned down and traditional. More formal and serious. Not going off script or coming up with new ideas that the super-smart campaign aides didn’t think of first? Well, not in 2008. You see, the public is sick to death of traditional politicians. That old thing about not answering yes or no questions and not thinking on your feet to respond to situations that weren’t perfectly scripted - that’s so twenty years ago. In fact, the public is so sick of politicians who do what politicians are expected to do that they’re leaning toward voting for a candidate who has relatively little experience. That sound that you hear is the people storming outside the gates. The public wants a different type of politician. And they want someone who will communicate to them in a way that most politicians don’t.

 

The Great Communicators

Many of the most popular and effective Presidents in American History have been those whose administrations were most gifted in speaking directly to the people through the media.

Franklin Delano Rooesevelt was Governor of New York before he became the nation’s thirty second President. And as Governor, he stayed in touch with his constituents through the most potent mass media instrument of the day - the radio. He went on the air at least once a month and spoke with the public in their own homes and in a way they could relate to. Using his great communication skills, FDR was able to outmaneuver the state legislature, which opposed him, by appealing directly to the public and using the people to pressure legislators to get his agenda passed. When he came to the Oval Office, the media-savvy Roosevelt continued his usage of the media, talking to the entire nation this time in what came to be known as the “fireside chats.” This usage of the media to communicate directly with the public endeared Roosevelt to much of the public and kept the nation informed during a string of crisis periods.

Technology continued to advance and, as it did, the more popular Presidencies seemed to be the ones whose administrations had expertise in using it effectively. The Election of 1952 featured the first televised Presidential advertisement ever. General Eisenhower, the Republican candidate, was filmed talking to a group of voters giving short answers to their concerns about every day issues, such as the cost of groceries. Later that same year, Eisenhower’s running mate, Richard Nixon, was able to save his own career and spare the Republican ticket from total disarray with the famous “Checkers” speech - in which he spoke directly to the public about his personal finances. Someone even quipped that because of the emphasis on television, one day professional actors would run for President.

Eight years later came the first televised Presidential debates. President Kennedy emerged the winner of the election in part because he understood how to utilize the power of the mass media. Although most radio listeners thought that Nixon won the first debate, the eighty million Americans who watched the televised debate thought that Kennedy, who looked more relaxed and at ease, won and presented himself better.

The President who most effectively used the mass media to talk to the American people was President Ronald Reagan, who of course had a long career as a professional actor and was comfortable in front of the camera. He also had a significant amount of experience as a state Governor. And that experience along with his great communication skills, his friendly nature and his incredible sense of humor, earned him the nickname “The Great Communicator.” One of the many keys to his popularity was that he knew how to speak to millions of Americans but yet come off as if he were sitting across the table in a one on one conversation with each of them. And he refused to be boxed in by the stuffiness of those who wanted to tell him what a President should and shouldn’t say. Some of his most memorable moments - most notably “tear down this wall” - came about because Reagan himself was willing to communicate in ways and in terms not expected for an American President.

 

The guy in your living room

Back to Huckabee. Long before he entered the world of politics, Mike Huckabee had gained plenty of experience in using the mass media to get his message out to as many people as possible. At age 14, Huckabee got his first job - reading news and weather on a local radio station. In both of the churches that he Pastored in the 1980’s and early 90’s, he started 24-hour television stations. And during the last year as a fledgling Presidential candidate, Huckabee became a household name through brilliant usage of the mass media. He frequently appeared on every available mass media outlet - while getting more votes for less money than any other major candidate. And along with that publicity came public attention to the causes Huckabee espoused - the Fair Tax and the Human Life Amendment to name a couple. No matter what message Huckabee has tried to deliver - whether it’s the message of the Gospel or of tax reform - Huckabee knows how to efficiently communicate it to as many people at a time as possible.

And back to Fox. Whatever his role is at the network, this is an opportunity for Huckabee to bring more attention to his causes, his party, as well any future candidacy. He also has the advantage of getting to spend time in the living rooms of potential voters but to do so at a time when he’s not actively asking for votes. People are used to being wary of politicians. But not only is Huckabee unlike most politicians, but, he will be serving in a role that allows him to have a conversational relationship with the largest group of cable news viewers. Which is of course an audience that generally tends to never sit out an election. And on top of all these benefits, he is being compensated for it. We all realized that Huckabee was skilled at getting free media coverage. But it turns out he was smart enough to figure out how to actually get paid for it.

Regardless of what Mike Huckabee does in the future - regardless of whether he emerges as John McCain’s 2008 running mate or runs for office himself in the future, this step - getting into the living rooms of the people who would be most likely to vote for his party - helps him, his party and his causes immensely. And it will help Fox, whose ratings have sagged a bit as of late. This is one of those situations in which everybody involved wins. And those who are laughing at it probably won’t laugh for very long. Rumor has it that Chuck Norris is hanging out in the green room.

“The Values Voter”

Over in camp Huck we keep an eye on polls.

Not so much on the unscientific internet kind, (although those are fun too) as much as on the national polling done on the state of the race between the two presumptive nominees.

We’re not so blind in our support of Huckabee and our platform, as to not realize that McCain’s eventual pick for veep will be the one who can help him win, based on the strategic play for state flips between the two.

We were, as a result, pretty bummed to read after Ted Strickland announced he was taking himself off the table for democratic vp, that Obama seemed to be ceding the rustbelt to McCain and had started to float the idea of a strategy of trying to flip Nevada, New Mexico,Colorado, and other mountain west states. http://patriotroom.com/?p=432

Anybody with a political brain knows that’s advantage Mitt territory.

(And Nooo I’m not hating on Mitt, I’m just saying Mike’s my guy, so it didn’t feel great to see his chances appearing to slip away.)

Some may well say that the rustbelt blue states also play to Mitt’s strengths, and that may be true, but only if he runs in them as a ‘populist,’ fairly similar to how he ran in MI, and that didn’t go over so well with the fiscon wing of the base. And I don’t think he’d want to ’sully’ his conservative credentials for the future in taking that rout, but that’s just my opinion.

We think Mike is actually the stonger veep pick for the Penn/Ohio heartland pickups because of his significant appeal to Hillary’s blue collar crowd. (Mike’s true base was always more working class than ‘evangelical’.. class was the lowest common denominator across all of his support groups)

In fact, you could almost lay John King’s democratic and republican big boards over one another on primary nights and find an exact match between Mike and Hillary and Obama and McCain. There is no doubt that Hillary’s rural vote is going to be a serious game changer here.

But I digress..

Word was, McCain was holding the rustbelt on his own without veep help and Obama was turning his eyes west. It looked like Mike would get to keep his new day job at Fox after all.

And then came the latest round of polls: Former congresman John Leboutellier on his blog comments: http://leboutillier.blogspot.com/

The new spate of Quinnipiac polls from Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania have rocked the GOP political establishment.

Here is the brief overview from Quinnipiac:

This is the first time Sen. Obama has led in all three states. No one has been elected President since 1960 without taking two of these three largest swing states in the Electoral College. Results from the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University polls show:

Florida: Obama edges McCain 47 - 43 percent;

Ohio: Obama tops McCain 48 - 42 percent;

Pennsylvania: Obama leads McCain 52 - 40 percent.

In the three states, Obama leads McCain 10 to 23 percentage points among women, while men are too close to call. The Democrat trails among white voters in Florida and Ohio, but gets more than 90 percent of black voters in each state. He also has double-digit leads among young voters in each state. “Finally getting Sen. Hillary Clinton out of the race has been a big boost for Sen. Barack Obama. He now leads in all three of the major swing states, although his margins in Florida and Ohio are small,” said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

Believe me: these results - especially in Florida (thought to be secure for McCain) and Ohio (very winnable for the GOP - especially with Governor Ted Strickland stating he would not accept the Veep slot from Obama) - have shaken the McCain campaign and renewed the fear that an anti-GOP, anti-Bush tsunami is rolling in this fall - and it may take not only McCain along with it but dozens of GOP House and Senate hopefuls, as well.
 

It appears that Obama may be neutralizing some of McCain’s opportunities to pick up blue states. That leaves us status quo until you discover the progress that Obama is making towards flipping some states that went red in the last general election.

First, Iowa. Mccain didn’t really campaign there during the primaries, focusing his energies on NH. But it was unlikely,’white as the driven snow’ Iowa, that gave Obama his first big win and set him on the path to the nomination. They ‘know’ him, and like him there, a lot.

James Barnes in a National Journal article today reports:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/pi_20080621_5575.php
 

“Because Iowans have a relationship [with Obama] they’re less likely to buy into the negative imaging attacks that McCain and, especially, the [independent] ‘527s’ will do in Iowa,” Norris said. “Iowans are going to say, ‘This guy is not that; he won the caucuses.’ ”
 

And on Mccain’s chances:

If his campaign has sometimes created the impression that McCain is indifferent to Iowa, his opposition to popular subsidies at times has made him seem downright hostile to the state’s interests.

In opening a town hall meeting in Des Moines last month, McCain attacked another economic boon to the state, the farm bill with its many crop supports. Playing his favorite role of maverick, the Arizonan told Iowans that if he were president he’d veto the measure.
 

Iowa, is one reason McCain should give Huckabee a secod look for veep. The only way he is going to hold Iowa red, is if he can maximise the turnout in Iowa’s rural conservative base, and Huckabee has proven that he can do that on a dime.

Another recent polling indicator that may shift the veep winds Huckabee’s way, is bad news out of the south. Obama is now in a polling dead heat with McCain in Georgia, and showing signs of strengthening his positions in other swing states like Missouri.

From Insider Advantage 6/19: http://www.southernpoliticalreport.com/storylink_619_444.aspx

June 19, 2008 — A New InsiderAdvantage / PollPositionsurvey conducted June 18 of registered likely voters in the November presidential contest shows Sen. John McCain leading Sen. Barack Obama by a single point in Georgia, making the race in Georgia a statistical tie. Libertarian Bob Barr, a former Republican Congressman from Georgia, received 6 percent of the vote.  The telephone survey of 408 registered likely voters is weighted for age, race, gender, and political affiliation. The survey has a margin of error of +/- 5%. It was conducted with InsiderAdvantage’s research partner Majority Opinion Research. PollPosition is InsiderAdvantage’s new branding name (look for additional information and expansion of PollPosition in the coming months). 

The Results:

McCain: 44%

Obama: 43%

Barr: 6%

Undecided: 7%

My view is that Georgia, the 9^th largest state in the nation with 15 electoral votes, will remain a major new battleground state through November. This changes the landscape of electoral politics as Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, and perhaps another surprise southern state, join Florida as potential “swing states,” that cannot be presumed to vote Republican in 2008.”

Now granted, earlier polling did not reveal as much strength for Obama on the southern front, but as they say, time heals all wounds, and some of Hillary’s voters may be going home.

There is a chance that the winds of change may blow through the polls once again, but as emotions stabalize after the bitter democratic primaries, I think the trends we are seeing will hold fast and expand.

That means, as of now, Mccain needs a vice presidential pick who can help him hold Iowa, as well as southern states that are trending Obama, he also needs someone with enough blue colar appeal to stengthen his chance of taking the rustbelt to counter any losses that he may absorb in the south/mountain west, (although, for the record USA Survey polling showed that Huckabee polled extremely well in many swing states not traditionally considered his forte. ) http://www.teamhuck.com/

SurveyUSA Polling Strongly Indicates that Voters Prefer Huckabee
6/3: Massachusetts Polling vs. Obama (see how results were calculated)
Best: Huckabee, 2nd: Lieberman & Romney, 4th: Pawlenty

6/3: New York Polling vs. Obama (see how results were calculated)
Best: Lieberman, 2nd: Huckabee, 3rd: Romney, 4th: Pawlenty

6/3: Iowa Polling vs. Obama (see how results were calculated)
Best: Huckabee, 2nd: Romney, 3rd: Lieberman, 4th: Pawlenty

6/3: Kentucky Polling vs. Obama (see how results were calculated)
Best: Huckabee, 2nd: Romney, 3rd: Lieberman, 4th: Pawlenty

6/3: Alabama Polling vs. Obama (see how results were calculated)
Best: Huckabee, 2nd: Lieberman & Pawlenty, 4th: Romney

6/2: Minnesota Polling vs. Obama (see how results were calculated)
Best: Pawlenty, 2nd: Huckabee & Romney, 4th: Lieberman

6/2: Oregon Polling vs. Obama (see how results were calculated)
Best: Huckabee, 2nd: Romney, 3rd: Lieberman, 4th: Pawlenty

6/2: Washington State Polling vs. Obama (see how results were calculated)
Best: Romney, 2nd: Huckabee, 3rd: Lieberman, 4th: Pawlenty

6/1: Nebraska Polling vs. Obama (see how results were calculated)
Best: Huckabee, 2nd: Romney, 3rd: Lieberman, 4th: Pawlenty

5/30: Wisconsin Polling vs. Obama (see how results were calculated)
Best: Huckabee & Lieberman, 3rd: Romney, 4th: Pawlenty

5/29: Kansas Polling vs. Obama (see how results were calculated)
Best: Huckabee, 2nd: Romney, 3rd:Lieberman, 4th: Pawlenty

5/23: Ohio Polling vs. Obama (see how results were calculated)
Best: Huckabee, 2nd: Lieberman, 3rd: Romney, 4th: Pawlenty

5/21: California Polling vs. Obama (see how results were calculated)
Best: Huckabee, 2nd: Romney, 3rd: Lieberman, 4th: Pawlenty

There are many conservatives who do not like Huckabee on a personal or political level. But I think those seeking to put forward the argument that he brings ‘nothing’ to the table as a vp pick are living in dreamland.

Huckabee supporters  are prepared to accept the outcome if the path to victory overlooks picking Mike as vp. We may not like it, but would embrace any clearly pro-life vp in a heartbeat. The question is, would the rest of the GOP base get on board if the path to victory included accepting Mike Huckabee as VP. Sadly, I’m not so sure of that.

Time will tell the tale.

Certain conservatives have been suggesting Mike Huckabee has been making pro-Obama statements. Not true.  Huckabee speaks up for himself and people who are jumping to conclusions should at least read what the man has to say:

Greetings, HuckPAC team from Sapporo, Japan:

Janet and I are still in Japan for a few more days. It is about 5am here on Friday which makes it 3 in the afternoon back home in North Little Rock. We are having a great, but extremely packed week. It feels like being back on the campaign trail, except that the speeches are being interpreted in Japanese and the raw fish is sometimes a little tough on a guy who grew up thinking fried catfish was seafood. Yesterday, I visited with some of the scientists at Tohuko University in Sendai City regarding their groundbreaking research in producing solar energy and in the their development of amazing new materials that are lighter and stronger than steel. I also visited with the Governor of the Hokkaido prefect where next month’s G-8 Summit will be held and spoke to the Chamber of Commerce in that prefect on American politics, US/Japan relations, and economic trends in the United States. We are looking forward to being back—we miss the dogs!

My speech to the Foreign Correspondents Club a few days ago seemed to have generated some buzz both here and back home when I mentioned that it would be a “fundamental if not fatal mistake for the GOP to demonize Barak Obama” in order to win the election. Some seem to have taken that to mean I was all but endorsing Obama! Quite the opposite.

I believe his ideas are totally wrong for America and many of his plans would take us the opposite direction from where I think we need to go. He is an ardent supporter for the most liberal and indefensible positions on abortion, including his refusal to support a ban on the most vile forms of all, partial birth abortion. He has stated that he would be an activist in seeking to push for what the anti-life forces euphemistically call “reproductive rights.”

His plan to raise taxes would be an economic disaster for our nation. We would lose jobs and investment and see the economy really squeeze the working class with even higher fuel and food prices.

He would implement more government control on everything from health care to small business and that’s not the right direction for us.

What I am saying is that we need to challenge Obama on the basis that his ideas are the wrong ones—not attacking him personally. If people spend their time repeating a bunch of internet driven drivel about his middle name (he didn’t choose his anymore than I chose mine), or his race (I do sincerely celebrate that our country has moved to a place where a person’s race doesn’t limit him from aspiring to the highest office in our land, but I just believe that due to his proposals and lack of substantive experience, he’s gone far enough—not because of his race, but because of his sincere, but misguided proposals), or his church (there are far more important reasons for us to elect Senator McCain than where Obama went to church).

Politics ought to be VERTICAL and Obama’s ideas will not take this country UP, but DOWN. I think he is a sincere and obviously a very intelligent and charismatic person. For us to deny that is foolish. Our focus should be to logically and systematically explain why ideas really do matter and why some are bad for those struggling as it is to pay the rent.

Elections ought to be about elevating the best ideas and exposing the worst ones—not engaging in character assassination with half truths, innuendoes, and disputable “internet facts…”

Hope you are having a good week and continue to pray for our friends in the Midwest suffering from the devastating floods.

Sayonara,

Mike Huckabee

The Hill has an interesting article on the Club for Growth’s involvement or lack thereof in the Presidential campaign. The Club for Growth could get involved for McCain or they could sit out. The big difference:

Toomey also stressed that McCain’s vice presidential pick will help influence the Club’s decision.

“I think it’s very important,” he said. “It’ll be an important signal, indicating whether he wants to help consolidate the Republican coalition and energize the base of the party or not.”

The Club feels very strongly about South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford (R), whose name comes up often among those speculating on McCain’s short list. Toomey also suggested in a February Wall Street Journal column that Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), former Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas) and businessman Steve Forbes would make strong vice presidential candidates — a slate of names less frequently mentioned, if at all.

The Club for Growth seems to be taking the stance that if America’s electing a 71 year-old cancer survivor, then the real future of the country lies with the Veep. While the other names mentioned are quite farfetched (Steve Forbes and Phil Gramm? What is this? 1996.) Sanford has currency and I think he’s the desire of Club insiders.

Andy Roth on the Club blog went after Alaska Governor Sarah Palin for banning text messaging and watching videos while driving and then pointed to Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal refusing to fight a legislative pay increase. They actually released a full fledged hit on Jindal’s conservative credentials from Nachema Soloveichik. It’s clear, they want a governor and they’d like Sanford.

I’ve met Mark Sanford and he is a fabulous guy, let there be no question about this.  He would be a great President. I think he has absolutely nothing to do with these games the CFG is playing, but it’s clear that they want him to be Veep and don’t mind knocking people off the road to get that result.

This brings a very interesting choice to John McCain. If he places Sanford on the ticket, his campaign coffers are sure to swell from CFG members who would love to see Mark Sanford a heartbeat from the Presidency. Not only that but CFG.net as a 527 could be counted out to pound Obama with millions inunds from the last loophole for free speech, McCain left in McCain-Feingold.

Money is key for McCain. The FEC has a map that lays the numbers bear. McCain trials Obama badly in fundraising by 2.93:1 margin. Put another way. If you added the total funds raised by Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and Fred Thompson to McCain’s total, he’d still trail Obama in fundraising by $30 million. Given that money is the mother’s milk of politics, McCain’s in trouble on that front, and a Sanford pick would close the gap.

The problem with Sanford is that he’s unknown by all but a few political geeks like me. I realized this when I mentioned him on the Michael Reagan show, Reagan thought the guy was still in Congress. Given that few people know of him, it’d be very hard to fix the widespread problems McCain has with conservatives.

Then, you have Mike Huckabee who could shore up McCain’s sagging base among Evangelicals and in America’s heartland. While, he wouldn’t bring  gobs of money along, he would bring volunteers who would work the campaign hard, and really believe in it. Most of Huck’s Army would do everything they could for McCain/Huckabee.

However, the Club for Growth would spend money to elect Mike Huckabee Vice-President about the time I’d cheer for the San Francisco Giants, and so McCain would be cash-strapped.

So for love or for money?

Or what about somewhere in between? Mitt Romney would bring a little bit of money. (Not as much as the Club would for Sanford) and a little bit of love. But how much of this will add up to foot soldiers is questionable and Romney has a lot of detractors.

Of course the most likely result is that McCain goes with neither Sanford nor Huckabee, nor Romney either. Which will leave him with neither a huge amount of love or money from the Veep choice.

And neither Social Conservatives or Economic Conservatives will get what they want. There’s a lesson in there for us if we’ll learn it.

I don’t particularly like Townhall’s Matt Lewis.

He is one columnist who milked the Huckabee/Romney camp rivalry for all it was worth, writing provoking commentary designed to earn him hundreds of hits and hundreds of comments.

I guess that made him feel good about himself.

He’s at it again in his reaction to and ‘analysis’ of Huckabee’s advice to the GOP that we not try to win the election by ‘demonizing’ Obama.

http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/1b348839-9530-4db1-99a9-9b1986f2a9bd?comments=true#comments

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Message to Huckabee …

Posted by: Matt Lewis at 3:42 PM

Mike Huckabee has warned Republicans to lay off Barack Obama.  My thought:  This is a bit patronizing.  Why should Republicans treat Obama any differently than any other candidate?  … Of course Republicans shouldn’t make racist attacks — that’s a given.  But politics is rough-and-tumble – it has always been that way, and, in my estimation, it’s healthy for Democracy.  We will have achieved equality when Obama is free to be (as Huckabee might say) “demonized” – just like every other presidential candidate in the history of America has been …

 

Hummm.. patronizing?

It’s not patronizing if the republicans really need to hear the warning and apply it. We like to think we are above those types of obviously ‘cross the line’ tactics:

Try telling that to republicans forwarding emails that Obama is the Anti-Christ,

Or to talk show hosts who pretend that calling him Barack HUSSEIN Obama is not intended to produce a knee jerk negative response i a post 9/11 world.

Or to those same talkers doing everything in their power to imply that Obama hates America.

How about telling that to the Texas republicans at their convention who wore buttons saying ‘If Obama wins the white house, will it still be called the white house?”

I could never vote for Obama in a million years but we HAVE to find a way to fight him on the Issues, and not on his ‘patriotism, or try to play ‘guilt by association’  or by saying the terrorists will be dancing in the street if he wins, or by asking, is Barack really a muslim?

I don’t expect that McCain’s campaign will fight that front, but we ALL know the 527’s are going to find a way to go there, directly or indirectly.

Yes, these will evoke an emotional reaction, but it will happen on both sides of the isle. Sure you may convince a few republicans sitting on the fence to vote McCain, but at the same time you will convince millions more democrats who may be sitting on the fence that the GOP is playing true to its percieved fearmongering/bigoted form.

Obama will ALWAYS win if we try to battle him in the realm of emotion.. One soaring, ‘Still I Stand’ sppech will wipe away every doubt planted by 527’s dirty work. We cannot win on his turf.

He has to be defeated in the realm of REASON. Hillary took him to school on policy, she waited too late to find the key, but we would do well to learn from her mistakes.

Matt Lewis’s little dig at Mike produced the usual plethora of Huck Derangement Syndrome responses, including this little number:

The problem with what Huckabee said is that it reveals what he thinks of conservatives, that he believes that conservatives are racists that will resort to racist attacks on the first black presidential candidate, unless he staves them off with his pastoral wisdom.

So it’s not that I think he supports Obama or anything. He’s just once again revealing his contempt for conservatives, just like he did back in the primary.

Uhhh.. what?

Mike didn’t  ‘reveal’ his secret contempt for conservatives.

He made an observation based on tangible evidence of the direction that the GOP is thinking of taking in this election. He listen’s to talk radio, he saw the GOP ads that were run in the Southern special elections, which the GOP LOST, because they tried to run a negative campaign based on emotional guilt by Obama association.

I cannot emphasize enough how right Huckabee is on this subject. The GOP will LOSE in a landslide if they try to make this a character defamation ’swift boat’ campaign. Obama is no Kerry to take a hit laying down, and the backlash could propell him into the whitehouse.

And for the record, as once again Lewis’s post intentionally tried to make Mike into an Obama sympathizer, here is a comment from Jarrod, on the site, to provide some context of the further development of Huckabee’s thoughts on Obama.

Jarrod writes:	Wednesday, June, 18, 2008 5:50 PM
Favorite Pastime
It seems one of the favorite pastimes here at Townhall is demonizing Mike Huckabee, posting quotes in order to point out once again what a idiot traitor to Republican principles ‘Huckles’ is. Here are some other quotes from the same story: “I am grateful for Barack Obama and his magnificent climb and the journey that he has taken. But then I will tell you, he has gone far enough this year.” Ultimately, he said the election should be about substantive issues, not symbolism. Huckabee hit Obama on higher taxes, his inexperience, and foreign policy. . . . . . Issues of national security and foreign policy-not necessarily the Supreme Court or tax rates-are paramount in this election, he suggested. “This election is not so much about whether our great grandkids will live in a nice house. This election may well be whether our great grandchildren live at all. That’s how serious it is and we need a serious candidate for president, who understands what we face and how to face it.” He said Obama could not point to a single accomplishment in his time in the U.S. Senate or Illinois Legislature that advanced national security or aided the economy. He contrasted that with the experience of Republican nominee John McCain. “Frankly, this is no time for driver ed,” Huckabee said. “This is a time for a seasoned, serious person behind the wheel of the country.” Maybe it is his experience as a Christian pastor, but what a lot of non-conservatives notice, and appreciate about Huckabee is that he has the ability to condemn the sin (like he condemns Obama’s policies above) but not the sinner (Obama himself). I don’t understand why so many conservatives find that ability so contemptible.

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

This piece was featured in The Detroit News as well as the Detroit Free Press. I wrote it 3 days after the massive Detroit Red Wings celebrations.

Approximately 1 million hockey fans flocked to downtown Detroit to celebrate the Red Wings’ Stanley Cup victory last Friday. Yes, the Wings won the Stanley Cup. Yes, they’re a terrific team. But do they deserve all that attention? How many of the devoted Wings fans have traveled to the airport to greet and thank a group of homecoming soldiers?

Regardless of how you perceive the war, how often have you prayed for the troops? Our brave troops have been wounded, some killed, and most have witnessed the murder of a close friend.

These men and women are our true heroes. These men and women don’t get paid $30 million to play a game. They love their country and are willing to fight for it. They risk their lives every day for us. But when a soldier returns home, his friends and family members typically greet him or her alone.

As a 16-year-old Detroiter with two family members fighting overseas (one in Baghdad, one in Kuwait), I am flabbergasted that we worship professional athletes but ignore those who have sacrificed so much.

Congratulations to the Detroit Red Wings. But a much bigger congratulations and heartfelt thanks to our soldiers, who keep us safe. God bless you.

Laura Ingraham was not a Huckabee fan and in fact introduced Mitt Romney before his famous CPAC farewell. However, on the Greta Van Susteren show, she made an astonishing statement:

VAN SUSTEREN: Well, he’s got to pick somebody! He can’t — I mean, he’s got to — so he’s got to pick somebody. He can’t just go it alone.

INGRAHAM: No, but I think he has to pick someone who can connect with the broad base of conservatives.

VAN SUSTEREN: Like?

INGRAHAM:Oh, I think — I think — you know, Mike Huckabee — you know, I’ve — I’ve been fairly critical of him in the past, but he does have a presence and he does connect with people. I just think the problem with McCain…

It’s an amazing move and along with Glenn Beck saying something positive about Huckabee recently , it does indicate that at least some of the talk radio hosts are moving beyond the controversy of the last campaign.

This got a rise out of Nachema Soloveichik of the Club for Growth, who writes:

I’m sorry but what about Mike Huckabee appeals to “the broad base of conservatives?”

Well, it could be the fact that he cut welfare rolls in half while he was Governor in Arkanasas and that he pushed for pro-growth tax policies and opposed efforts to increase the income tax and strongly supported cuts in Capital Gains Taxes. It could be that he fought hard for charter schools and made it easier to fire bad teachers.

Perhaps, though, it could be that unlike the rest of the party, he can actually talk to the common ordinary American with some credibility and sense of empathy. It could be that he is an advocate of tax reform, that he signed a no amnesty pledge, and is unapologeticlaly pro-life. It could be that he favors restoring our military to the percent of GDP it was at under President Reagan. It could be that he favors exploring new sources of energy.

In an election were Barack Obama is making a play for disenchanted Evangelicals, and people are hurting economically under the yoke of high gas prices (though I would argue this is more the fault of the Senate than the current Administration), Huckabee would be the only one to counter the Democratic attacks. Indeed, I would go as far as to say that his proper place is 1-on-1 with Barack Obama, who could match Obama’s hope and change and raise him 14 years of executive experience.

The reason we don’t have that race is because the Club for Growth decided to spend $750,000 attacking Huckabee in South Carolina which bolstered the losing campaigns of Thompson and Romney, while allowing McCain, a candidate the Club described as having a ”marked antipathy towards the free market and individual freedom” to win the state and eventually the nomination.

Club for Growth was phariseeical in its attacks on Huckabee: Straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. An SCHIP like health program, as well as a few tax increases to pay for roads were roundly condemned by the CFP in ad after ad (these ads never mentioned Huckabee’s tax cuts, nor that throughout his tenure he faced a legislature that was 75+% Democratic and could override any veto by a majority vote, nor court decisions that forced more spending), while Mitt Romney’s huge government health care plan (on which Hillary Clinton’s new plan was patterned) generated not one ad from the Club.

The Club continues their dogged anti-Huckabee pursuit for reasons that are beyond my reckoning. The Club makes great picks in Congressional races, but their obsessive behavior towards Huckabee calls into question their judgment for many people, as their one-sided attacks cost them credibility with new conservative activists.

Losing Tip #1 - Do what she did.

Imagine yourself in the bleachers of an arena observing a crucial competition between two challengers.

“La-dies and gentlemen, we are in for a treat tonight. The winner of this contest will be declared the leader of the free world.

In the right corner, our first contender, wearing red shorts, is a war hero who survived five years in solitary in a prison camp. He weighs in with twenty five years in Congress and is an expert in national defense.

In the left corner, in blue shorts, we have our second contender, weighing in with a mere three years in the U.S. Senate, eight years as a little-known state senator and … time as a community organizer (Jack, is this script right?).

Gentlemen … on my count … ready? May the contest begin!”

DING! DING! DING!

(Thud)

“And the winner is … the guy in blue shorts??”

 

Does this sound like an unlikely scenario? It’s not at all. Here’s how the more experienced, more seasoned competitor could get knocked out by the guy who many regard as a lightweight. All that has to happen is for red to follow the following keys to defeat.

 

Hillary Clinton is intellectually brilliant, politically mature and fiercely determined. She and her husband created a powerful political machine and, in the wake of the Democratic disasters of 1980, 1984, and 1988, should really be credited with saving their party from extinction. Her toughest competitor turned out to be a guy who wasn’t even out of high school yet when her husband started his first term as Governor of Arkansas. He came to the U.S. Senate only three years ago, was an obscure state senator for the eight years before that and held jobs as a college professor and community activist for the nine years before that. Many people from all political perspectives are still scratching their heads trying to figure out how she lost to him.

Here’s a partial explanation of how it happened. Clinton surrounded herself with a set of highly paid advisors from the party establishment - very smart people who knew how to win elections back in what feels like a long time ago. She didn’t establish a simple message that resonated with either her target audience or the public at large. And then she eventually alienated one of her most loyal constituencies, without which her party has not won a national election in decades. For all her talent and effectiveness as a politician, she took a lot of bad advice from people who didn’t understand what voters really wanted as much as they thought they did. And, unfortunately for her supporters, this is one of the reasons why she lost to the kid.

So, here’s the first way that McCain can lose. He can ignore his own instincts and follow the advice of the highly paid advisors from his own party establishment, the ones who knew how to narrowly win elections against less popular competition in years less hostile to Republicans. He can fail to establish a simple message that connects with the average voter. And he can alienate - or fail to connect with - the Republican Party’s most loyal constituency, Evangelical Christians and “values voters,” without whom the party has not won an election since 1972. For all his experience as a war hero and a respected legislator, he can also lose to the young man from Illinois.

 

Losing Tip #2 - Depend on negative campaigning.

Simply put, John McCain and his supporters cannot win by spending all their time telling the American people why not to vote for Barack Obama. They need to spend time telling people why to vote for John McCain.

I know that we all hear from the political commentators that negative campaigning works. And it certainly works to some extent - except when it backfires. But it works best on willing victims - those who either help out their competitors by acting the part of the caricature the opposition painted them as - or those who don’t do anything to defend themselves.

In 1964, President Lyndon Johnson seemed determined not just beat his Republican rival, Barry Goldwater, but also to humiliate him. The Democrats charged that Goldwater was a warmonger who wanted to start a nuclear war (capped off with the infamous “Daisy” ad). They called him a racist. And they not so subtly implied that he was .. eh .. not all there psychologically. It would have been tougher for these attacks to stick if Goldwater himself didn’t help the cause by joking he’d like to lob a nuke into the men’s room of the Kremlin, that he wanted to saw off the Eastern seaboard of the U.S., and saying things like “extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.” His own words made the job of Johnson’s “5 o’clock club” - his opposition researchers - a lot easier.

Just four years ago, in the 2004 contest, the “Swift Boat Veterans For Truth” launched a vicious public attack on the Democratic nominee. As the group gained more and more attention and their charges damaged Kerry more by the day, he did something quite unexpected for a Vietnam combat veteran who came under fierce fire. Absolutely nothin’! Many people think that his campaign’s slowness in confronting the attack may have cost him the election.

But Obama doesn’t say all that much that gets him in trouble. He’s a very good talker and can talk his way out of trouble. And he’s not afraid to fight back. Last summer, he seemed to be intimidated at the prospect of making eye contact with Hillary during the debates. But the long warfare with Hillary has made him a stronger candidate and he’s now pretty darn good at the counter punch - much better than you’d expect from someone so new to politics. I don’t think he’s going to just sit there and take a lot of shots. Not these days.

So, another way McCain can lose is to have his team overcommit to attacking Obama and making the campaign about just why he shouldn’t be President instead of giving a lot of reasons why McCain should be. It would work better if Obama were a goofball or such a pacifist that he refused to fight back. But he’s neither.

 

Losing Tip #3 - Take too much advice from the establishment.

According to a Real Clear Politics article by Bob Novak, John McCain is finding himself under unwanted pressure from President Bush, Karl Rove and others to pick former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney as his running mate.

The Democratic Party would love nothing more than to paint the candidacy of John McCain as one that would lead to a third Bush term. Although Obama has targeted McCain with this tag line, the reason it hasn’t totally stuck is because Senator McCain has earned a reputation of taking orders only from Senator McCain. He is well known for refusing to simply fall in line to obediently do the bidding of the party establishment. However, if it becomes perceived that he is being coerced by important members of the current Administration to pick someone acceptable to them against his own wishes (and against the wishes of a significant portion of the Republican electorate), he will give legs to the theory that a vote for him is a vote for Bush. If this happens, those legs will kick everyone involved away from the Executive Branch of the government come this November.

 

Losing Tip #4 - Either tolerate racial politics - or - simply concede the black vote.

The very worst thing that the Republican National Committee could do in facing off against Obama is to tolerate any hint of racial politics. Failing to do so will do more than simply alienate the small percentage of black voters who do vote for the Republican Party. It will also alienate many white voters as well. Most people of all ethnic groups do not want to be associated with racism. Tactics such as the ad run against Harold Ford in 2006, the infamous Willie Horton ad, and anything like it, sadly may have worked in years past and in certain areas. But will lead to lingering disaster for the GOP if repeated in 2008. Disaster not just in this election but in many elections to come. Hey, wait, TVV. Are you saying we can’t say anything bad about Obama because it will look racist? Of course that’s not what I’m saying. His record, his associations and policies are subject to scrutiny and criticism just like anyone else’s would be. But there’s a difference between campaigning against a candidate who happens to be black and running against “the black guy.” Choosing to do the latter will do much more harm than good - for the Republicans, for the Democrats and for the whole country.

Another key component to losing tip #4 is to simply assume that black voters are going to vote for Obama. I’m black. I’m very proud that a black man has earned a major party nomination for the Presidency. Am I planning to vote for Obama? No! He seems like a nice guy, but he’s way too liberal on social issues like abortion and marriage. And contrary to what many people assume, most black voters are not liberal. The reason most black voters vote for the Democrats is because: a) there has been a 48-year rift between the GOP and African Americans and b) even today, most Republicans don’t bother to ask for our votes. So, if McCain’s folks really want to up the chances they’ll lose the election, they need to tear out a page from the old Republican Playbook and just assume that we won’t vote for them and that they shouldn’t make a serious effort to ask. (It should be noted that in the key swing state of Ohio, where Bush wrapped up his victory over Kerry, he did better than his national average among black voters. The difference between his share of the black vote in Ohio over his national average accounts for one third of the margin by which Bush defeated Kerry in that state and won re-election.)

 

Losing Tip #5 - Tick off your most loyal constituency.

 

Every election in recent memory that a Republican has won the White House (which is pretty much every election in recent memory), which group has been the backbone of the Republican coalition? Is it the guys on Wall Street? The crew on Fox News? The Club for Growth? Well, those folks are all definitely important. But I’m going to think for a minute and try to figure out which group of Republican voters have been the most faithful and without whom the party is doomed on Election Night. Oh - I know. It’s the faithful.

If Evangelical voters stay home this fall because they’re discouraged, feeling neglected, or not actively sought out, it very well may guarantee a Democratic victory. Remember of course what happened in both 1996 and 2000 when Evangelicals stayed home? Dole lost the first contest and Bush would have lost had Al Gore carried his home state (which is something that even Walter Mondale did in 1984 and Mike Dukakis did in 1988). In 2004, Evangelicals came out in force, voted for the Republicans and that is of course the reason why the Republicans did not lose (the most common “most important issue” for voters was “Moral Values”).

So, how can McCain and the GOP blow this thing big time? They can refuse to adequately reach out to values voters. And I don’t just mean reach out with words and appearances. I mean reach out by balancing the ticket with someone who understands the issues that are important to us. Contrary to what many people believe, most of us don’t actually want a Theocracy and aren’t trying to use the government to push our beliefs on others. However, many of us have firm beliefs of when life begins (this backed up by science), the importance of family, and don’t want our kids to be taught propaganda and shown trashy content all the time. Many of us respect everybody but want to be given a little respect as well. If Mike Huckabee becomes John McCain’s Veep, the party will avoid one more way that they can lose on Election night. Of course, Huckabee helps as well because he also appeals to some Fiscal Conservatives (you know, the ones who actually like the idea of a 0% Income Tax), many blue collar workers who otherwise might vote Democratic, and conservative African Americans.

 

It’s a tough year for America and for Americans. The race could certainly go either way. But one way to almost guarantee that it won’t go McCain’s way is for him to conduct himself according to any of the above.