"One of the things that concerns me is that in the United States there's a real talk of 'maybe we need to have this big tent and make sure that we just accommodate every view.' That's what will kill the conservative movement."
Wait...wasn't Huckabee pushed out of the "conservative movement"?
It must have been awkward for Roy Brown last night listening to former presidential candidate, Mike Huckabee, who swept in to help raise funds for Brown's gubernatorial candidacy. Check it out:
It's going to take more than pledges against gay marriage and abortion to woo evangelical voters this election year, former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee said Wednesday.
"The issues that drive evangelicals are the commitment to protect human life and sanctity of marriage, but it's no longer just those two issues," Huckabee told The Billings Gazette. "Younger evangelical voters are also concerned about poverty and the environment. I think the candidate that fails to address the broader agenda is going to fail to unify evangelicals."
[snip]
Huckabee's campaign message of Christian environmental stewardship and caring for one's God-given body resonated well with young evangelicals. Evangelical voters today recognize the need for social programs that keep families together, keep children in school and keep adults of out of prison and out of rehab.
A campaign platform that cuts taxes to the extent of undermining the country's social fabric is not going to win evangelicals, Huckabee said. Conversely, evangelical voters are less likely to turn to the government for a cash solution.
Ouch! You know, of course, Brown's environmental policies have consisted solely of how to uproot it to get at the coal; his tax policies, the same robotic cut-cut-cut, trickle-down monotone we've heard from the GOP for decades, completely ignoring infrastructure needs. Only I would hazard to guess that evangelical Christians, like the rest of us, hunt; have children who breathe mercury-polluted air, need health care; and value schools and transportation.
Brown's candidacy, and the tack of the state Republican party, is also woefully out-of-step with the nation's Republicans. After all, the GOP's top three presidential candidates consisted of:
-- A Senator who made his reputation for "straight talk" opposing Bush's tax cuts
-- A Representative who's against the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, and torture
-- A Governor who raised taxes and increased spending in his state, and advocated using government to aid the poor
This election is shaping up to promise some drastic change in the way this country thinks about foreign policy, the economy, government's role, and government's accountability. Apparently, someone forgot to tell Roy Brown, whose paleo-campaign is straight out of 1994.
When Mike Huckabee was governor of Arkansas, he figured out that it is cheaper to pay for college tuition, room and board and books than it is to sentence a person to prison.
The choice, he told about 950 people at a Billings fundraiser Tuesday night, becomes how people want to invest their money: in a solid education or a tax bill.
"It's your money either way," Huckabee said at the Billings Christian Schools Spring Banquet.
This doesn't make any sense at all. Money for prisons is a shared expense. Money for private schools is not. Now I'm all about investing in schools rather than prisons (and, along those lines, Montana definitely went in the wrong direction in the 90s and has some corrective work to pursue, as does our entire country), but I can't figure out the sense of his argument.
Beyond that, I'm not really sure why Huckabee thinks private parochial schools are better than quality public schools in preventing lives of depravity. I suppose he can do that, but making the kinds of arguments he does makes me pretty skeptical of the strength of his own education.
In Nebraska, The Omaha World-Herald reported that organizers at two caucus sites had been so overrun by crowds that they abandoned traditional caucusing and asked voters to drop makeshift scrap-paper ballots into a box instead. In Sarpy County, in suburban Omaha, traffic backed up on Highway 370 when thousands of voters showed up at a precinct where organizers had planned for hundreds.
In Washington, the Democratic party reported record-breaking numbers of caucusgoers, with early totals suggesting turnout would be nearly be nearly double what it was in 2004 - itself a record year - when 100,000 Democrats caucused.
Hours after Obama's Saturday victory, Clinton's campaign manager, Patti Solis Doyle, resigned.
Just wanted to bring your attention to the sordid underbelly of David Brooks' column today, which while praising Obama left, right, and center, took this gratuitous shot against John Edwards:
He's made John Edwards, with his angry cries that "corporate greed is killing your children's future," seem old-fashioned. Edwards's political career is probably over.
It's the conventional "wisdom." Edwards is toast. Why hasn't Edwards dropped out? He's dead in the water. Some folks on the left see the Iowa caucus -- what with Obama's message of bipartisanship (and flying pigs) polling so well -- as an end to progressive populust economic policy. (As obviously does Brooks.)
A couple of things to remember. First, both Clinton and Obama took Edwards' lead in setting policy. Universal health care? Withdrawal from Iraq? Edwards took the stand, it polled well, Clinton and Obama scurried to match his stance. Ezra Klein said it best, Edwards "set the agenda and finished second."
Second, Eric Kleefeld noticed something interesting about the caucus results, compared with pre-caucus poll: if such a comparison can be made, then it appears Edwards was the biggest recipient of second-choice delegates. What does that mean? It could mean that, as second-tier candidates drop out of the race, Edwards' numbers improve. Also, if the primary gets ugly, it's likely Clinton and Obama who take the swings at each other. Edwards could end up smelling like a rose in a couple of weeks. One word: youneverknow.
And third, and the most striking fact about John Edwards' results at the Iowa causus are the results, compared to the Republican candidates. According to the The Group News Blog, some 356,000 Iowans voted during the caucus. Of those, 20.5% -- or approximately 73,000 -- pulled for Edwards. That's more votes than Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney earned combined. That's about a thousand less than Romney, Huckabee, and Giuliani combined.
While Edwards may not win the Democratic nomination, Edwards' populist policies outpolled nearly the entire Republican field in the Iowa caucus. End of his career? Death of his message? Where are the columns dedicated to the death of the Republican party as a national force in politics?
If I'd voted yesterday, I probably would have voted for John Edwards. If I was voting today, I'd probably vote for Barack Obama. Truth be told, I like Edwards more, but these fields inevitably narrow and I really like Obama quite a bit as well.
Sa la vie.
Have to say, though, that it is tough for me to swallow Colby's thoughts, knocking Obama's chances because he brought out new voters and young voters. The truth is, youth voting has been on the uptick for two cycles in a row, with every indication that it will tick up again in '08. Getting upset with Barack Obama for doing well in this regard is like getting mad at a swimmer for performing well in water -- ideally, that's what swimmers do.
And, ideally, political leaders give previously disenchanted people enough, yes, hope to get involved.
So good for Obama.
What of the Republicans? I have to admit, I'm slightly taken aback by the loathing for Mike Huckabee. He kinda strikes me as the GOP equivalent of the Dems' Bill Richardson. Fairly charismatic Governor of a mid-size state who is generally in touch with the base of his party on some key issues, but is also a bit out of whack on some key economic stuff.
If Richardson had won Iowa, would the Democratic establishment be trying to tank him the way the GOP establishment is trying to destroy Huck? Doubtful, but who knows? They did go after Dean in a fierce (though less fierce) fashion.
I'm curious to see how the Republican's evangelical base, the people power of their party, reacts to this obvious condescension. I know I'd get pretty pissed. The question (perhaps inartfully worded) is whether they turn the other cheek. Or maybe they've come with a sword to cast the money changers out of the tent. Who knows?
Ron Paul's fervent base turned into tepid support. John McCain is the establishment's new man now that Romney has faltered. Fred Thompson, beating McCain, is strangely forgotten.
And we waltz on into New Hampshire.
No predictions on NH -- at least not until some post-Iowa polls come out. But on the GOP side, the big question is this, if Iowa's Corn lovers went for Hucking, will the Granite State go for the chiseled Mitt?
Reading this New York Times piece about Mike Huckabee's challenge in the Republican presidential field reminded me of this 2005 Pew Research Center Report on the varying beliefs of subconstituencies among the two major political parties. According to the report, there are major fissures among Republican voters when it comes to economic policy, a majority of whom favor government regulation of business and a fairer economic system.
In short, the report divides Republican voters into three categories, each comprising about a third of the whole: Enterprisers (pro-business), Social Conservatives, and Pro-Government Conservatives (believe government has a role in address conservative issues). It turns out that a majority of Republican voters favors government regulation and opposes the current Republican love affair with supply-side economics.
The numbers are startling. Eight-eight and 83 percent of Social and Pro-Government conservatives believe "too much power is concentrated in the hands of a few large companies," as opposed to 26 percent of Enterprisers. Likewise 58 and 66 percent of Social and Pro-Government conservatives feel it's in the public's interest to regulate business (compared to 16 percent of Enterprisers), and 67 and 61 percent of Social and Pro-Government conservatives favor stricter environmental regulations even if it costs jobs and hurts the economy (compared to 16 percent of Enterprisers).
But the most startling finding in the report surrounds the attitude towards Bush's tax cuts. According to the report, only 13 percent of Enterprisers feel that these cuts should be entirely repealed, or rolled back for the wealthy only, compared to a plurality of Social Consertives (47 percent favor tax cut rollbacks, versus 42 percent opposing) and 58 percent of Pro-Government Conservatives.
A majority of Republican voters favors rolling back tax cuts for the wealthy.
Huckabee, of course, is notorious among conservative columnists for his economic "heresy." As the governor of Arkansas, he raised the state's minimum wage, dealt with labor unions, and even -- gasp -- raised taxes! And earned Arkansas a budget surplus while in office. All of which are favored by a majority of conservatives. And all are likely reasons for why, besides his conservative social credentials, he's probably surging in the polls. The majority of conservatives, having endured years of tax-cut voo-doo economic policies in exchange for empty promises for their pet causes, are apparently looking for an economic populist for a change.
You no doubt know the reaction among the tax-cut-n-spenders. If you don't, just read the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal, which accuses him of coming from the "religious left."
The thing is, the crackpot "geniuses" of supply-side economics have dominated the rhetoric of the GOP and conservaitve movement since the 1990s, even worming their way under the skin of the establishment chattering class. Any deviation away from tax cutting and towards the responsible management of government budgets is seen as treason against conservatism. Only...it's not. A majority of conservative voters disagree (not to mention most independents and leftys). Still, if you feel the conservative coalition is to endure, you stick with the tax-cut meme if you want to come out top dog in the party's current internecine struggles.
Which brings me to the Montana caucus.
A lot of ink has been spilled in the Montana 'sphere on both sides about why the state GOP opted for a limited caucus instead of a popular primary to decide which candidate to support for the nomination. It seemed to me the party wanted to recruit a bunch of committed precintmen to caucus, and then turn around and use those folks as footsoldiers for the statewide races, especially for the legislature, which is wide open.
The danger from the start in this caucus was that it seems to have been an idea that was hatched around the same time that Mitt Romney came to Montana for the GOP State Convention. The Romney campaign was the first to be organized in the state (for many months, the only campaign to be organized in the state,) and it has been very active in encouraging Romney supporters to volunteer for precinct positions.
Romney will probably win the Montana caucus by a large margin because of the attention that campaign has paid to the state, and the paid organization that it has applied to Montana. As such, the caucus risks looking like a setup that was designed to hand the state to Romney. Would Romney win a Feb. 5 formal primary? We'll never know.
Now Huckabee was a statistical anomoly way back when the state GOP decided on a caucus, so it's not likely the caucus was arranged to keep Huckabee from winning Montana. It's just a nice side effect. After all, the current crop of instate Republicans party functionaries are obviously the supply-siders, and Mitt Romney is the Establishment Candidate of the DC insiders.
But, by design or no, now the Montana Republican Party won't have to suffer the indignity of a Huckabee win during an open primary, thus repudiating the cornerstone of its platform. Thanks to the caucus, we'll never know.
A recently released CNN/Opinion research poll has been used to tease out the story that Mike Huckabee would get slammed in general-election match-ups against the top tier of Democratic candidates. It's a muddle-headed conclusion to draw from the poll, IMHO, because it's just too early to say. After all, no political junkie really knew much about Huckabee before he shot up in the Iowa polls, how could Joe and Jane Six-Pack in Alabama , Ohio , or California be expected to know the Arkansas Governor?
John Edwards is, by far, the most acceptable candidate in these national polls. And it's been that way since the beginning of the race.
Righties and DC insiders, naturally, are befuddled. And why not? Edwards' poll results tip the inside-the-Beltway narrative of the conservative heartland on its head. Ross Douthat even goes so far as to speculate that the reason people like Edwards is that they think he's more conservative than his Democratic peers. Still Edwards has always been to the left of the Republicans, and yet he thrashes them all.
And on some issues Edwards is more conservative, notably those important to the gay/lesbian community, which may explain his place in the Democratic polls. Or perhaps Democratic primary voters ascribe to the insider rhetoric that liberal = unelectable.
Instead of overanalyzing these and other poll results and turning them inside-out, maybe it's time for the DC punditocracy to accept the simple fact that populist progressive anti-corporatism is a powerful and appealing force in national politics.
Mitt Romney had his "JFK moment" in the presidential campaign yesterday with his speech, "Faith in America ," which was an effort to make himself palatable to the Evangelical voters who make up a substantial portion of the Republican base. Other than Hugh Hewitt - who's already a groveling Romney sycophant - the speech didn't seem to sway many, from Evangelicals to liberals.
First, there was dissatisfaction at Romney's insistence that religion is critical to freedom, which, naturally implied agnostics, pagans, atheists, and the like apparently can't handle freedom or contribute to the national dialog. This point of view was, ironically, best expressed by Peggy Noonan:
There was one significant mistake in the speech. I do not know why Romney did not include nonbelievers in his moving portrait of the great American family. We were founded by believing Christians, but soon enough Jeremiah Johnson, and the old proud agnostic mountain men, and the village atheist, and the Brahmin doubter, were there, and they too are part of us, part of this wonderful thing we have. Why did Mr. Romney not do the obvious thing and include them? My guess: It would have been reported, and some idiots would have seen it and been offended that this Romney character likes to laud atheists. And he would have lost the idiot vote.
As governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee aggressively pushed for the early release of a convicted rapist despite being warned by numerous women that the convict had sexually assaulted them or their family members, and would likely strike again. The convict went on to rape and murder at least one other woman.
His "Willie Horton" moment? Hardly. Huckabee was personally and actively involved in the release of Wayne Drummond, despite receiving letters from women who had been sexually assaulted by the man, and who warned the Arkansas Governor that "he would rape again - and perhaps murder - if released."
So, why would Huckabee advocate the release of a man known to be dangerous?
Robert Novak basically endorsed Mike Huckabee today in a report called "The False Conservative" by questioning his conservative credentials:
Who would respond to criticism from the Club for Growth by calling the conservative, free-market campaign organization the "Club for Greed"? That sounds like Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich or John Edwards, all Democrats preaching the class struggle. In fact, the rejoinder comes from Mike Huckabee, who has broken out of the pack of second-tier Republican presidential candidates to become a serious contender -- definitely in Iowa and perhaps nationally.
Huckabee is campaigning as a conservative, but serious Republicans know that he is a high-tax, protectionist advocate of big government and a strong hand in the Oval Office directing the lives of Americans.
The Club for Growth is the "Club for Greed." It's a one-note extremist anti-tax group that tries to sink any Republican that, well, suggests we try to pay for what we spend. Andrew Sullivan:
Memo to Novak: have you heard of George W. Bush? Barely a government program he hasn't expanded; barely a soul he doesn't want to heal. Nation-building where there is no nation; borrowing when there is no more money. And all wrapped up in a theological bundle of conservative "compassion". The main difference between Bush and Huckabee is that Huckabee once actually raised the money he wanted to spend, instead of borrowing it from the Chinese.
Novak, of course, is the administration suck-up who dutifully spilled a national secret to the public (Valerie Plame's identity as a covert CIA agent) to punish someone who crossed Dick Cheney (Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson). He's the worst sort of columnist, a fella who mistakes propaganda for insider information. The only question here is who's sponsoring an attack on Huckabee in Novak's column?
