If anyone was under the delusion that Huckabee is just way too “Progressive” then they should probably think twice before recommending that Governor Pawlenty of Minnesota take that VP spot. 

George Will takes a look at a few other options, and ends it with a small sales pitch for Governor Pawlenty who he considers “a center-right politician in a center-right country.”  Sigh…(eyes rolling).  Lord knows we couldn’t have one of those pesky Christians occupying the White House.  It’s apparently better to have a blatantly liberal Republican than a Christian Conservative who has the audacity to at some point be a preacher.   It’s amazing how we can overlook pure left-wingness to castigate “Christian Populists”.

However, in the same article that George Will lumps together Huckabee and Edwards, I did find this little gem (sort of off-topic):

Economist Stephen Rose, defining the middle class as households with annual incomes between $30,000 and $100,000, says a smaller percentage of Americans are in that category than in 1979 — because the percentage of Americans earning more than $100,000 has doubled from 12 to 24, while the percentage earning less than $30,000 is unchanged. “So,” Rose says, “the entire ‘decline’ of the middle class came from people moving up the income ladder.” Even as housing values declined in 2007, the net worth of households increased.

Yet another example of someone who only understands their little portion of Conservatism and chooses to ignore the rest.

Someone help me come up with a good name for Libertarians posing as Conservatives. Maybe CINOs, or Libervatives…

I know everyone is tired of hearing me talk about Huckabee…but this is a must watch. Name me one Presdidential Candidate who is taken the time to talk about these things. This guy is not just some preacher from Hope who wants to be a “Christian Leader.” He is someone who not only understands Federalism, but can explain it and embodies it. There’s two parts to this video, the second part starting at 4:00, is about Katrina and Governor Huckabee connects the failures of the Katrina tragedy with the current administration’s Hamiltonianism:

This guy just gets it…pure and simple…he’s wrong about a few things, but not on this one.

An interesting article by Mark Davis which ties the “Free Market” concept with the current GOP primary situation.  An article which curiously fails to mention even the NAME of either of the other candidates still in the race, and tells us to “Calm down” and “Relax” and “Take a deep breath”…sound familiar?

If Mark Davis were to follow his market analogy, then he would agree that competition breeds quality improvement.

There is a plethora of evidence that:

a) McCain indeed could conceivably go into the convention without 1191 delegates.
b) The other candidates (all that currently have delegates–Huckabee, Romney, and Paul) will as a result have influence at that convention.
c) All four of these Republicans add to the discourse, and as a result improve the party and hold it to its principles of National Security, Free-markets, and Traditionalism.
d) Governor Huckabee and Congressman Paul will have a debate with John McCain at least once before the very important March 4th Primaries. This helps the Republican party in a plethora of very obvious ways.

There is no such thing as a perfect candidate with a perfect history. Reagan wasn’t perfect either, but he communicated the Conservative vision extremely well. Huckabee does that better than McCain and that’s why he is doing so well in “Middle America.” That doesn’t make him perfect, and it doesn’t make him Ronald Reagan, but why is a candidate having MORE success in core Republican States make him LESS of a player than someone having LESS success there (like Romney).

If we are concerned about the future of the party (or more  importantly the Conservative Movement), you need to look no further than the Youth Vote on the Republican side. In competitive Primary states (Missouri, Louisiana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Georgia) Republican voters between 18-29 vote pretty largely in favor of Huckabee…there’s a reason for that, and it’s mainly because the guy makes sense, he doesn’t “golly” too much and he doesn’t speak down to people, he relates and he connects.

Another odd thing about the “Middle America” voter:  the “three legs of the Conservative stool” are not represented so clear cut by the candidates’ supporters.  For instance, Mitt Romney supporters are more confident of his foreign policy abilities than they are his economic abilities, and McCain supporters are more confident in his economic abilities than in his foreign policy abilities.  Seems odd doesn’t it?  It’s not odd; it means that most people don’t vote like mindless drones based on ONE issue.  If they’re voting for some guy, they either a) like him because they like him, or b) believe he is the right man for the job…period.

The reason why a John McCain fan feels John McCain can handle the economy better is because they trust him…they respect his military leadership experience to the point where they think he would MAKES BETTER DECISIONS about the economy.  An avid Romney fan trusts Romney to run our Military the same way he run his businesses: efficiently, intelligently, calling on other experts for advise, and MAKING GOOD DECISIONS.

And a Huckabee fan trusts Huckabee with Foreign Policy AND the Economy, not because they hope he’ll sweep into the White House, change all our textbooks to teach only Creationism, hang all the gay people and hand out guns to first graders.  They trust him because they trust his ability to MAKE DECISIONS based on his Faith, his Principles, and his Values, and like the idea of his getting on his knees every once in a while and asking the Good Lord for guidance.  Thus the often maligned and often denigrated “Evangelical Right” wants a leader that makes major decisions much like they do.  (And by the way, did anyone notice that the more educated voters in these States tend to vote for Huckabee…hmm.)

All that to say that “the third leg of the stool” is the one that is missing from the Conservative conversation…and Huckabee embodies that even more than the current President does, because he talks about ECONOMIC and NATIONAL SECURITY issues from the SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE point of view.  Reagan did it…A LOT!…just listen to his speeches.  It’s perfectly reasonable (even recommended) for someone’s foreign policy and economic ideals to be firmly rooted in their “SOCIAL” principles.

Liberals do it easily.  Every argument they make stems from a social core:  Respect for human dignity, the plight of the poor, equality, “universal health care”, privacy…

Name an argument–foreign policy, economics, or social–from the left’s point of view that doesn’t stem from this core.  It’s impossible to think of one.  Simple economics, historical truths, science…all can be ignored at the drop of the hat because of what they feel is the “Right” thing to do.  And their logic still comes out looking consistent and sound.

The Conservative view has the ability to do the same thing, but it gets lost in semantics:  “I’m a FISCAL conservative so I think those dumb redneck christians should just shut up about their stupid “social” issues. ”  or “That Romney guy is a good business person, but I just don’t think he has what it takes to fight the ‘War on Terror’” or “That McCain guy thought stemcell research was a good idea so he should definitely ROT IN HELL.”

I’ve often said that the thinking Conservative view is harder to sell because it requires logic to defend it, whereas the Liberal point of view doesn’t require it at all.  The problem with that is, obviously, thinking Liberals feel the same way about the Conservative view.  Thus logical conversations are often impossible between even the most intelligent political thinkers.

Maybe the problem is that the Conservative three-legged stool is not really Free Markets, Christian Fundamentalism, and Peace through Strength.  Instead, maybe it’s:  Limited and enumerated Government, Community and Family Values, and National Sovereignty.   Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee represent those ideas better than ANYONE in the race and thus need to continue to be heard.  Without this perspective Conservatives  look like either: 1) warmongers, 2) greedy money-grubbers, or 3) fanatic proselytes.  (As opposed to Environmentalist Wackos, Feminazis, and Peaceniks).  None of these images were attractive to “Reagan Democrats.”

I believe my point is, if we can’t have a reasonable, logical, and productive conversation with each other through the Republican primaries–regardless of the damn delegate count, how in the hell are we supposed to change the hearts and minds of Liberals and “Moderates?” 

Anyone who would like to see the POSSIBILITY of a Huckabee nomination, need look no further than:

Right Smart

Personally, I think it would be a mistake…once again…to count this man out. At the VERY LEAST, he’s a serious factor at the convention for pulling together the party. Especially given a) Dobson’s endorsement, b) the demographic makeup of the majority of the States left, and c) the fact that there’s another GOP debate scheduled toward the end of February.

It is absolutely impossible for McCain to have the needed 471 delegates between now and the next debate at the end of February, because there are only 308 up for grabs between now and then…which Huckabee will undoubtedly win many of…conceivable a majority.

And thank you to Chuck Todd…who is actually paying attention to the Huckabee factor and not simply ignoring it to start writing about the general election. Considering the Obama factor, if Huckabee were to pull off winner-take-all Virginia (maybe a long shot, but with my Loudoun “Bully Pullpit”, and the millions of hits I get a day…) then this gets REALLY interesting.

Here’s my comment on Chuck Todd’s site:

Here’s the deal…Huckabee is NOT going to exit the race whether or not he loses Virginia…He’s going to stay in and gather up at least as many delegates as Romney has. Why in God’s name wouldn’t he do that?

He will DEFINITELY win more total delegates than Romney if he stays in…therefore he will DEFINITELY have significant clout at the convention.

McCain CANNOT win more than the needed 471 before March 4th…period. He will have to debate Huckabee (and Paul) later this month…period. There is good reason for this to happen because if Huckabee is GOING to concede, then the two can have a little GOP love-fest to unite the party around McCain’s Iraq agenda (while pissing off Ron Paul). Everybody wins.

But if Huckabee makes (yet another) comeback…(and winning Virginia would probably be required) then who knows?

Mr. Huber seems to think that the fat lady is clearing her throat, but the question is: Who is she voting for?

Take a look at this:

OK, this link is now a little outdated…

Now, how is it that having the “Anti-McCain vote” split with Romney in the race doesn’t make it HARDER for McCain to clinch the nomination WITHOUT Romney in the race. It seems a little contradictory to me. Yet again, the Huck is being misunderestimated. Admittedly, it’s probably “one primary too late”, but it certainly doesn’t make it EASIER for McCain if Huckabee stays in…as he has sworn repeatedly he will…

McCain has probably just finished speaking at the same Conference that Romney spoke in. Mike Huckabee will speaking there Saturday morning. If only there was a McCain/Huckabee debate between now and then…

And why is it completely impossible to find a poll in ANY of the upcoming States (Louisiana, Virginia, Kansas–All States that Huckabee could potentially run strongly) in…newer than October?

A few things we should take from last night:

Obama has the momentum.  If California hadn’t been voting for weeks already he would likely have picked up more votes there.  He wins almost everytime he has a chance to show up and on a night with very little chance to show up everywhere, he still won the majority of the States in play.

Huckabee proved a couple of things.  “Front-runners” aren’t necessarily front-runners in Middle America.  A few thousand votes in Missouri and this would have become a VERY different race.  Romney supporters can rest assured that if anything HE ruined HUCKABEE’s chances at the nomination and not the other way around.  The person responsible for Romney’s lack of success is (well…other than Romney) Rudy Giulliani, who engineered winner-take-all-ism in the Northeast, and endorsed McCain.

Huckabee is less of a factor in Romney’s demise than anyone is willing to admit for three reasons:

1) Polls have shown that the majority of Huckabee supporters’ second choice is not Romney, but indeed John McCain…the assumption that Huckabee supporters automatically dislike McCain is flawed and is born of ignorance of the media about how Southerners really think.  No big surprise there…except possibly to members of the media.

2) Huckabee WON 5 states yesterday.  Winners are not “spoilers”…third place finishers are spoilers…and in many cases it was Romney who finished third, thus making HIM the spoiler for Huckabee (Missouri being the best example, but Oklahoma as well).  And in those states where Huckabee finished third he was hardly even a factor.

3) Add up Romney’s, Huckabee’s, and Paul’s delegates and you still can’t equal McCains.

But number 2 is the rub.  Romney fans have forgotten that this is a National Election and winning a few key states (even handily) cannot win you the nomination anymore.  Delegate counts from Southern states in the Republican primary get bigger and bigger and bigger and will play a key role for years to come (it’s warm there…and there are jobs there, and people keep moving there–maybe global warming will help solve that problem).  If you doubt me look at the “Blue vs. Red” makeup in the previous two Presidential General Elections.  All the “big-important” states are blue…sometimes heavily blue…and yet there’s still a southern redneck Republican in the White House.

So what lessons should we all take from this:

1) The South is still important…and will continue to be more and more important (Thank God.)

2) Nothing against Mitt Romney; I actually like the guy…but a smooth-talking New England governor who is only recently towing the Conservative line does not do well in the South.  Believe it or not Southerners read the paper and consistency is fairly important to them.  They prefer Huckabee AND McCain over Romney, because they TRUST them.  Right or wrong, that’s the deal.  And I’m saying this as someone who in a two man race between McCain and Romney would DEFINITELY support Romney.

3) Not a lesson, but instead a position.  I have decided that if Obama gets the nomination he actually has LESS of a chance to get the Presidency than Hillary Clinton.  The reason I believe this is because once the nominations are over Obama can (thankfully) begin to talk about issues…and the Clinton machine will be less of a factor.  Once real issues are being discussed again (finally–hopefully)…Conservative ideals will win the day.  Either of the three on the Republican side can win the argument on ideas.  Obama’s blatant liberalism would finally be on full display, while Hillary can continue to hide around her faux-Moderateness “If I would have known…”

The reason I believe this is simple:  Many people are dissatisfied with the current administration NOT because President Bush has adhered to Conservative principles, but because he hasn’t. But he WON on them…twice.

I managed to catch a bit of an event with the Commonwealth Club of California where Huckabee was laying out his views on various issues. And after 30 minutes, I lost the ability to disagree with the guy on anything of substance. And believe me, this did not come without effort.

So I’ve decided to endorse Mike Huckabee for President (even have a little button on my little corner of the site).  Now thousands and thousands of LogiReaders will blindly go to the polls and vote for him because I SAID THEY SHOULD.

Most of you know my reasons for doing it…traditionalism, tenth amendment, executive experience, blah, blah, etc…Truth is, the guy just makes sense to me.  He approaches ideas like I would and even if we were to disagree on a couple of things, I essentially trust his judgment.  And when it comes to the Chief Executive spot, that’s the deal.  McCain has some foreign policy kudos, and Romney has some business acumen, but I simply don’t trust either of them.  Huckabee strikes a much more realistic note.

So there you go.  Go Mike.

There’ll be a press conference eventually, I’m sure.  Still working out the details.  :o)

Gentlemen:

I was actually at a loss for words (fairly rare), after watching last night’s debate.  What I can’t understand is why a 20-year Republican Senator has such little understanding of how business really works.  And I’m equally confused why a long-time business leader can’t put that Senator in his place.

I saw Anderson (et-al.) force a “two-man race” despite the obvious fact that neither of the two men had anything substantive to say, but the two of you did.  I do not agree with either of you on everything, but am convinced that both of you have a better understanding of true conservatism than either of your opponents.  Even though you represent different factions of the Conservative movement I want to make an appeal to you both:

Stay in.  Whatever you have to do…stay in.  I don’t care how many delegates you come into the convention with.  Fight your way to that convention tooth and nail and make sure the Republican party hears you both before they nominate anyone.  Republicans are more effective when they are underdogs.  Be underdogs and be effective.  That’s all I have to say…like I said loss of words.

Good luck.

Can’t agree with Huckabee on this. Number one, I think it’s a really bad idea to continue to harp on his Christian Leader status. At some point he’s going to have to start appealing to the small government crowd. This is a firm step in the opposite direction.

From the Washington Post.

Last month in Iowa, Huckabee noted the criticism against him for supporting tax increases while governor of Arkansas, and he said the “Washington establishment” was opposed to his candidacy in a party where social conservatives often do not wield the same power as do small-government conservatives.

“Many of us who have been Republicans out of conviction . . . the social conservatives,” he told reporters, “were welcomed in the party as long as we sort of kept our place, but Lord help us if we ever stood forward and said we would actually like to lead the party.”

If anyone was worried about the demise of the Reagan coalition…keep worrying. First, I think the statement is inaccurate…Social Conservatives have had a strong voice and a lot of power in the Republican Party, and small government types have been the ones that have been completely ignored (if the severe lack of vetoes until Embryonic Stem Cell research is ANY indication).

Second, I’m just waiting for him to say, “Yes I raised taxes in Arkansas, but I did what I had to do for my state…it was a State issue and State responsibility; and one thing I DIDN’T do was beg the Federal Government for more money. As President, I will leave the Governors to take responsibility for the welfare and education of their States’ citizens. At the same time I will address the issue that IS my responsibility, and that is secure the borders and fix the immigration system so that States like Arkansas don’t have to deal with the issues they SHOULDN’T have to deal with.” Or something like that…It would be a sound argument…accurate, and constitutionally sound.

If we don’t hear that, and soon, we have to operate under the assumption that he is going to “improve the lives” of Americans in exactly the same way as President as he did as Governor: more taxes and more programs. So instead of simply giving lip service to the tenth amendment, he’s going to have to cite specific examples why he would be a good arbiter of that right.

Also, someone interviewed Mr. Limbaugh the other day, and he has the opinion that the Democrats WANT Huckabee to be elected so Hillary can tear him to shreds and shut the “Evangelicals” up once and for all. It won’t work, but it does make you think.

And THIS is even worse:

“Especially with the economic insecurity people are feeling, they like that there’s a leader who, because of his religious belief, really wants to care for everybody,” said Hunter, who recently announced that he is backing Huckabee in the upcoming Florida primary. “It’s about evangelicals who are willing to care for people who are hurting, who are marginalized.”

Huckabee’s aides have been eager to dismiss the notion that he is only a Christian candidate, and Huckabee complained Saturday in Grand Rapids that debate questions about his faith are of “an unconstitutional nature,” since the Constitution forbids a religious test for potential officeholders.

I’ll admit that it must be aggravating to ALWAYS get the religious questions, but he’s obviously gotten used to it. Romney has to love it. But unconstitutional? Stop it. You’re killing me.

But we’re still waiting for evidence, or at least a strong affirmation, of this:

Instead, what Huckabee seems to have tapped into is what he is himself: a traditional Republican who advocates keeping taxes low and maintaining a strong military, but with strong roots in the social conservative movement.

A must read or watch on Meet the Press today. Out of all the Sunday shows Tim Russert’s is the last one that only SLIGHTLY drives me crazy and I am capable of watching without throwing things at my TV. Most importantly, the two candidates that I believe speak the best English were on. Tell me what ya’ll think. There’s some good stuff, but just a few quick comments:

1) Huckabee very adeptly separates his Pro-Life stance from his faith, which I think is long overdue. Christian faith and a belief in the sanctity of life, although potentially connected, are not synonymous.

And here’s a little snippet (in medias res) which I love where Tim is grilling Huckabee on immigration:

MR. RUSSERT: “Don’t punish those kids.” A week later, you said, “No, no, no, send the parents home,” and what happens to the kids?

GOV. HUCKABEE: They go with their parents. I mean, I can’t imagine a parent not taking their children…

MR. RUSSERT: But they’re American citizens. Why do they have to leave the country?

GOV. HUCKABEE: Because they’re–first, before they’re American citizens, they’re the children of their parents.

I could literally talk all day about how cool I think that line is.

2) Now maybe I’m not paying attention, but was this the first time I’ve heard a Democratic candidate for President utter the words, “Islamic Extremism” AND “Islamic Terrorism” in an interview.  Bravo.

Overall, I think it would be an absolute DREAM if both of these guys got nominated. I truly hope that it happens. Rarely will there be a better contrast of backgrounds, with a higher potential of logical ideas being hotly debated. As far as who wins…