BIG Michael Medved Article On Huckabee/An In-Depth Professional Analysis

Michael Medved has said this on his Salem network radio program, but today, he has an article posted at:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MichaelMedved/2007/08/15/huckabee_he_could_be_the_real_deal Huckabee: He could be the "real deal"Wednesday, August 15, 2007

Huckabee: He could be the "real deal"
By Michael Medved
Wednesday, August 15, 200

Medved’s article pretty much says it all, comparing his Republican and general election advantages relative to the others. It sounds like I could have written it, myself, only I don’t have a national radio program!

http://mikehuckabeepresident2008.blogspot.com

has posted a link to and highlights of the comprehensive analysis of Ioea Straw Poll results by Dr. David Terr of the University of California at Berkley, and Lead Analyst for USA Election Polls. This Huckabee blog linked me to the report, but you should be interested in seeing the in-depth analysis of the Straw Poll and candidates. I particularly liked the dismissal of the shallow reports of conventional media. The initial summary was that Huckabee and Paul were winners and Romney was a loser: The web Site is USA Election Polls and should be bookmarked. The report is titled, “What the Media Should Report About the Ames Straw Poll” :

http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/articles/ames-straw-poll-results.html

Take Control Of YOUR Vote/Huckabee And Fred Thompson And Conservatism/Huckabee In The News, Last Week

If you're catching up afte the Ames Straw Poll got your attention, at the bottom of this post are some things I accumulated in the week leading up to Huckabee's showing in Ames..

Unfazed, the Notheastern liberal “experts” at MSNBC, convened and discussed only Romney and Giuliani, with a mention of Thompson and that McCain has just offended Republicans, now distrusting on too many counts. The absolute rejection of Iowa Republican activists, of Thommpson, Giuliani, and McCain did not even give them pause. Conservative Christians, they said, care more about terrorism than they do their other pet issues. And presumably to these people, conservatives think Giuliani and Romney are the only Republicans in America who can guide us in that challenge. What kind of nonsense is that? Are the other candidates running without any conviction about how the commander-in-chief job that they are running for ought to confront a threat to the nation? These commenters have such a narrow, blinkered perspective that they couldn’t see a bus coming at them if it didn’t have the obligatory media celebrity signs on it. As always, remember that it is the American people, not these insular Northeastern pundits, who choose a president. And Republican nominees are chosen by Republicans. Look closely at the candidates, and make your choice, not theirs. I would add, tell them to stick it in their ear. There is an able, experience stout-hearted America-loving conservative in the race whom conservatives who met him personally chose over money in Iowa. Mitt Romney spent $600/vote at the Iowa Straw Poll. Mike Huckabee spent less than $50/vote. Though there is plenty more to explore and I encourage it, that says more than enough by itself.

Just so you don’t think I’m the only one who’s noticed Fred Thomson’s unprincipled (he may understand that money buys politicians, but he doesn’t understand The Constitution and that laws can’t stop it, which is a liberal idea), Nate Nelson writes at WordPress about Thompson’s overblown conservatism at Huckabee’s Appeal , as does Captain’s Quarters, from where I followed the link. Huckabee’s blog cites: Ed Morrissey of the Captain's Quarters Blog adds more insight into the great (Huckabee) article from the WSJ.

I would sum it up simply this way: Thompson as the conservative savior is a trumped up media fabrication.

1) Scroll down at http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Do_Republicans_secretly_want_socialized_health_0806.html and watch the video of Frank Luntz talking about response to Huckabee, whom he said gained the most from Sunday’s ABC debate in Iowa..

2) MA For Huckabee posted a link to a video of Tuesday’s interview with Matt Lauer on MSNBC Gov. Huckabee's Interview With Matt Lauer Video

3) Kevin Tracy’s notice on Tuesday of Newt Gingrich’s comments that he expects Huckabee to catch on. Gingrich Likes Mike on Tuesday.

4) Mike Huckabee ’08 posted a number of other links, including SC4 Huckabee’s posting video of Wednesday’s appearance with Chris Matthews on Hardball. Huckabee Updates from the Blogroll

5) This is a YouTube video of highlights from Huckabee’s debate appearances. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sdZY3oSupU

6) Chris Celizza and Dan Balz of The Washington Post, interviewed Huckabee on the campaign trail in Iowa, Thuesday morning, found here.

McCain: Iowa straw poll result 'meaningless'

Oh, two Things I Forgot...

Here is the link to contribute at the Huckabee campaign web page: http://www.mikehuckabee.com/

And, as predicted, John McCain called the Ames Straw Poll (where he drew less than 1%) "meaningless." McCain: Iowa straw poll result 'meaningless'

From CNN: "

McCain, who garnered 101 votes, said he was surprised to get that many.

'I thought it would be zero,' McCain said after talking to about 350 members of the Columbia Rotary Club. 'I think straw polls are meaningless and that's all. I understand that it's a great way for the party to get money. I haven't engaged in any straw polls either here in South Carolina or Iowa or New Hampshire or anywhere else.'

McCain, who was in New Hampshire over the weekend, said missing the straw poll does not affect his strategy to win primaries in all three early GOP primary states, including Iowa."

What else is he going to say?

Post-Straw Poll Comments On Huckabee, What Is The Importance Of Principle, And Lessons From Tommy Thompson And Jim Gilmore

There are a few things that I wanted to post, today, starting with the obvious gladness that Mike Huckabee finished second in the Iowa Straw Poll as the last post explained, byt many have commented and complimwented him on the web and elsewhere. Look it up. This afternoon, radio talk-show host Michael Medved said he liked Huckabee and more importantly, that Huckabee is top tier, should gather the searching conservative support, that that other supposed conservative should now not even enterthe race…the one named Thompson. And he’s right and the supposedly concerned about life Sam Brownback should get out and close pr-life ranks. But we should also note what our “friends” at FOX News had to say, today: Charles Krauthammer said that Huckabee, “a year from now will be an asterisk of an asterisk.” Fred Barnes said that Ames “meant zilch.” I’m thinking that the change in flow of support will suggest otherwise. By the way, everyone contribute to Huckabee. We have some encouragement through the media about a heartfelt conservative. That hasn’t happened since Reagan.

I also responded to an email from a Christian that bemoaned ideological stubbornness and pointed to the example of “charlatans” like Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker:

I of course, sympathize with people who are primarily motivated by the issue of life. I agree with its primary importance. But it is not for “feel good” purposes, but for the very practical purpose of the psychological (I’ll say that, rather than “spiritual, so as not to be frightening to the skeptic) health of the society. I believe we are in the process of illness well unto death if we release that concern to the cultural currents.

However, I agree with you that a focus on purely or merely personal sentiment so as to distract from that larger matter, can have a net negative effect. As I’m sure I have said, my refusal to support Giuliani is in no sense persona so that, for example, I would not protest his appointment to a post where his particular talents could be put to good use, merely because he is “pro-choice.”

But, to hire a “leader” of the nation or even of the party who has no concept of the magnitude of that concern is entirely unacceptable. I will have no part, whatsoever, in such an effort “ And just talking about something good is not the same as achieving something of value. “I can agree with that last statement, and this one, too: “Evangelicalism generally seems to be drowning in an ocean of feel-good verbiage. Righteousness is a far different thing from self-righteousness.”

But, I don’t just think…I KNOW, that Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker are not crooks or charlatans. Are they in broader terms relatively shallow and often maladroit, and were they susceptible to the power that others carelessly laid in their laps” Absolutely, and throw in other popular ministers, largely known through television. Welcome to the human race, BTW. It frustrates the devil out of me when the media sticks a microphone in one of these faces, particularly when they expound on a topic on which they are miserably informed. But, those facts do not define a charlatan, which they are not. I am curious what you think I mean, when I say, “I know.”

You’re also right about “feel good” verbiage and the distinction between righteousness and unrighteousness. But, the challenge for us is to be more gracious than they might sometimes be.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I also had some thoughts in the wake of Tommy Thompson’s departure from the contest for the Republican nomination:

Experience And Demonstrated Competence Can Stand Aside

Let me say that of course I supporter Mike Huckabee and neither of these two. But, it highlights a problem with the entire process that experience-wise, Tommy Thompson and the already departed Jim Gilmore were among the most qualified candidates in the field of Republican candidates.

Thompson was elected as governor of Wisconsin FOUR TIME! And he served in the president's cabinet as Secretary Of Health AND Human Services. He was exceptionally apt at developing policy innovations such as the welfare reform policy that he developed in Wisconsin that was the model for the ultimately very successful national legislation that Dick Morris advised Bill Clinton to sign into law. Thompson's ideas were well thought out and not just reflexes for a political constituency.

And Jim Gilmore had served as governor of the important potentially swing state of Virginia, as well as chairman of The Republican National Committee and a Congressional committee on counter-terrorism. He was likewise a very sober and deliberative executive.

Huckabee would another with a lot of executive experience. Fortunately, he has a warmth and charisma to add to his executive experience that might allow him to poke his head above the ceiling of attention imposed by media coverage. What do the so-called "front-runners" have that these don't? Media celebrity: that's it.

Only Romney has even 1 term of executive experience among the celebrated four. Now he runs for the presidential nomination of what is supposed to be the "conservative" party in America, after serving as governor of one of the most liberal states in the country, for which he had fortuitously been more qualified in policy terms at the time of THAT campaign.

The coincidence between the history of infidelity to conservative philosophy among these four media darlings or..."frontrunners" is no coincidence.

At the beginning of the 2000 cycle, of 14 declared Republican candidates, the two least philosophically consistent ones enjoyed the most celebrity, and consequently survived the longest in the contest: G.W. Bush and John McCain. McCain was the least philosophically tethered, and barely lost out to runner-up Bush, with the marquee name and attendant money.

Given the popular media profile required to be taken at all seriously, conservatives need to find the most philosophically lucid comedian or actor to have a chance at getting near the same starting line as the favorites of the media.

Despite their experience and ability, Thompson and Gilmore couldn't shine through the media fog. If you feel strongly about ideas that you believe the country needs to acknowledge and you want to run for office, you might start working on your jokes.

SC Hotline Ames Straw Poll Wrapup

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHjm5iWGSkQ

Ames Straw Poll Analysis And Fallout Considerations

Well, I debated whether to post my predictions before the straw poll. Both, my less-than-exemplary history at predicting votes, and the modesty that didn’t want to be embarrassed if I overestimated Huckabee’s strength, made me decline to do so.

However, as the results (…finally) came out, I had hit the top two, with their percentages pretty darned close. It wasn’t even terribly bad, below that. I had thought that I would post what I had predicted and how and why. I will do that and speculate about what happens from here. First, I’ll list the actual results, followed by what had been my predictions as of 7 o’clock, after closely watching reports on the web for over a week, tweaking them as I went. I admit that my last tweaks came as a reach for sobriety, after commiserating with another Huckabee blogger about anxiety that we might have gotten to close to be objective, and contemplating that Huckabee was hiring no busses to cart in voters, while others were, especially Romney. Romney had spent so lavishly as to be able to haul in thousands of complete mercenaries, not necessarily voting conscience at all. Given that, I think we can consider 31.5 percent a poor showing.

Now, I had also tweaked up Fred McGiuliani, which I had continued to lower based on what I read, which indicated that 1) Iowa didn’t particularly like them, especially Giuliani and McCain, which only a modicum of sobriety would admit is the reason they didn’t compete in the first place. Do you think they thought that they could win and decided to skip it, anyway? Gimme a break! And 2) Though the Iowa Republican Party had left them on the ballot, Iowans were less than pleased with that and were sure to punish them. However, I tweaked them back up a point or two, figuring that most attenders would disdain them, but some party insider activists would see them as inevitable and vote for them, anyway. They may have, but there weren’t relatively many of them. Have a look and I’ll comment, afterward.

Straw Poll – Actual Results

1st: Mitt Romney received 4,516 votes 31.5%
2nd: MIKE HUCKABEE received 3,587 votes 18.1%
3rd: Sam Brownback received 2,812 votes 15.1%
4th: Tom Tancredo received 1,961 votes 13.7%
5th: Ron Paul received 1,305 votes 9.1%
6th: Tommy Thompson received 1,039 votes 7.2%
7th: Fred Thompson received 203 votes 1.4%
8th: Rudy Guliani received 183 votes 1.2%
9th: Duncan Hunter received 174 votes 1.2%
10th: John McCain received 101 votes .71%
11th: John Cox he received 41 votes .29%

Predictions – 7:00 Aug 11

Straw Poll

Predictions

Romney: 32%

Huckabee: 20%

Tommy Thompson: 9%

Brownback: 8%

Tancredo: 8%

Paul: 8%

Giuliani: 5%

Fred Thompson: 4%

Hunter: 3

McCain: 3%

I predicted Mitt Romney would take (buy) 32% . He got 31.5% As I said, when you consider what Romney spent and bussed people from every county, with everyone saying he would blow the field away, that’s not particularly impressive, which is corroborated her, Iowa Straw Poll Results and Analysis Liberty Papers , where it was called pathetic There were 14,302 votes cast. And he couldn’t bus in 5,000 votes? A lot of people must have ridden Romney’s busses in, and voted for someone else.

As Mike Huckabee always said, he surely is getting the best “miles-per-gallon.” In terms of dollars per vote, he must have blown the field away. TIME noted, What Iowa's Straw Poll Tells the GOP TIME that that Huckabee’s campaign had won more votes than it had sold tickets. They had not even rented any busses to haul voters in. The campaign web site was slow, after the report: Either they were working on it or hopefully, contributions were coming in. There will be some dropout fallout, after today: the more the better. If conservatives are going to compete with the media darlings (below), they should coalesce behind Huckabee, to build a unified movement. While Romney was on FOX News Sunday and Brownback on ABC’s This Week, Huckabee was on CBS’ Face The Nation, this morning.

Sam Brownback should drop out, but first signs aren’t encouraging: Brownback buoyed by results in Iowa, and on ABC’s This Week, Sunday morning, he called his third-place finish a ticket to move forward and set a target for the Jan. Iowa Caucuses. If he cares about life as much as he says he does, he should want to consolidate the consistent and resolute pro-life vote, against the media’s pets. I never thought Brownback was an endearing or lucid candidate, but I at least saw him as sincere about his priorities. Now, I need an explanation of why I should see his determination as more out of principle than ego. And this is about the respect of human life, not a personal pet issue. As a Huckabee supporter, I have to admit that if Huckabee had finished third, I wouldn’t want him to quit. But, Huckabee is a more appealing and able candidate, who beat Brownback while spending less money and without bussing in support. And I earnestly believe that Huckabee can win the general election while Brownback can’t, or even win the nomination. Until I learn something that I can’t now see, Brownback cares more about Brownback than he does the sanctity of life.

I guessed Brownback would get 6%, figuring that some voters would be put off by his negative campaigning. If more had been, Huckabee would have gotten even more than he did. Brownback worked Iowa hard, brought in 51 busses of people, and got a little over 15%. Still, he finished behind Huckabee in what everyone saw as the race for Iowa’s social conservatives. Just those two together, bettered Romney’s total, and Romney far outspent the two, together. With the support of Brownback, Tancredo, Thompson, Hunter (he’d probably even pick up a few from Paul), Huckabee would have thrashed Romney, and with everything else against them, conservatives should go into the caucuses united.

Tom Tancredo shouldn’t be disappointed with 13.7%, which beat everyone’s expectations, even mine. I thought I had tweaked him up to 8%, for the fiercely anti-immigration contingent and his strong Christian statements to heavily Christian Iowa Republicans. Still, that could be another big chunk of consolidated social conservatives which put Romney in deep soup for the January Iowa Caucuses.

Unless he’s ticked off about only getting 9% (I had predicted 8%), Ron Paul isn’t dropping out. His is a crusade. Besides, after most of his support went home, I don’t know where the rest would go. I figured his support would be the least flexible, going neither up nor down. I had him between 6 and 10% from start to finish.

Tommy Thompson said he would drop out, if he didn’t finish first or second. He finished 6^th. Well… I’d just say that I’d rather have him stay than Brownback and Tancredo.

I might as well mention Duncan Hunter, now, since there’s more to be said about Fred McGiuliani. In black and white, Hunter has as much gravitas as anyone in the field, and he’s a conservative Christian, too. But gravitas and faith alone don’t capture the public’s fancy. You can print your positions on paper, but you have to capture people with empathy and charisma. His 1% isn’t going to make or break anyone.

Fred McGiuliani (at least that name hits a few ethnic groups) didn’t get 3% between them. I was afraid I would underestimate the force of media celebrity. But in this case, I overestimated. But, never fear, guys! You can be sure that the media will continue to hold you up as frontrunners. In fact, they showed so poorly, that the media will take that as proof that the Iowa Straw Poll didn’t mean much, and so will they. And, much of the public will buy it. But, I don’t think it will make them win in the SC Caucuses and New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries.

Rudy Giuliani wants to hold his breath through those early contests, just showing respectably and having the media hold up his profile until Super Tuesday on Feb. 5^th. I think he might as well skip those early contests and start hitting NY, CA, FL, and other larger states, hard and loudly, RIGHT NOW!

John McCain should hit New Hampshire and troll for what remains of those Independents who aren’t angry about the war. But, he needs to have some magic up his sleeve that I don’t know about, because I don’t see how he can pull it off.

Assuming that he’s still going to get in, in early September, I would still think that Fred Thompson has the best chance of the media pinups. But, I would guess that enjoying the good poll numbers while sitting on the sidelines, he would have liked to sit out of the Ames Straw Poll and still pull 15%. The 1.4% doesn’t exactly bring him in with a push: could that discourage him from entering?. Hopefully, conservatives will think they have a live option in Huckabee. Besides, Huckabee’s clearer, more consistent, more engaging, and an experienced executive. It really shouldn’t be close. If the media really liked him, he’d have Thompson buried. But, psssst…the media are liberal! But, Huckabee did what he had to do.

I’m pretty sure what the media disposition will be. But, I’m anxious to see how severely they will be that way and how much the public will continue to fall for it.

Still Despairing Blind Entranced Voters

I was reading another blog, where people were bemoaning the futility of achieving changes like The Fair Tax (I had said elect Huckabee, who is dead serious and will put political pressure on Congress for the 2012 cycle, if nothing else. A response was that Huckabee was at best, Romney, Giuliani, or Tompson’s Veep, so nothing could get done. I’m about a dozen years full of this pathetic powerless moaning of the people who actually do the voting. Here’s my comment:

You know, it's so wearying watching people surrender their own right to choose their leaders to the fraction of 1% who constitute the media magpies, so they can tell them who "the leaders: are: read: who you can not waste your time thinking about, let alone voting for. Those "leaders" are none of them principled, but at best, leaning sentimental conservatives.

Do you think that's an accident? The same thing happened in the cycle for the 2000 election. At the Ames Straw Poll, of the 14 declared Republican candidate, Bush with name and money finished first. A brilliant and principled Alan Keyes finished second. John McCain was not even on the map.

Yet, by the time the media had finished painting, near the end of the cycle, Bush and McCain were the only people in the media-perception, contesting for the nomination. Alan Keyes was still in the contest, but he was considered an also-ran hanger-on. McCain and Bush were the least principled conservatives of the original 14. IT'S NO ACCIDENT!

It is supposedly conservative Republicans who actually DO THE SELECTING, in the nomination process. But, they stagger, zombie-like, to the Pied Pipering of a media that they supposedly HATE.

You people obviously have no clue what is happening on the ground, in Iowa. Just watch the people force the media to change the picture on and after Saturday's Straw Poll. The media may try to explain the "aberration." Will the people let themselves be talked out of the facts, in the days following” We’ll see. But remember, it's the responsibility of THE PEOPLE, NOT THE MEDIA, to decide who are candidates and representatives are

Conversation On Republicans As Saturday Iowa Straw Poll Approaches

I continue my dicussion with Steve Maloney on both our blogs:
http://camp2008victorya.blogspot.com/ . Today, we are discussing abortion and the best approach for pro-life Americans. People who have read me, have seen these questions and my position. If the conversation gets new and striking, I may post it. But, last night, Steve commented on the Republican presidential candidates, and I responded:

You aren't going to like some of this, but . . . there are tremendous consequences associated with NOT winning the presidency. It affects every issue that conservatives care about, from the WOT to abortion. It also affects issues that are very important to Huckabee followers, such as home-schooling and faith-based initiatives.

>I think you may be over-optimistic on Huckabee's chances. McCain has held up pretty well in polls, but I wonder if they mean much right now. Hunter came across (past tense!) to me as overly solemn and too focused on the single-issue of immigration. I have never been able to determine what Brownback's "message" is. Jim Gilmore was/is a good man but he never came across as someone the American people >would embrace as a possible President.

It wouldn’t be the first time I was “over-optimistic.” I love to talk about issues in politics and elsewhere. But, I don’t understand people. I expect more of them than they sometimes deliver. However, it sure is plain to me that to whatever degree you might think, most people see Huckabee’s trajectory as upward. Frank Luntz was on Hannity & Colmes, tonight, and in direct response to the question, “Who won the debate,” said, “Mike Huckabee won the debate (dramatically, in fact), according to our focus group.” He said, Mike Huckabee is the anti-establishment candidate in the Republican campaign, and that’s what people like. I’m thinking that Ron Paul supporters would have something to say about that. But traditional analysts probably discount Paul.

I read one poll (ARG) where Tancredo was getting four percent in Colorado. Hunter is not doing any better than that in CA. (Huckabee has been getting 50% almost in Arkansas for contrast.)

Tancredo has been too shrill on a few points: very passionate, of course, but indecorous for a president. Hunter is no lightweight, especially on foreign policy. But, he is not vigorously campaigning on the ground. I don’t see how he goes into the fall.

I don't think people should run at all unless they have something (vision, policies) that are very compelling to a significant number of voters. The immigration issue is great for temporarily firing up the base, but it's not a srrong, salable issue in national elections. The same (alas) is true of abortion. It's an important issue for some people, but it's not a dominating one for the vast majority of voters.

For a lot of people abortion is a dominating issue. For those for whom it isn’t, more’s the pity. For me it is. I’d vote for a pro-life Democrat, and I disagree with their prescriptions on EVERYTHING else, before I’d vote for a Republican who didn’t understand the sanctity of life (thankfully it won’t come to that, very soon) . But, as I’ve said, the most important issue isn’t my feelings. The most important issue is a crucial component in the foundation of the American creed, that America is in the process of ruin if we let that standard drift down the river.

The economy is a big one. Iraq is big. The WOT is big but somewhat amorphous. Health care is moderately big and the Dems seem to have an advantage there.

“Health issues” calls for Huckabee, too. Once an American city goes up in smoke, the WOT won’t be amorphous, anymore. But, won’t that be a little later than we’d like?

Mike sometimes strikes me as lacking passion. In fact, he may have the (inner) passion but he's not an angry man (a good thing in my mind) or a driven man (not so good). Maybe he suffers from being a well-balanced individual. Mike has built good support in Iowa and elsewhere, but I originally expected him to start challenging the front-runners to a greater degree than he has.

Huckabee’s not an angry man. He’s explicit about that, too: “I’m conservative, but I’m not mad at anybody about it.” That’s the model of Christ, who represented a just father, but was only angry at those who wrongly spoke for God. But, I’ve never perceived a lack of passion.

In one of the debates, Tancredo came out against LEGAL immigration. He's trying to take more water out of that well than there is. To me, his position on immigration may make sense legalistically but I wonder if it's compatiable with Christianity, which frankly doesn't recognize borders as morally compelling. We have 6 billion "neighbors."

It really isn’t compatible with Christianity, in action if not in intention. It’s Christianity that says that suffering matters among all men. So, we’ve disconnected something if we won’t use the tools we have to relieve the suffering of other people. Some like Ron Paul and liberals sound as though working for other people isn’t our business , though he may well think that private interest should tend to that. But, private interests don’t have the means to unseat tyranny. I can only shake my head at the supposedly “loving” people who pushed us out of Vietnam and never said a peep when 3 million people were subsequently slaughtered.

There is NO national will (and no national majority) to deport 12 million illegals (many, many of whom are children). We need to admit that and then go on from there. Otherwise, we keep poor Emma Lazurus turning over in her grave.

Besides that, there’s no national ability. The problem is our officials and our law, more than it is the immigrants. Physician, heal thyself.

As for the nominee, I think it probably will be Giuliani, although that will play itself out over the fall. National security is the Republicans biggest issue, and Giuliani benefits from his image as America's Mayor. He also benefits from the perception that it's going to take a somewhat mean-son-of-a-gun to beat Hillary. I see someone like Mike matching up well against someone like Obama (and Biden), but I wonder how he as a true gentleman would do against Hillary.

If Americans don’t prefer a gentleman, whose problem is that? They’ll get what they deserve.

Fred Thompson? I doubt he'll even enter the race. He has more baggage than the lost-luggage warehouse at U. S. Airways. Does anyone think he has a chance to beat a Clinton-Richardson ticket? If so, on what basis?

The more the days pass, the more I’m thinking in the same direction. We aren’t the only ones saying that, now. Luntz and others have said that he’s losing at this point. I said that if he really cares, he needs to get in, this week, to get any bump in his now stagnant and leaning downward status. He may have ridden that no-risk media attention horse for too long.

Romney has spent tons of money but his standing in (most) of the Feb. 5 states (aside from Michigan and Utah) is anemic. His Mormon religion is (was?) helping him raise money but it's putting a low ceiling on his ability to attract non-Mormon votes. I think he knows this and is trying to figure out to counteract the problem.

About Romney, speaking of the general election: Everyone worried whether Christian conservatives would support a Mormon. But, maybe they ain’t seen nothin’ ‘til he wins the Republican nomination and liberals treat his Mormonism like a plunger in the hands of a brutal NY cop.

It's critical to see a President -- and conservatives rarely do -- as governing an extremely diverse and cantankerous country, one with 100 million legal minorities. It is extremely hard to govern this country on an ideological basis -- Reagan certainly knew that.

Huckabee again…He’s gracious AND a true conservative.

GWB and Dick Cheney ("deficits don't matter anymore") believed (believe?) that it's impossible to govern in classic Republican style. GWB also believes (probably correctly) that it's critical not to lose the Hispanic vote if Republicans are to continue to contend in national elections. Is he wrong? It's not at all obvious that he is.

I certainly agree with that, and so would Huckabee. Some people seem to think there’s a secret to dealing with minorities. Here’s an idea: treat them like humans, brothers and children of God.

Frankly, in terms of social issues, GWB may be the most conservative President we see in the remainder of our lifetimes.

That’s like saying he high-jumped over a toothpick on the ground.

Larry

The Below about A spirit Of Fear was in response to a comment about voting for ANY Republican because its so critical on so many frontsthat Democrats don't win.

Don't Have A Spirit Of Fear

A lot of what you are saying is very thoughtful and I agree with much of it. I had instinctive reactions and will answer point by point in the context of your email, below. But, I want first to strongly question an assumption under the surface of your statement that there are critical things at stake if Republicans lose. For one thing, I don’t believe I should sign on to something wrong because of a spirit of fear. Defending what is right is my job. Beyond that, it’s God’s. Am I going to tell God, “Well, I know I endorsed all of those bad things, but I was afraid for other things? I really thought it was helping you in the big picture, and you need all the help you can get.”

But I don’t think we should even totally fear Democrats. There is really a striking assumption in your thinking: And that is that Democrats mean and will do what they say. Most of them, at least the national and media-covered ones, I don’t think they do. The bottom-line is power. They want to manipulate the voters’ emotions. If (when?) technology makes it graphically plain what abortion is doing, and the nation turns decidedly pro-life, the Democrats will become “pro-life.” A lot of Democrats like Al Gore and Richard Gephardt, were pro-life until they got to the national stage. That issue is just an example:

The Democrats can say all they want about pulling out of Iraq, and it’s a one-upsmanship battle, right now. At the start, I thought Bill Richardson was the most level-head, feet-on-the-ground Democrat. Now, grasping for a breath of attention, Richardson is all: “Let’s bring them all home, right now.” Frankly, he’s talking to (at) the left-wing doorkeepers in the Democratic Party: “Look at me! Look at me! Open the door! I gave the password!” But, there’s no way that President Bill Richardson would do that. Not only that, neither would any Democrat…probably even Mike Gravel.

Once the political dance contest is over, the winner who is sworn in has something infinitely bigger to deal with: That person is ACTUALLY PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES! It would be like a doctor who was out on a bender the night, before, who is called in the morning to perform emergency surgery on a family member: That’ll sober you up, quickly.

When you are sworn in as president, and are regularly briefed and advised about security, diplomatic, and global necessities, you don’t say, “Nah! Forget all that!...”, not even if you’re afraid of offending your base. For that matter, “offending” may be too strong a word: how about “ruffling?” The fact is that most of your own party (and even the NY Times, if you’re a Democrat) will now assume that what you do is necessary, and not motivated by politics or money or imperialism… And, you will do what is absolutely necessary.

The fact is, I don’t believe any of these guys is about to summarily pull out and abandon Iraq to the wolves. I’d believe Ron Paul WAY before I believed what any of these Democrats are saying. When Iran’s “Achmedinejad swears destruction, we should pay attention. When Democrats are making annoying buzzing noises, we should flick hem away from our ear. Ron Paul is something of a curiosity to me. I don’t believe he’s a clown, like Michael Medved said he is (WE INTERRUPT THIS POST TO REPORT THAT MICHAEL MEDVED ALSO SAID THAT MIKE HUCKABEE PROPABLY HELPED HIMSELF THE MOST AT YESTERDAY’S DEBATE Hugh Hewitt didn’t even mention any of what he sees as the also-rans other than Romney and Giuliani– and now, we return to our regularly scheduled program). But, I can only speculate that Ron Paul might be nestled in an anachronistic dogma that we can best address any problems by being an example and by trading with others. I believe that there’s generally a lot of truth to that. But, in a word of today’s travel, communication, and destructive technology and an ideological enemy dedicated to the point of suicide…uhhh, I’d be pretty slow to bury my head in the sand. And, a president of the United States can’t responsibly do that with the nation, and in fact with the world, given our capacities.

That’s why a Democrat probably won’t do that, either: if all advisors, diplomats, and foreign contacts are telling you of grave situations, you blow them off, and very bad or terrible things happen as a result, the truth will out and you will be shamed to an extent that Richard Nixon never dreamed. Heck, in today’s environment, you’d surely be impeached!

Bill Clinton was as feckless a president as America has had in our lifetimes, maybe ever. And, he didn’t bring the country to the ground…down yes, but not to the ground. And that may have been as much or more for the protection of his own reputation as it was love for America. The biggest damage a president will do is appointing judges, vetoing bills, and being a poor model. That isn’t nothing. But it probably isn’t the whole ballgame.

By the way, Hugh Hewitt means well, but he’s perceptually pop-culture bound: the people don’t make the choices, the (liberal) media does.

.

Huckabee In A National Election

Stephen Maloney’s (http://camp2008victorya.blogspot.com/ ) comment on the last post considered how Mike Huckabee could fare in the general election, citing how Giuliani and Romney seem already to be aiming at the general election, in opposition to Democrats.

I actually strongly believe that Huckabee is the best Republican candidate to face a Democrat, particularly Hilary. He’s from Arkansas, remember? He knows the Clintons and he doesn’t underestimate Hillary.

But first, we all know that Huckabee like anyone else who is nominated by them, will have one BIG media disadvantage! He’s a REPUBLICAN! They’ll go after him. Questions will rise about whether he can be objective, given his religious biases. which will sometimes be portrayed more as delusions. But, Huckabee explains his faith straight out as not a mere private comfort, but as the driving force that compels concern about things that Republicans don’t speak enough about:.

His faith is what calls him to his concern for life, not just unborn, but afterward as well. In Arkansas he acted to provide health care coverage for children whose parents couldn’t afford it, and to structure a program of accountability in Arkansas (at effective and the appropriate state level. His faith called him to maintain Arkansas’ environment and parks and forests. He always cites the Boy Scout’s duty to “leave the place in as good or better condition than you found it. His faith calls him to highlight the immorality of corporate officials who reward themselves with great treasure while driving the corporation into bankruptcy and hanging thousands of employees out to dry. CEOs deserve to make a lot of money, but we should call evil what it is when they not only don’t reward, but punish “the employees who helped them make that money. Government can’t take control of corporations, but it can call out what is immorality.

I initially interrupted this response to listen to a brief radio interview with talk show host, Greg Allen in Iowa who has been strongly supporting Huckabee, in which he discusses a few of these things. It’s a good short listen, and it will be replayed on the web this afternoon. The campaign web site often puts these interviews up in audio (in this case) or video in the “Newsroom” Here’s the information on the show and where to find it:

10:50 a.m. CT – Guest on “The Right Balance” nationally-syndicated radio program with host Greg Allen. To listen to the program, check out: www.accentradio.com and www.therightbalance.org (The show airs from 2:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m. CT at www.iowanewstalk.com).

I want to say one other thing about what Huckabee would contend with, though again, I think any Republican would face something similar. Do you think everyone was crazy about Mitt Romney in Massachusetts? I watch the feeds from the web on Huckabee, and a good percentage of it appears to be sour grapes from leftward publications that never got over losing elections to Huckabee, in this traditionally Democratic state. There are old accusations (poorly founded unless you have an axe to grind) and cynical comments, usually when he males any sort of a wave in the national discussion. Bur if Huckabee is nominated, this stuff will be golden to the national media. Keith Olbermann on MSNBC will be demanding a resignation before Huckabee is signed in.

But I also think Huckabee is best equipped to respond to things with grace and dignity. Will that please everyone? Of course, not. This is America, where partisanship has come to resemble religious conflict like Hindus and Muslims in India and Pakistan, or at least Yankee and Red Sox fans.

Frank Lutz’s Focus Group at Drake Debate Shows Huckabee Big Winner

Frank Lutz’s Focus Group at Drake Debate Shows Huckabee Big Winner http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0807/5257.html
We should still see trends, this week. But, it's looking pretty good. The Washington Post/ABC News telephone poll prior to the debate Had Romney on top at 26%, Giuliani 2nd at 14%, Unannouced Fred Thompson at 13%, Huckabee and McCain tied at 8%.

After the debate and Luntz's focus group showing only 1 who wanted Huckabee to win, before the debate. But, after the debate, 14 chose Huckabee, folloowed by 10 for Romney, who picked up 1. Everyone else fell, Giuliani from 8 to 3 and Fred Thompson from 5 to 1. How are these guys going to gain, this week. I expect someone to come head-hunting with an attack on Huckabee. And it seems to me that the only way Fred Thompson gets a bump is to announce, this week. At this point, I'm picking Huckabee 2nd and not terribly far behind Romney. Giuliani may be in a contest with Brownback and Tommy Thompson, who said he might not be able to continue without a 1st or 2nd finish. He's been working Iowa for a few months, but does he know something that NO ONE else does?

Now, if there are dropouts after the Staw Poll, where will that support go? More later...

Republicans Iowa Debate And Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.

I have been contacted by and in conversation with Stephen Maloney, who is in Pennsylvania and building an online campaign for Alaska governor Sarah Palin to be selected as the Republican VP candidate http://camp2008victorya.blogspot.com/ . You may have read of Palin’s 2006 victory amidst otherwise disappointing Republican results. Fred Barnes wrote an article about that, in The Weekly Standard. It and other links re: Palin will be found at Stephen’s blog. This is the last installment of our email exchange.

I saw your citation of my blog at yours. And, I’ve been seeing your discussions of Huckabee. As I’ve said, on our point of practical disagreement, you are far from alone. I know that my perspective is the atypical one. But our objectives are pretty congruent, and so should be our efforts.

As for the numerous Republican presidential candidates, I really hope that this week, culminating in the Iowa straw poll, will wash out some of the Republican competition. I had some problems with my routine this morning getting ready for church (MS acts like aging in that it has routinized a previously more spontaneous life), and so watched the Iowa/Drake debate, this morning. There were really no big problems and I thought everyone did well (McCain was not especially inspirational – I’m thinking he’s done). I actually think Tommy Thompson is a good guy, more innovative than most, though still more practical than idealistically driven. I like him better than most of the others. But, he’s about as engaging and charismatic as a cantaloupe. But, that’s still better than Brownback’s oatmeal.

Duncan Hunter showed his foreign policy experience and gravitas. But, he isn’t a flying celebrity, either. He may finish better than Tancredo, but that probably won’t get him into the picture. There are some real positive things about Tancredo. But for me, they are doused by some real and insurmountable negatives.

It would be nice to get all of them out: (Tommy – I wish the other one would decide not to run) Thompson, Brownback, Hunter and Tancredo..McCain, too: I wish he was still spending his campaign cash like a “drunken sailor.”. I don’t like others ruling candidates out of the competition, but if they decided themselves, I wouldn’t shed a tear. Though I don’t think Ron Paul can remake the Republican foreign policy view, sounding for the purposes of Republicans, like a Democrat. But, I’m inclined to wish he would stay in the race to sharpen the others on both domestic and foreign policy, where they shouldn’t lose focus because Democrats are sure to pummel them on the issue.

Giuliani, Romney, and Huckabee: wouldn’t that make it nice and crisp? Most all of the other’s support could go to Huckabee, because they already have expressed dissatisfaction with the “frontrunners. That would put him near even footing poll-wise with Giuliani and Romney. And a good Iowa Straw Poll showing (Huckabee showed 3^rd in the latest Iowa poll) and the reduced field would kick up the donations, too.

As for Alaska governor Sarah Palin for VP, I already think she would provide more kick to the ticket than any of the other Republican prez candidates. I haven’t found anything to positively object to, yet. Unless I do, I could be supportive. But A) what could I do besides dropping the name, which I would. And B) I imagine you’ve tried contacting the campaigns, and I’m also sure that they are occupied with pressing priorities. But, have you gotten any sense from them about feelings on the matter?

The Multi-Fronted Bluster Campaign - Evolution, Global Warming, And Political Candidates Like Mike Huckabee

There are still things I have read and written about Christopher Hitchens’ “god Is Not Great…,” and somewhat relatedly, scientists generally and the philosophy of naturalism. Briefly, philosophical naturalism makes metaphysical assertions about all of reality while what we could call, “scientific naturalism” is analytically true or “true by definition”: the definition of science is the study of nature. Conversely, all metaphysical claims, natural or otherwise, are metaphysical and beyond the ken of science. No, metaphysical statements about nature are not strictly incongruous. Most simply, “All of reality is natural” is a metaphysical assertion. It is no more scientifically verifiable or falsifiable than how you are feeling, today. Theoretically speaking, a test might determine that the neurons in your brain are firing at a relatively high or low level, and even in what area of the brain such firings are most concentrated. But, it cannot read your thoughts or feelings.

I am not a Cartesian dualist: I don’t tend to think that in this world, matter and spirit are separate. Rather, I believe that they are intimately linked, probably to the extent that physical and spiritual events are coincident: a unified creation. They are distinguished more by perspective and definition than they are by time and place. So actually worse than coincident, the affirmation in the realms of physics and metaphysics are categorically exclusive, literally by definition! But anyway, I am not satisfied yet, with my preparation for these discussions.

So, all that is to say that more pressing, today, is the matter of the misplacement of confessional coercion in media clamor, or as I have called it, “bluster”: that being intimidation by volume, rather than substance. I have for many years contested the emptiness of assertion that evolution is the explanation for all of life, is “fact.” First of all, my reading on the matter is becoming dated by 5 or 10 years, and that question is part of what I’m studying now on naturalism and contemporary scientists. But, whatever your final conclusion on the matter, the immediate point is that the shallow mocking about being “anti-scientific,” “Neanderthal,” ignorant,” or sometimes just “stupid,” is itself ignorant and ill-informed, and most commonly proceeds from people who are demonstrably unequipped not only to make such charges but to make much of any comment on the matter. Most recently, there was great media, blog, and YouTube vacuous scorn about candidates in a Republican debate who simply expressed a disbelief in evolution. Of course, peple have every right to say whatever they want, but we also have every right to say that such speech should be at best, lightly regarded: certainly not intellectually imposing.

A more present example of the noise-over-thought phenomenon (we now have de facto broadcast brawn over brains), is the proclamation so crystallized in Al Gore and his silly film, that anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming is a manifest and looming threat and that it is urgent for survival that government impose drastic constraints on emissions of CO², mostly from the utilization of fossil fuels. And, it is boosted by the claim that all reputable scientists are agreed and there is no real debate about the threat. As with ardent proponents of evolution, the designation of who is reputable appears to be primarily exclusive to those who will register some agreement with the claims. Disagree? Obviously, not “reputable.”

Talk show hosts like Glenn Beck, Dennis Prager, and Michael Medved have often highlighted the emptiness behind the claims of these global warming Chicken Littles There is plenty of information on the web available on both sides. There are questions about specific claims of Gore’s “docu-ganda” film available even from government agencies. A year old article by the NATIONAL CENTER FOR POLICY ANALYSIS is at: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba561/ . There are very extensive text and video analyses available on the web. But, acolytes of the “pop” (popular but shallow) account of the global warming threat, call Prager and Medved, certain that they are apologists on the payroll of large corporations, most ominously, the dreaded “big oil” companies. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. hectored Glenn Beck, who had an accomplished climatologist on his program questioning anthropogenic global warming to “get some real scientists” on his program: that is, scientists who agree with Kennedy.

Now, honestly, though I hardly see him as an intellectual giant, it’s pretty hard for me to believe that Al Gore is as silly as the invulnerability and professed unchallenged state of the available data suggests, and that his claims are genuine more than political. But still, I’m obviously in an inadequate position to pass judgment on Al Gore. But, I suspect that Robert F. Kennedy believes what he’s saying about the danger and the scientific consensus. And, I know that these talk show callers, like the bloggers and blogflies, are serious. But regardless, my conclusion is that they are at best mistaken in their conclusions. A lot of people are mistaken, regardless of who is correct. Most every assertion has dissenters. I would suggest that you diligently study the matter and reach your own conclusion. But, the point here is that regurgitating “pop” myth is not due diligence. Diligent study reveals that plenty of, some say most, well-established scientists are skeptical or critical of the idea of anthropogenic global warming, Wisconsin University Professor Emeritus, Reid Bryson, who called anthropogenic global warming “hooey.” Bryson has been called, “the father of modern climatology.” Many disagree with him, even at his own university.

Scientists and professors disagree about anthropogenic global warming, and about as there is disagreementabout evolution, just as there is disagreement in most disciplines. For myself, I would point out that in both cases, there is great professional incentive to side with consensus. Grants, projects, and positions are largely awarded in accordance with popular orthodoxy. No one disputes that the world has warmed (slightly: .7 degrees C. in the past century) nor can they dispute that global climate has always changed, long before carbon dioxide was generated from more than exhaling. And, few dispute that we ought to maintain the environment, or that fossil fuels pollute it, but that says nothing about anthropogenic global warming. Mike Huckabee advocates targeting energy independence within a decade, which is desirable from not just an environmental but also economic and security perspectives. I’m all for that and can’t see why anyone would oppose it. But, the point here is that popularity, largely generated by relatively ignorant forces in media, is no legitimate case for undisputed factuality.

But speaking of Mike Huckabee, this discussion can circle back to what has largely been the focus of this blog: the election of suitable candidates for political office: specifically, electing a President Mike Huckabee. This same process of media-driven popularity unfailingly tells us (claiming to report) who are the “frontrunners” and viable candidates, particularly for president. We should ask ourselves how it is that the Republican “frontrunners” in polls and fundraising are those who also are in one way or another unsatisfactory to the party base? Why are the undecided so numerous and why is the true poll leader, “None Of The Above?” In quite the same way as I have been discussing, recognition and celebrity are the consequence of media reporting and focus. Media focus produces the polls and funds that are reported to be the justification for reports about who “has a chance.” And similarly, by far most of the public passively digest what is spoon-fed to it by persons that they often ostensibly disagree with. So that, now you have the most noted and even strident conservative “experts” deliberating over which of the “favorites” they might be forced to support, even while they confess that they would prefer one of the other declared candidates. But, it is Republican activists, not the reporters of the “frontrunners, who will actually do the selecting. And, not a single vote has even been cast! Do you see the circle? Accepting what they are told, rather than choosing what they believe, is the public’s problem. Believing the reports of who “has a chance,” is a self-fulfilling process. Just as believing claims about “scientific fact” defines what is popular “fact,” the process of believing who are the “frontrunners,” makes them the frontrunners.

I played in this process for many years. But, I will play in it no more. The sooner that people stop believing it, the sooner it will no longer be true. Mike Huckabee is the true conservative that conservatives supposedly lament the lack of. And he is in the contest! In fact, most all of the other 5 candidates also represent that better than the media-anointed four, which is no coincidence. In 2000, of 14 who began the process, it eventually came down to the two most ambiguous conservatives, Bush and McCain. Why can’t people select the candidate they like? The fact is that they can. The problem is only if they are fooled and won’t. And for me more importantly, though I sometimes approach questions differently, Huckabee represents the character of honesty and sincerity that the nation needs. Compassionate conservatism is not a campaign slogan, but describes the commission of his life. He was a Christian pastor for over a decade who carries that same commission to politics that he did to pasturing. Loving and caring is not just a tactic, it is the duty of his faith that he takes to every task.

To me, polls or money have no force to compare with that. But Iowa is the site of the first high profile straw poll of the campaign,10 days from now. And Iowa Republicans are dominantly Christian conservatives. Polls and money aside, Huckabee should be the favorite. He has focused on campaigning in Iowa for over a month, and I believe, I would predict, that he will surprise the odds-makers. It is odd to make odds on a voluntary vote as though it were a gamble rather than a choice. Voters should act like responsible citizens rather than passive dice. Iowa is also the site of the first actual delegate selection in January. So, be bold enough to vote your conscience and if you can, go to the campaign web site http://mikehuckabee.com

and make a contribution to encourage others who might not be so bold.

The campaign site and the Internet in general, have all the information the public needs in every form: text, audio or video. I believe the Internet is breaking down the delusion of “pop” perception in all modes of thought. Perhaps some fortitude in an American election can encourage assertiveness in other areas?