Governor Huckabee made the decision as a believer should, seeking God’s will and finding peace in a decision not to run.  It was a powerful testimony and a good example of how a Christian should make decisions.

For my part, I’ll keep my eyes on the Presidential field. I don’t anticipate supporting anyone for quite a while.

Please be patient if I don’t respond immediately to an email because I expect that once I pull the trigger Saturday night, things will get even crazier, as if that’s possible.

Now things will get even crazier if I announce I’m not running for President? Doesn’t seem very likely that things would get crazier unless he’s in. I’m kicking myself for not ponying up money to buy the “Huckabee will decide to run for President” position on Intrade last night when it was about 15. I’d have tripled my money already.

Since I’ve learned of the Governor’s decision to make an announcement tomorrow, I’ve had a lot of mixed feelings. I’m a strong Huckabee supporter. I’ve given to Huckpac and I have, by saving $10 every pay period for the past three or so years saved around $800 to give to Huckabee’s campaign if he should make a run. I’ve also spent a lot of time defending the Governor from unjust attacks.

I don’t regret any of what I’ve done regardless of what the final decision is.  The money is savings, so I’ve got some bills that I could use it on. And as for defending folks who I think are being attacked unjustly, that’s what I do.

I also respect whatever decision he makes. This is a huge committment. Will he or won’t he? I’ve gone back and forth on this throughout the day. Ed Rollins initial statement on this had me kind of downbeat, but then I saw Huckabee on Cavuto and he sounded more like he saw some serious problems that had to be addressed, and like he had some fire in his belly.

My gut is that it will, in some form, be a go for 2012.

The first is that a decision not to run is one that can be made fairly easily. You put out a press release, hold an early day press conference and get on with the rest of your day. You don’t call millions of people around their television screens to say, “No way,” as a general rule. I do concede its possible that Huckabee may have felt that he owed his network the exclusive on his decision and thought this was the best way to do it.  But I consider that far less likely. If it was network loyalty, there are better shows to do it on (Monday’ s O’Reilly Factor for example.)  It would more sense to do this on Huckabee’s show if he is saying goodbye to the program and to his audience that has supported him for the past three years.

The second piece of evidence to examine is Huckabee’s silence to his staff, particularly Ed Rollins. Why didn’t Huckabee tell his former staffers and political people first? If he’s not running, the answer’s not apparent. If Huckabee just wanted to give the average Huckabee supporter in middle America a chance to hear his thoughts on not running, then it wouldn’t hurt things to tell the potential staff. This way, they could begin quietly polishing their resumes and be able to get a job quickly with another campaign.

What makes sense to me is Huckabee choosing not to tell them for fear that word of his decision will leak out. There are a lot of good people in politics who can’t resist giving reporters information. We see that with some of the things reporters are getting from Huckabee staffers that even if they don’t have information, they can’t help but say something to the media when asked. By keeping it within his family, Huckabee will have a truly big secret to tell.

My gut instinct that we will have an announcement of an exploratory committee. Huckabee is hosting an Alaska Cruise from June 5-12th and an exploratory committee would allow him the flexibility to take that week without conflicting with an actual campaign. It would also allow him to leave Fox in a better way than his former colleagues Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum did.

Of course, I could be wrong. For my part, I have to wonder who I’ll support if Huckabee doesn’t run. Right now, I’d lean towards no one as I live in a state that’s chosen irrelevancy to the Presidential nomination process and I don’t have a lot of confidence in other candidates. However, today, I was listening to my regular Greatest Story Ever Told Dramas and today’s was on Christ’s quote, “Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.”

So, we’ll find out what will happen and make future plans…tomorrow.

Some of the highlights of the conference call:

• When asked if he were President and Congress sent him a bill eliminating the Department of Education if passed by Congress, he stated that if Congress would actually pass such a bill and he were president, he would sign it. However, if it exists, he believes funding should be prioritized.
• Huckabee also said that the church particularly, the Evangelical church has a key role to play in reducing government. He said that if Evangelical Christians would give 10% of their money to the Lord’s work, many of the needs for government would disappear. Huckabee, for example suggested that if nationwide network of churches would agree to provide school lunches for poor children, it would eliminate the federal need for such programs.
• Huckabee continued to make the case that we could not without talking about the family, given that the high cost of government is tied to the decline of the family.
• Huckabee also stated in regards to a question on terrorism that he believes that many Americans are naïve about the threat we face. He said that confusion comes in not understanding the difference between decent Muslims that live in communities across America and the radical Jihadists. Huckabee advises that the Jihadists are not reasonable or tolerant people that can be negotitated with.
• Huckabee was  critical of recent use of the U.S. Military in our operations in Afghanistan. He took issue with the extended use of National Guard forces for fighting a war, as that’s not the Guard’s purpose. Further, while he acknowledged that our troops have done a great job in nation building, he believes that these functions are better to left to other groups and agencies such as the Peace Corps, as this time of work is really not the military’s function.
• Huckabee was asked about promoting some of his big propoals such as the Fair Tax, particularly compared to the failed job of salesmanship done by President Obama on Obamacare. Huckabee harkened back to his time in Arkansas. When he took office, he was a Republican Governor of a state with a 90% Democratic legislature (who could override his veto by a simple majority vote.)  Huckabee got several of his agenda items passed including the state’s first major tax cut and education reform which reigned in teacher tenure and extended charter schools by taking his proposals to the people of Arkansas and urging them to contact their representatives. The legislature then acted in response to citizens, rather than a Governor of an opposing party.  Huckabee believes that a national leader should try the same tactic to achieve change from the bottom-up, rather than trying to wrangle something through Congress without majority support.
• As Huckabee’s book focuses on spending and I raised the issue of Social Security and Medicare. Huckabee acknowledge that the need to address the issue was vital, and he offered three specific reform ideas as starters. First, he suggested offering retirees who didn’t need social security a lump sum payout instead of the monthly payments. He also was open to raising the retirement age, and doing what he called, “personalizing social security,” in creating personal accounts for younger workers.
• I also mentioned that I was sorry his book tour was not coming to Idaho. Huckabee said he was as well, but that the publisher was funding the tour and determined the schedule, and that logistically it was hard to get into the Northwest, adding that it was a beautiful part of the country.
• The big question when it comes to Huckabee is whether he’s running for President. What I observed on this call is that several questions were asked with the supposition of what he would do if he were President. Huckabee didn’t seek to clarify that he hadn’t decided for sure in response to any of these questions. Though he did express retiscence about whether the GOP would be able to nominate anyone with an actual governing record.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEBbHcZuJsI&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

We have several posts from Idaho people up on the blog.

I write about why I’m working with Team Huck.

I also post about the need for politicians who will try to make our state better, not just redder.

And finally, my co-coordinator Kathy McFarland writes about HuckPAC and Idaho make a great match.

David Hill, at the Hill newspaper, alleges that Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee has an extreme risk of “catching a cold” in his “breezy” role as host of Fox News’ snow, Huckabee. Hill contends that Huckabee is entering the world of entertainment, while Mitt Romney is out doing what Presidential candidates should do: giving speeches and campaigning for Republicans.

Rarely has a piece been so deserving of a Jim Cramer style, “You know nothing!”

First of all, Huckabee is giving speeches, campaigning for Republican candidates, and fundraising for them, too. He campaigned for Saxby Chambliss and has announced plans to campaign for Virginia Attorney Bob McDonnell in his bid for Governor. Huckabee’s TV gig requires one day a week in New York. Also Huckabee’s going to South Carolina for a Fair Tax rally. Huckabee isn’t spending the other six days fishing the lovely rivers and streams of Arkansas.

It’s doubtful that any of the potential 2012 candidates have a 2012 strategy at present,  because it’s too early to know for sure they’ll run in 2012. However, in his book Do the Right Thing, Huckabee writes that he began in 2008 with no organization, no name recognition, and no money. He’d not prepared sufficiently for what a presidential campaign would take.

To even have a chance of making a serious run for the White House, a person must have what I call a leadership strategy. They must advance their ideas and issues within the Republican Party and put themselves in a position where, if they run for President, they are known, they have money, and they have organization.

Romney’s strategy is fairly traditional. He’s delivering speeches to Congress, State Party Conventions, and conservative group conventions. He’s got a PAC, and he’s raising money. Romney’s got a 1977 strategy, which would be great if this were 1977. His efforts have focused on the establishment leaders of the conservative movement and state party leadership, groups that he already did quite well with in 2008. His 20% straw poll win at CPAC in 2009 is almost identical to the 21% he got 2 years ago.

Huckabee is taking a different path. Huckabee’s not only has a PAC, which has contributed to the campaigns of more than fifty Republican candidates, he’s doubling down in a way that Mitt Romney, or even Sarah Palin, isn’t. Last month, Huckabee’s PAC, “HuckPAC” held more than 100 house parties all across America. Huckabee already has 3000 volunteers (including myself) signed up to help out Republican Candidate in the 2009 and 2010 elections.

He also realizes he needs to reach out to the people that he failed to reach last time and improve his standing with conservatives who remain doubtful of him.

Huckabee’s media ventures are part of this leadership strategy. Huckabee’s show is far more infotainment than entertainment, with his songs and entertainment interviews sandwiched in between serious, but civil, discussions of politics and culture. The show has had some awkward moments, but nothing on the scale of Ronald Reagan “monkeying around” in Bedtime for Bonzo in terms of breeches of dignity.

One viewer complained when Huckabee dubbed the recent stimulus bill as “The Congressional Relief Action Program,” with the initials emphasized, but the same line earned applause at CPAC. Some alleged that Huckabee was undignified in a segment in which he made fun of Caroline Kennedy’s “Uh-uh-uh” interview problems. However, making fun of a Kennedy is unlikely to cost Huckabee any votes in the Republican Party.

Combined with Huckabee’s 3-minute thrice daily radio program as well as other media appearances, his TV show has four benefits:

1) Becoming better known.

In 2007, many voters decided that they liked Huckabee. What put a ceiling on his support was that he was so unknown he could be cast as a liberal tax-raiser by people far better known than he. He also could be cast in the mold of the stereotypical conservative evangelical preacher: intolerant, narrow-minded, and stupid.

2) Recasting himself.

The Premiere of Huckabee, set towards the end of the 2008 Presidential Campaign and around the time of bailouts, has allowed Huckabee to define himself as a fiscal conservative. Hardcore opponents of the TARP bill saw Huckabee stand up against big government when only he, Dave Ramsey, Ron Paul, and Neil Cavuto would oppose the TARP debacle on the Fox Business Network. Huckabee also opposed the auto industry bailout and lampooned the stimulus bill. On his radio program, Huckabee has taken a similar tact on earmarks, global warming, and the president’s tax plan. To those who will try to define Huckabee as some type of liberal after two plus years of Huckabee consistently taking conservative position on TV and Radio: Good luck.

3) Getting to show his character and personal style.

Through his choice of guests, he’s able to show himself willing to listen to and dialogue with a wide variety of people, while still sticking to his conservative guns.

4) Establishing connections with his audience and his guests.

Huckabee’s media ventures have opened the door for him to make numerous connections with people like Club for Growth founder Stephen Moore and Dave Ramsey. While not everyone who appears on Huckabee’s program will become a supporter of Huckabee’s future efforts, having made a personal connection will help.

Overall, Huckabee’s media efforts have gone well. He’s got a New York Times Bestseller, one of the top weekend Cable TV shows, and a radio show that’s now on more than 100 stations. Whether Huckabee runs in 2012 or not, of the three front-running candidates, he has by far done the most to help his future efforts.

Malkin, addressing a media workshop, dismissed 2008 GOP presidential contender Mike Huckabee, slamming him for suggesting during the 2008 primary that former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney was more protective of Wall Street than Main Street.

I love Michelle Malkin, but I wonder if, given her strong opposition to the bailouts, she ever considered the fact that Romney supported the $700 billion TARP/financial bailout and served as an advisor to McCain on the meeting that ended with McCain coming out and suspsending his campaign? Congressman Dean Heller (R-Nv.) said that Mitt Romney called him, urging a vote for the bailout (AKA TARP, aka Crap Sandwich.) Meanwhile, Huckabee strongly opposed the bailout.

How is supporting the $700 billion bailout NOT putting Wall Street before Main Street?

Huckabee isn’t a redistributionist, but if we’ve learned anything over these last six months, it ought to be that Wall Street is not necessarily fiscally conservative. Some folks on Wall Street are okay with government intervention as long as it helps them.

The Fiscal Conservative answer is let the forces of creative destruction clean up this mess, not borrow trillions of dollars from future generations to avoid the pain. And I think this recent turn of events has revealed who the true fiscal conservatives are.

This is a speech that is must see TV and it shows why Huckabee is worth a second look.

We need volunteers and volunteer leaders as we start to get organized. If you’re interested in volunteering for HuckPAC, click here.

We also need volunteer leaders in every county other than Ada County.

Chapter 12 of Ask Not What Your Country Can Do For You, Huckabee identifies a need for increased service in the spirit of JFK and praises Israel’s spirit of patriotism which he credits to their national service requiremnts. Unfortunately, beyond that, the policy points begin to breakdown.  Huckabee doesn’t have a solid plan for national service. It appears to be one of those areas where he’s identified a problem and is still ruminating on it. He suggests ideas be “considered” or “debated” but not actually committed to.

He says we should “seriously debate” a mandatory year of service if sufficient volunteers can’ t be found, but he’s clear that the military itself should be all voluntary. Huckabee argues that any such service effort should be flexible to fit the talents, skills, and interest of the students, and also be flexible and to when the service would be performed (during Summer Breaks, after High School, after College.) Huckabee’s most pursuasive argument is that service opportunities could assis

He writes a paragraph on the National Service Academy, but doesn’t really offer much of a pursuasive punch given my initial skepticism. And given his own critique of Washington in Chapter 5, the fact that members of Congress from 32 states support the idea is not impressive.

The one idea Huckabee does advocate, that I wholeheartedly agree with is a Veteran’s Bill of Rights which is definitely needed. It guarantees quicker processing of claims and ensures our Veterans receive the benefits to which they are entitled.

The chapter is saved by Huckabee turning his thoughts and focus to his own campaign’s volunteers and the incredible effort they put on. There was a (Non-Evangelical couple) that saw Huckabee on the Daily Show and in the last part of 2007, they took a train out to New Hampshire to volunteer at Huckabee’s New Hampshire Headquarters and then when they finished that, they bought a car and drove from New Hampshire to Florida to work at the Florida Headquarters in Orlando.

There was his staff of Young Arkansasans who when faced with realities of hectic travel schedules which would require several days away from the campaign to get back to their homes, chose to give up Christmas with their families in order to keep the campaign going strong. They chose to do this in spite of Huckabee asking them to go back to Arkansas for Christmas. He was particularly insistent on wanting his daughter to do so.

Huckabee tells other stories of campaign volunteers as well as those who have shown bravery in service to their country in the nation’s military. It’s fun to read, but not quite convincing on the issue of national service.

Huckabee writes, “Frankly, it never occurred to me that any American family was sitting around their dinner table having a discussion about whether the next President might consider a pardon for Scooter Libby. But I was dead certain that most families were talking about the runaway costs of their health care expenses.”

Huckabee took flak from some libertarians for a statement that Congress would solve the problem if they were told either to give th American people the Health Care Congress has or to accept the type of health insurance many Americans had. Huckabee was not calling for government control of health care, only point to the fact that Washington was insulated from dealing with the health care system.

The Huckabees were not. When leaving the Governor’s Mansion, Huckabee had to purchase more expensive insurance policy that increased when his wife took a leave of absence from her job with the Red Cross and had to be added. His daughter faced $12,000 in medical bills over a relatively minor procedure.

Huckabee gets to a point that many Libertarians will nod their head at. Access isn’t the problem. First of all, the 47 million uninsured cited by Democrats, only 15 million are truly unable to afford health insurance or the bills that will follow.

Huckabee argues the problem is systemic and finds the Democrats’ solution of adding more people problematic in light of what he sees as the underlying problem. Huckabee writes, “simply giving an unhealthy population access to our current health care system and not addressing the underlying crisis only makes problems worse. Our current system is upside down, built entirely on the notion that we should interven when catastrophic illness hits, rather than aim to prevent illnesses in the first place.”

 Huckabee is vitally concerned with chronic disease which is rattling our healthcare system. Chronic disease is generally caused by activities such as overeating, smoking, or lack of excercise.  Huckabee finds prevention to be key.

He’s clear that he doesn’t think government’s role is to lay down harsh rules, to the “sugar sheriff” or the “grease police.”  But that there needs to be fundamental culture changes beginning with the way doctors are trained (for example lack of training in treating diabetes as well as a focus on prevention.

Huckabee throws innovative ideas out. Huckabee’s own efforts to offer incentives to health and provide greater opportunities for state employees to excercise (by offering mid-day excercise breaks) and creating a points system that allowed employees to earn points for losing weight, taking walks, and not smoking in order to earn personal leave time.

Huckabee had the policies evaluated by outside company that found the polices led to $3400 per  year in extra productivity from the employees who took part in them.

Huckabee explains why real solutions to health care don’t really happen politically. Most politicians want to focus on things they can get fixed within their term of office, and health care isn’t one of them. Democrats promise health care plans that create programs as if a program is going to fix the problem. Real solutions require more innovation and more than just government.

Huckabee has often mused as to why health insurance companies don’t cover preventive measures. In Doing the Right Thing, he explains the reason as told him by Insurance Company Presidents. With people changing jobs so often and changing insurance companies every time they switch jobs, it doesn’t make sense for insurance companies to cover prevention because the benefits of prevention will be reaped by another insurance company. Huckabee says that it’s time to move away from the employer based policy to a consumer-driven one.

Huckabee writes, ” Think about it: we don’t expect our employer to ensure our cars or homes, so why should employers insure our bodies. If we bought the insurance and were likely to keep the same carrier as we transitioned to other employers, the carriers would then have a clear incentive to take extraordinary measures to keep us healthy.”

Chapter 11 is incredibly outside the box and it brings a very interesting perspective to the health care debate.

Huckabee adds the insanity of the system is that if the man quit his job, stayed at home and watched ESPN, his income would be so low, his daughter would be elligible for special grants and loans. Thus, the need for tax reform.

Huckabee answers a longheld question, “How did he come to support a National Retail Sales Tax?” Some have seen it as pure opportunism. While the mechanism changed, in his Huckabee’s prior book, “From Hope to Higher Ground“, Huckabee suggested a flat tax as a preferred mechanism and in the early part of the campaign, saying he concluded it would be a significant improvement. The problem with the Flat Tax according to Huckabee is that “it still represents a tax on work and productivity and therefore discourages the very thing that creates capital.”

Huckabee heard about the Fair Tax from voters and didn’t know what the plan was until someone gave him a copy of the Fair Tax book. He read the book through twice, consulted with his CPA as well other CPA,  and by the end of the campaign, he’d become one of its most enthusiastic supporters.

His argument is pretty standard Fair Tax advocacy, though done in a fairly easy to understand way. Huckabee argues that there are four keys to responsible structure. That the tax is Flat, Fair, Finite, and Family Friendly. Oddly enough, Huckabee argues that the Fair Tax would even benefit same sex couples.

Huckabee credits Fair Tax supporters in part for his strong Iowa Strawpoll finish as they’d shown up at the strawpoll in force, and as Huckabee was one of the biggest advocates of the plan, he was the biggest beneficiary of it.

Huckabee said the Fair Tax was one reason, he was reluctant to end his campaign becuase he knew “the remaining public voice for the Fair Tax would be silenced. I was not merely an advocate for the Fair Tax because of the campaign. I hope to continue to be a cheerleader for an idea I truly believe can and will change America for the better.”

Huckabee, however, realized that as with his campaign, the Fair Tax proposal was being pushed through grassroots efforts. This led to one of the more amazing stories of the campaign. A trucker who supported Huckabee, Randy Bishop informed Huckabee of a large vent in Traverse City, Michigan in January, but Huckabee had to get back to South Carolina, so he sent the Truck Driver to represent him at a Lincoln Dinner and by all accounts he was represented quite well.

Regardless of his own future, Huckabee believes the Fair Tax will eventually be passed if the level of grassroots support for the tax refrom grows to the point that members

He explains his view in Chapter 9 of Do the Right Thing, “Let’s Get Vertical.” Huckabee’s argument is that while people who are party activists care about where a candidate’s positions land on a Horizontal (Left-Right) scale, most voters are more concerned about problems being solved and the country or state moving Vertically (up instead of down.)

The theory is perhaps the greatest answer to how a conservative politician or any politician succeeds. People will let a party have its way if the Economy is going well, the budget is being properly managed, education is improving, etc. It’s quite similar to what a newly minted Democratic Governor Howard Dean told Vermont Democrats in the early 1990s.

The one big myth that’s developed is the that of “The Centrist Idealogue.” You know the person who votes for the candidate who seems closest to the center. The model seemed out of touch with reality given wins by people on both extremes of the spectrum. Huckabee’s vertical theory holds more water and explanatory power towards politics than strict ideological view of voting.

Huckabee tells of several everyday people who came up to express support for him, even though they were Democrats or Independents such as a Taxi Driver in Des Moines, a skycap in O’Hare, and the flight attendants on a Los Angeles to Boston flight.

Huckabee does talk about Fred Thompson’s campaign and cites it as an example of a campaign that was focused on being most horizontal of the GOP campaigns. Thompson went after Huckabee as a liberal for receiving the endorsements of “Union of Mechanists and Aerospace Workers”  as well as the “Painters Union” which Thompson used to go after Huckabee as a liberal.

Huckabee wrote, “What Fred failed to grasp (among the many things Fred failed to grasp about running for president) was that the endorsements did not reflect the unions’ total agreement with all my politics or policies. In fact, both unions had to deal with some heartburn about some of the positions I took that stood in direct conflict with their own official union positions. But I was the only GOP candidate who actually went and listened to them and gave them straight answers to their questions.”

Huckabee is clear that vertical politics means that conservative credentials don’t matter but “ideological purity without the capacity to deliver a more effective and efficient way of governing was no longer justifiable.”

He writes of life on the road and flying commerical during most of the ‘07-’08 Presidential Campaign, which while helping him connect with ordinary Americans who were suffering through a “Flinstones” Air Traffic Control system in the midst of a “Jetsons” Aerospace era. The downside for Huckabee is that he had to spend much more time in flight than other candidates who had charters, as direct trips from Little Rock to Iowa, New Hampshire, or South Carolina were simply not available and required multiple connections.

The book also includes a look inside the making of the Huckabee-Chuck Norris ad which also produced a memorable blooper reel:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgDGlf_CDtc[/youtube]

Huckabee writes in Chapter 7: Faux-Cons Worse Than Liberalism, “I will likely say things in this chapter that will be misunderstood by sincere people who will react without taking the time to put my comments into context. Others will purposefully misrepresent it, just as they did during the campaign.”

Such has been the case with this chapter. It’s been represented to suggest that traditional conservatives are shot down as Faux Cons, that the Club for Growth is attacked as a Faux-Con organization. This is simply not true. Club for Growth isn’t mentioned in this chapter. Huckabee draws a pretty narrow parameter for Faux-Cons.

It would be much easier to explain this if Huckabee gave a bullet point list of what it meant to be a Faux Con, but Huckabee’s mind doesn’t appear to work like that. In this chapter, he praises Ron Paul and Cher in the same paragraph.

Huckabee makes the case for his own Conservatism, laying out his core values. “I genuinely believe in forcing government to live within its means, cut unnecessary spending to the the bone, eliminate social experiments, and government “feel good” programs, and push more charitable works to the family, the faith community, and the private sector.”

Huckabee lists his beliefs in favor of lower taxes, the purpose of government, limited government, a strong defense, and a series of other issues, though Huckabee concedes his words are unlikely to convince those who’ve already made up their minds otherwise.

Of course, I would be remiss if I didn’t mention he quotes a large portion of my article, “National Review does not Speak for Me” mainly as an illustration, though also to drive home a point. This quote was particularly central to the case Huckabee makes in the chapter:

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

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

Huckabee then enters his thesis on Faux Cons. Based on Huckabee’s comments, here’s a concise list of Faux Con traits. I don’t think all traits are equally required or always present (particularly 2)

1. You’re out of touch with both political reality and people’s needs in your understanding of how government works. People who insist that Huckabee should have governed as a libertarian in a state with a 70% override power would fall into that category.
2. Decrying taxes, but demanding programs and policies that bring about the need for a tax increase. Huckabee, in a previous chapter, cited conservatives who wanted longer sentences, parole abolished, and no additional money spent on prisons. In this chapter, he cites a legislator who railed against every source of revenue, but was first in line for projects or to get his people hired for government programs.
3. “Disdain and sometimes outright contempt” for religious people. Huckabee takes on secularist misnomers and does a brief illustration of the country’s religious heritage.
4. Following a “pagan” religion which worships “personal power and wealth.” Huckabee is clear about the term pagan,  saying, “I use the term ‘pagan’ not in the perjorative sense, but as a factual description of the worship of that which is material or symbolic.” Huckabee suggest that “If there was a Muhammad-like prophet of them, it might be Ayn Rand, but this philosophy has many disciples, and most of them don’t even realize they are devotees of a worldview that’s as much a religion as an economic system.” At the risk of being flamed, I’ll say there are a lot of folks who worship money and/or power as gods, and it’s a corrosive philosophy. On this point, Huckabee is absolutely right.

Huckabee argues not only are the “Faux Cons” wrong on a philosophical plane, but a political one, arguing that the heart of the Republican Party is the Social Conservatives who come from the hard working middle class (HWMC) and they don’t jive with libertarian utopianism.

Huckabee writes, “These are the people whose votes swing an election, while Republicans have thought (mistakenly) that they were solidly GOP, the truth is that they are values voters more than party people. And the Republicans have done a lot to alienate them. There has been an assumption that these are the voters who will “come along” and vote “right” regardless of the party’s message or who the candidate is and what he or she stands for. Believing that will hold for the future is wishful and wasteful thinking.”

Huckabee tells some stories from the trail, including the famous story of the woman who gave the campaign her wedding ring despite Huckabee’s refusal.

Huckabee writes that the values voters are not libertarians, but they are economic conservatives, who genuinely want less government interference and intervention, but they don’t want government to “simply shut its eyes or ears to crushing human needs that had gone unnoticed and untouched by family, community, or church.”

Huckabee draws a line between economic conservatism and libertarianism and places himself on the economic conservative line. His argument politically is that, if the party steps away from Value’s issues and becomes far more libertarian on economics as some people want, it will destroy the Republican Party by driving Values Voters to the Democrats or out of the process, because libertarianism isn’t an ideology that the HWMC typically identifies with.

I know of people exactly like what Huckabee described: Folks against $700 billion bailouts, who have problems with government assistance going to people who could and should be out working, but who have no problem with it for those who truly have no other option due to disability or temporary circumstances.

Others will point to Ronald Reagan’s statement on libertarianism as an argument, but will fail to quote the whole thing:

If you analyze it, I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference, or less centralized authority, or more individual freedom, and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that, like in any political movement, there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all, or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions.

Indeed, and if you read Reason Magazine’s critique of then-Governor Reagan, you find he wasn’t a hardcore libertarian:

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

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

Is this Libertarianism in action? Reason magazine didn’t think so, but made a humble acknowledgment that would do today’s political class good:

Thus, Reagan’s record, while generally conservative, is not particularly libertarian. But one’s administrative decisions, constrained as they are by existing laws, institutions, and politics, do not necessarily mirror one’s underlying philosophy.

With Mike Huckabee, you’ll find that his recond, constrained as it was by the political situation he had in Arkansas, was relatively conservative, but that his instincts and overall philosophy line up with most economic conservatives.

Some of the interesting factoids in here include the fact that when Huckabee started his campaign website, he was receiving sixty online contributions per month. The website was programmed to buzz the blackberry of Chip Saltsman and each donation led to a ten second mini-celebration.

The book was put to bed in June when it wasn’t known who would prevail in the Presidential election, so Huckabee couldn’t have known that the race for the RNC Chairman would be an open seat with Saltsman running. However, this chapter makes a powerful case for Saltsman as Chairman of the RNC.

Saltsman’s work as described by Huckabee is remarkable as he managed to, with next to no resources, keep a national campaign that began behind in the game,  in it until the very end of the primary process.

Huckabee, Saltsman, and an amazing team showed what determined folks could accomplish against the odds and with the right mix of talent.

One very surprising detail that came out is that Huckabee almost didn’t attend the Iowa Strawpoll. Huckabee’s second place finish was a resounding wake-up call to the national media. Yet, Huckabee found himself outgunned by not only Mitt Romney, but also Sam Brownback, as well as Tommty Thompson who made the Iowa Strawpoll a make or break contest. In the end, Saltsman won the day with the argument that the campaign needed oxygen.

A later move by Huckabee that didn’t pay off quite as well was Huckabee’s decision to pull money set aside for Florida and spend it in South Carolina. Huckabee came up just short and then found cash short in Florida.

Huckabee argued that the media coverage of money as well as it’s effect on debate coverage and debate questions was detrimental, as well as unfair. He pointed to the failures of both Giuliani and Romney despite their big spending. Huckabee that frontrunners “didn’t just take in money; they burned right through it with their private jets, five-store hotels, and lavish meals. We ate a lot of burritos and cheap burgers on the bus….Millions of the anointed front-runners’ money went to pricey consultants who constantly clashed with each other about startegy and message, a battle of expensive egos that consumed a lot of contributions.” Huckabee argued that his downside was his upside. “I didn’t have enough senior staff for them to divide into factions and distract me with their quarrels.”

Huckabee argues that the FEC reports fail to measure the quality of the campaigns. Huckabee’s clear that media coverage of money is not responsible for the result of the campaign, but that they better knew how to manage their message in the media after the campaign than before they began it. ‘

Huckabee tentatively suggests that the best solution to our campaign finance system is to “prohibit nothing and disclose everything.”

Huckabee writes that despite the fact the 2008 campaign was a season of record spending that he hoped his campaign “would be a beacon to those who are reluctant to run because they don’t have a lot of money to start with. I hope our campaign inspires those who want to run for office to realize that you can do it with less money than the experts–who are trying to get you to hire them for exorbitant fees–will tell you you can.’

Does Huckabee go after Romney in this chapter? Yeah, but only a little bit more than he did Rudy Giuliani, and Huckabee’s statements are about Romney’s fundraising machine (and that Mitt Romney’s staging from the Iowa strawpoll would for an American Idol telecast.)  If you want to take that as a personal attack, go ahead.

Fundamentally, the Huckabee Iowa Caucus story is a David and Goliath battle and if you don’t know that Goliath is 9-feet tall, the story doesn’t make sense. If you don’t know Mitt Romney spent $5 million to win the Iowa Strawpoll, that Huckabee spent about $100,000 to finish second doesn’t seem all that remarkable.

Eric Holder’s role in the Mark Rich pardon scrutinized. (Hat Tip: The Corner.)

Ski resorts hoping to get what they want from the one party government. (Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin.)

A Republican comeback: The Huckabee way.

The Mormon Church under investigation for Prop. 8 role. (Hat Tip: Red Hot.)

Click here to download, click here to add this podcast to your Itunes.

IMPORTANT: Please take our listener survey

Try GotoMyPC free for 30 days! For this special offer, visit www.gotomypc.com/podcast.

Trackposted to , The Pink Flamingo – WordPress, Allie is Wired, CORSARI D’ITALIA, Democrat=Socialist, The World According to Carl, and DragonLady’s World, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Chapter 5 has one of the best titles in the book, “Welcome to Washington, DC: The Roach Motel.”

Huckabee’s indictment of Washington and the federal government for overspending and fiscal responsibility is pretty stunning. He quotes New Dealer Henry Hopkins whose mantra was, “Tax and tax, spend and spend, elect and elect.”

He write:

Yes, what might be called the Hopkins plan worked—worked, at least, to enlarge the federal government. But as they say, “There’s no such thing as a free lunch.” Somebody has to pick up the check. And that somebody is the ordinary American taxpayer, who is easy to forget amid all the frenzied excitement of a New Frontier, or a Great Society, or a “Yes, we can.”

Huckabee defines his spending philosophy as follows, “I often said that we need to be able to look an elderly widowed lady in the eye and say, ‘Here’s how and why we just spent your money.’ If we can do that with a good conscience, it’s probably a good expenditure. If not, it needs rethinking.”

Huckabee goes after taxes and regulations with a vengeance, praising Reagan’s supply side economics as well as “regulatory creep.” Huckabee points out that environment regulations that cost big corporations around $700 per employee, could cost a small business more than $3,500 per employee. Huckabee suggests that in some cases, this is by design of big businesses that use Federal Regulation to shut down the competition. Huckabee attacks Washington, DC as a city full of “Eddie Haskels.”

Piggybacking on the ideas of Robert Fulgram in “All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten,” Huckabee lays out four principles of good governance he learned growing up:

Huckabee’s first suggestion, “Principled Compromise” is good in theory, but in practice doesn’t always work out so well. Huckabee cites as an example of principled compromise, the 1983 Greenspan Commission, which produced a Social Security Reform bill that’s passed the problem on to the next generation.

The idea needed a better example and it needed a better illustration. The key question left out is: At what point do principles end and compromise begin?

Second, Huckabee says we should debate whose ideas are better, not whose wallet is better. He promises more expansion in Chapter 6.

Third, he suggests that everybody in politics: the media, the candidates, the President, and the Congress needs to work to regain the trust of the American people. Huckabee wrote that, while he was out running, the press would always be there. One day, Huckabee realized that they weren’t there to get photos of him running, but of him slipping and falling, a picture Huckabee was sure to deny the press.

Finally, Huckabee cites a need to commit to City on the Hill principles as laid out by Winthrop and Reagan rather than the predatory and corrupt practices of Washington, DC.

In this chapter, Huckabee does discuss Mitt Romney twice, albeit briefly. Huckabee talks more about the Romney Campaign’s disrespect, particularly Romney’s statement that he was the only Republican candidate still married to his first wife. Huckabee pointed to his own marriage and rather than apologizing, Romney said, “Well, of the major candidates.”

Nice dis, not only on Huckabee, but also on Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter, and Tom Tancredo.

Of Romney, Huckabee writes:

He was usually accompanied by a phalanx of eager young aides who bullied their way through events as if they were carrying badges, guns, and the authority to move the “little people” out of Mitt’s way. It did not go unnoticed by other candidates or by the “little people” who spoke with open contempt of the treatment.

Huckabee states while most of the candidates had good camaraderie, there was “an almost universal discomfort with Romney and his staff.” Huckabee also says Romney tried to do “a leverage buyout of the Republican Presidential nomination.” But that’s actually the whole sentence he wrote about Romney, and then moved on to talk about Obama and Clinton. Huckabee’s main argument is that the strength of arguments, not the size of pocketbooks, should decide elections.

Huckabee does talk about the “Christmas Ad.” There’s not a whole lot more to tell, except that Huckabee insists the “floating cross” was not intentional or planned. To paraphrase Freud, “Sometimes a bookshelf is just a bookshelf.” It was done on the same day several ads were shot and the ad itself was ad-libbed. Huckabee put $358,000 into running the ad. Huckabee says regarding the subliminal charges that everyone in the campaign thought, “We don’t have enough money to be that smart.”

Secondly, this book is fairly popular. My brother went into Borders and they were all out, this CNN i-reporter had about 800 people show up in Bentonville, AR and there was record-breaking lines in Cedar Rapids. I think because this is a book that people are reading, it’s important to know what’s in it and what’s it about.

In Chapter 4, Huckabee mentions rivals, but it’s pretty sparing. He briefly discusses Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani’s position on abortion, has a kind work for Former Governor, HHS Secretary, and short-time Candidate Tommy Thompson and then talks about the irony of Bob Jones endorsing Mitt Romney to get a winner when Romney finished with half the votes of Huckabee or McCain and was beaten by Fred Thompson.

The focus of the book is on “Faith Voters.” Huckabee chided the media for labeling everyone concerned about social conservatives as an “Evangelical Voter” writing, “Many of these voters are Catholic, Jewish or even nonreligious.” If some are non-religious, I’m not certain the term “faith voter” is particularly apt, but probably more so than “Evangelical Voter”

Huckabee grabs a hold of the theme of homelessness as an analogy for cultural conservatives suggesting that political operatives running campaigns have a similar understanding that most people do to the homeless. “We know of them, but we don’t really know about them. We know what they are, but not who they are.”

Carrying this forward, he writes:

Increasingly, these voters are expected to be satisfied with a crumb of attention from the ruling class, but no one wants them to show up at the main table. If anything, they are expected not to get in the way, not to be that visible during the day, not to engage in conversations with the political elites. Just like during the holiday season when the swells often show up to dish out a plate of turkey and dressing, the politically homeless can typically expect to be permitted visibility during the two political “Holy Days,” the primary and the genral election, when the unwashed masses of religious zealots are expected to dutifully attend rallies holding signs, pull all-nighters doing yard-sign placement and literature drops, ring doorbells, man phone banks, and stand at polling places. They are expected to make the noise at the election night party in the main room, even though most of them won’t be able to get near the nice finger food being served to those whose large checks have apparently exempted from the kind of street work done in the trenches.

The faith people are driven by a simple desire to preserve simple principles of faith, family, and freedom for their children. They are not expecting to be named an ambassador to a European nation or invited to a sleepover in the Lincoln bedroom. They are not expecting to attend the inauguration, because the trip would cost more than two months of their salary. They have no illusions about sitting next to the first lady during the State of the Union or catching a ride on Air Force One. They did none of what they did in order to get more involved with the government, but rather to keep government from getting even more involved with rearing or educating their children, confiscating their hard earned paychecks, or adding to the burdens on their already stressed-out employers.

This is definitely a passage that will resonate with frustrated cultural conservatives and it defines their feelings and where much of the tension comes.

Huckabee then spends several pages talking about his conversations with the Arlington Group, a group of religious conservative leaders which he thought at the time could provide his campaign a shot in the arm. The group, in a move that symbolizes much of the lethargy in the cultural conservative movement, ended up endorsing no one. Huckabee said he was “spared” as the endorsement would have basically turned him into a candidate of the Arlington Group and given the sheer volume of questions asked about his faith, that would not have been good.

Huckabee pays homage to Cultural Conservative movement: Jerry Falwell, D. James Kennedy, and Bill Bright. Huckabee suggests that the giants are dying or becoming less active and the current Arlington Group is wavering as they had “become more enamored with the process, the political strategies, and the party hierarchy than with the simple principles that motivated the founders.”

Huckabee points to several up and coming leaders who are more concerned about principles than the horserace mentality. Some of these names I find kind of odd: Don Wildmon has been around a while, and Michael Farris since the 1990s and Beverly and Tim LaHaye for quite some time, but I think that’s some sense of diplomacy in not lumping them in with some of the other Christian Conservatives who were criticized.

Huckabee’s criticism of Gary Bauer has made headlines. Huckabee went after Bauer for telling he was more focused on national security than traditional cultural conservative issues. Huckabee wrote, “…it occurred to me if a pro-family organization was now focusing on the might of the military and the role of the CIA in combatting terrorism, then it was no longer a pro-family group, but a national security group, just like dozens of others similiarly focus. It would be like the NRA saying, ‘Well, we we still care about guns, but what we really want to focus on is global warming.’ When an organization can’t even focus on its focus, it’s hopelessly lost.”

Bauer has fired backsaying Huckabee wasn’t conservative enough on multiple issues, and furthermore:

Immediately after attacking me for talking less about life and marriage, he writes about Christians like himself who have, “…an expanding concern for issues like human poverty, AIDS, disease, and hunger.”  So the problem is not about whether these newer issues are important.   Rather, it concerns which issues have become so important that they should join the list of most important issues. ”

Actually, this is something wrote about. In the same paragraph Bauer quoted, Huckabee said, “The irony was that while I was being rejected because I thought Christian groups should be addressing this expanded list of issues, those who rejected me for that were the ones who said that my views ought to include a certain orthodox on global warming, terrorism, and torture.” Let the reader decide who’s side irony’s really on here.

Bauer concludes his piece with this statement, “After he is finished attacking all those who he thinks denied him the GOP nomination, I look forward to working with him to reform the GOP and revitalize the conservative movement. ”

Actually, Huckabee doesn’t so much say that the Arlington Group denied him the nomination but rather that current cultural conservative leaders are ineffective, divided, and more focused on Inside Baseball than the issues their constituents care about. Huckabee doesn’t say, “If not for Gary Bauer…” He rather suggests a need for new voices and that new leaders are emerging.

The rest of the chapter includes Huckabee’s feelings on being pegged as the religious candidate, as well as his annoyance at the “game show” style of Presidential debates that in many cases left him with half the time of other candidates and questions that weren’t relevant.

He recognized the key turning point of the campaign was at the Values Voter Debate in Ft. Lauterdale, Fl. where Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and John McCain skipped out and the debate was not carried by major TV networks. That, he considered the start of the Huckaboom.

He also pointed to the debate hosted by Tavis Smiley and largely targeted towards minority audiences that Huckabee attended while other candidates dodged. Minority outreach is kind of hard when you won’t go and outreach to minorities.  

If there’s one thing in this chapter, I’ll criticize Huckabee for, it’s the use of somewhat obscure scripture allusions that I’m not even sure most Christians know. Sadly, most of our churches don’t teach the finer points of 2 Samuel and 2 Kings and I’m not sure how many Christians, let alone secular folks,  will get the allusions to Elisha and to King David’s prophet.

Those who’ve heard Huckabee’s “Hucktown” speech will find this chapter quite familiar as Huckabee lays out his case that the best government is self-government.

Writes Huckabee, “If we want less civil governemnt (as conservatives desire) or more civil liberties (as liberals desire), the answer is having more civil people who govern themselves by living their lives according to the moral code of behavior that asserts it is unacceptable to lie, steal, cheat, hurt, disrespect, or murder another person.”

Huckabee then goes into his “Hucktown” comparison. Contrasting one town where people show personal responsibility`and another where they don’t. Low Divorce rate, high graduation rate, honest businesses, clean streets, and a low crime rate keep “Hucktown” government at a minimum. While “Yourtown” is the opposite and has high government spending.

Huckabee points out that the ultimate solution for Yourtown is not increasing government programs and services as that will drive businesses and residents out of town and lead to an economic collapse or issuing big cuts in school spending, police, or trash collection which would leave the place less attractive to business, but rather be for the citizens of Yourtown to excercise personal personal responsibility.

Now, it can be rightly pointed out that there are probably some innovative things that Yourtown could do such as starting Yourtown Charter School or outsourcing trash collection to an innovative new company started over in Gatestown, but ultimately the cost of societal decline will eventually drag Yourtown down.

Some of the more interesting stats Huckabee mentions include this: “Children born out of Wedlock are 700 percent more likely to be poor than those is stable two-parent homes. Eighty-eight of unwed mothers without a high school diploma will end up in poverty, but only 8 percent of with a high school diploma, who marry, and their first child after the age of twenty will end up in poverity. It would seem logical that if we were really serious about lessening the horrible impact of poverty upon others, we would strive to do all we can to get an education; get married; and remain in a stable, loving, monogamous relationship; and have children in the context of a strong family.”

There is a counterpoint raised by Steve Schippert:

Let’s turn Huck’s words around in a more logical order. Has this supposed fiscal conservative ever stopped to consider that “the breakdown of family and individual responsibility” is “directly related to” many of the bloated programs that make up “a lot of the cost of government”? Has he looked at the inner cities – or depressed rural areas for that matter – and wondered just how much government subsidizing of single parenthood has contributed to the breakdown of families? It’s not the only cause, to be sure. But it is more of a contributor than a cure.

Schippert raises a point. The way the well-intended Aide to Family with Dependent Children worked, it created peverse insentives to have out of wedlock pregnancy. Also much of the welfare structure led to some of the mutual aide societies people used to rely on ceasing to exist. Welfare reform alleviated the “Welfare Queen” situation, but it has yet to change our society’s mores. Government programs can cause problems, but eliminating government programs can’t necessarily get rid of the problems government created. Can a culture in decline have a limited government, history would suggest no.

Huckabee also writes of being Governor at the time of the Jonesboro shooting and the outrage that occurred when it was found out the killer would be released on their eighteenth birthday because no one in Arkansas history had imagined children as young as eleven would be mass murderers.

Huckabee also had a very interesting section that did touch on the prison issue and a paradox he faced with a prison population that had increased from 8,000 to 14,000 while he was in office, leeading to a $220 million prison budget. He wrote, “Interestingly, some of my conservative brethern thought we should lock more people up, keep them longer, eliminate parole and clemency, and yet cut the budget to the prison system at the same time. Even without a math degre, I understood those numbers just don’t add up.”

The bad thing about this chapter is that it ends with an anecdote that just doesn’t seem to fit it (it must have been a favorite memoryy) so a strong chapter had a bit of a flat ending.

That’s impossible as:

1) The book has 12 chapters (which actually seems to be a Standard for a Huckabee book as “From Hope to Higher Ground” and his weight loss book also had 12 chapters.)

2) Readers can read an entry or not. Their choice. But, if we’re going to talk about the book, let’s talk about it, not just rumor and innuendo about it.

Chapter 1 of Do the Right Thing is called, “Dude, Where’s My Candidate?” and focuses on a base that wasn’t enthused with the Rudy McRomney Trilemna (my term, not Huck’s.) Huckabee lays out a set of signature issues.

Huckabee makes a succinct case for staying a socially conservative course in the GOP, writing, “Having lost our reputation as competent managers and fiscal conservatives, we can’t afford to lose our credibility as social conservatives. If we do, they will point to us and say, ‘The Emperor has no clothes,” and deservedly so.”

Huckabee’s book gets a bit awkward grammatically. He put the book to bed in June, when the question of who would win the Presidency was an open issue. His book reflects it with warnings of why 2008 is a bad year to elect a Democrat. By the time of publication, it would have already happened or not.

Huckabee lists five reasons a Democratic administration would be bad: Health Care, Taxes, Protectionism (instead of education reform), and that “Democrats still don’t understand how viscerally, obsessively, and fanatically, the Islamo-fascists hate us, and how determined they are to kill us and destroy our Judeo-Christian culture and civilization.”

Huckabee then lays out the reasons that prompted his campaign. He laid out a sensible foreign policy, his belief in energy independence, his pro-second Amendment stance, support for the sanctity of life, and support for traditional marriage as issues that  prompted his run.

This section on core issues strengthens my belief that, if Palin runs, she will probably not have Mike Huckabee as an opponent. Except the Fair Tax, on the core issues that made Huckabee’s core platform, he and Palin are in agreement.

Huckabee also uses this section to explain the difference between him and the-then big three. Contrary to news reports, Huckabee talks about all three. As I stated in my previous piece, I think this is book is geared towards people who may not have followed the nominating process with rapt attention.

He’s generally quite short with his comments on McCain: “I consistently supported President Bush’s tax cuts, John McCain voted against them in the Senate and then changed his mind to support them as he prepared to run for President.”

Giuliani elicited some longer responses: “Rudy Giuliani said that his gun-control policies didn’t affect hunting.  I’m an avid hunter, but I know and you know the Second Amendment isn’t about hunting: it’s about tyranny. The Founding Fathers weren’t worried about being able to bag a duck or a deer; they were worried about us being able to keep our fundamental freedoms…” and went on another two paragraphs.

Romney was hit hardest in this section on flip flops, the whole flap about whether Romney owned a firearm. Asks Huckabee, ” Any of you there not sure if you own a gun? I didn’t think so.” Huckabee concludes Romney offered a flip flop too many.

“He said he never really thought about when life begins until he was in his late fifties. I would be more inclined to accept his change as genuine rather than politically expedient if he hadn’t changed on so many issues at once–abortion, homosexual rights, gun control, the Bush Tax Cuts, campaign finance reform, and his appreciation for President Reagan’s legacy, which he ran from in 1994 and clung to in 2007. He spent more time on the road to Damascus than a Syrian camel driver.”

Given the overall tone of the chapter, introducing the central conflict with Romney and explaining the key issue conservatives had with Romney really wasn’t out of sorts.

As a post-script, a lot of folks seem to feel that Huckabee shouldn’t be releasing this book now because it’s time for the party to close and ranks and unify. May I ask behind whom and for what? We have no effective national leadership and no agenda. Huckabee timed the release of his book so that it was after the Presidential elections and well before the next Congressional Session. I’d argue that this is the time to go ahead and have our fights. Other than helping out in Georgia, there’s really not much to do.

For crying out loud, there seem to be some Republicans who believe the best time to discuss differences and issues is-well, never. Yes, the perfect model for political parties: dysfunctional families.

• Huckabee said it’s too early to declare for 2012. Was anyone expecting different?
• Regarding the controversy over Huckabee’s statements on Mitt Romney, Huckabee stated the book is not a slam piece on 2008. He does discuss Romney, Thompson, and others to set the record straight as to what happened behind the scenes. However, Huckabee said the book is not focused on “lamenting the past” but ideas for the future as well as being an overall positive book focusing on the achievements of a remarkable group of people who with little money and resources achieved great results as well as a vision for conservatism’s future.

I don’t know how you’re really and truly shocked that Huckabee would have a discouraging word about Romney. It seems Inspector Reneauesque:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1DEG6BWgp0[/youtube]

 This was a book that discussed the campaign. There’s been a lot said about Huckabee and his effort. The Huckabee-Romney dynamic was a huge part of that. There have been many explanations for what happened in the campaign that have been offered up by De Facto Romney surrogates. I give Huckabee credit for putting his name to his criticisms. I think it’s particularly relevant that people understand some of the whys of this campaign as well as what’s happened with some Christian Conservative leaders who are off-track.

Huckabee stated his belief that adults could handle the truth, and I think they can. Huckabee noted Romney’s spokesman didn’t deny Huckabee’s claims, merely got ticked at Huckabee for making.

• Some interesting Huckabee chapter titles, “Politically Homeless”, “Welcome to Washington, DC: Roach Motel” and “Big Ideas Not Just Big Government,” “Elections by Ebay.” Good titles, I pre-ordered the book in July and look forward to reading it. 
• Huckabee made the case for Chip Saltsman for RNC Chairman, and went beyond Saltsman being Huckabee’s campaign manager, but rather pointed to Saltsman’s ability at new media, along with his  success running a shoestring effort.
• How hard did Huckabee campaign for McCain? He lost his voice on the last day of the campaign. Not even McCain did that.
• Huckabee when asked why the GOP lost was careful not to blame McCain personally, but he said the GOP lost not because of our principles but because we failed to articulate them and failed to govern. High federal spending and the bail out belied conservative talk of fiscal conservatism. He also thought that articulating a message woiuld have been more effective than the time spent on issues like Wright and Ayers that obviously didn’t connect with the American people.
• Regarding the last campaign, Huckabee stated he would have done his campaign differently in terms of where time was spent. He opted to go to Michigan after New Hampshire rather than camping out in South Carolina as Fred Thompson did. This allowed Thompson to surge to third and led to Huckabee’s narrow loss when combined with a snowstorm in a Huckabee stronhold in Greenville, SC.
• Huckabee’s main message of the book, “Do the right thing” is the centrality of cultural conservativism.  “It’s impossible to seperate the morality of a country from the economics of a country. “Over 10 1/2 years as Governor, Huckabee learned, “The cost of government is tied directly to the breakdown of the family.” To those who would like to just talk economics, Huckabee says that as a practical matter, “You can’t reduce government, if people are irresponsible.” He challenges critics who believes the issues are seperate to answer his argument and to “Tell me how there is no connection” between the moral and economic states of the nation.

In the recent bailout debate, Huckabee and the majority of National Review’s posters on the Corner blog once again were on opposite sides. One defended the fundamental basis of our market economy and insisted that we couldn’t insist that if we lose, we needed to call in government to “take away the pain.” While the other prattled on about the need for a bailout and called House Republican Stalwart Mike Pence irresponsible for leading the opposition to the bailout.

The problem? The majority of the Corner, including Editor Rick Lowry, supported the bailout and Mike Huckabee supported the majority of House Republicans in opposing it. Why the disparity? National Review’s current leadership ties into Wall Street and its interest. During the campaign, Huckabee was seen as too anti-Wall Street and therefore not fiscally conservative by the Review and other economic conservatives.

What this bailout has revealed is that Wall Street and Corporate America in general are not the gold standard of fiscal conservatism. Wall Street is little more than a series of self-interested entities. They support what’s good for their particular business, not conservative principles. They are not ideologues.

Wall Street has no problem supporting numerous subsidies that will benefit their industry. Corporate welfare is perfectly fine despite the distortions it creates in the marketplace. And yes, this $700 billion bailout is fine because it benefits Wall Street, regardless of the principles violated, or the numerous long-term issues it raises.

On the issue of tax reform, while conservatives want to abolish the tax code and replace it with a Flat Tax or Fair Tax, the powers that be in the financial world are content to leave it in place. Thus, during the primaries, Wall Street praised several middling plans to impose alternative “Flatter” taxes that would allow people the option of filing their taxes under a simplified code with two or three brackets while Wall Street rejected Huckabee’s backing of abolishing the tax code and replacing it with a national retail sales tax.

The flatter taxes do little to solve some of the key problems with the tax code, such as how it becomes a special interest bonanza. Big businesses and the rich have figured out how to game this system and most don’t want it to go away because they can play games with it and avoid taxes as much as possible.

This isn’t to say that there are no good conservatives on Wall Street, or who have money. However, the vast majority have fallen into the trap of petty self-interest over country and principle.

Huckabee was more conservative on the bailout because his politics are not based on financial self-interest, but rather his politics are based on principles that come from a belief in God and Country that informs his politics.

It is such people who will be key to saving our Republic. As to Wall Street, they’ve earned my suspicion and the attacks of Wall Street Republicans on political candidates are going to be far less relevant to me and other conservatives in the future. Not unlike Esau, they have sold their credibility for $700 billion

“… if we had played by the rules of the Democrats, I would have won, and if the Democrats have played by the rules of the Republicans, Hillary would have won this long ago.”

Seizing on the same thread, Kathryn Jean Lopez writes: “Mike Huckabee, not letting go.”

Is Huckabee being a sore loser whining about sour grapes? Maybe, it’d help to look at Huckabee’s quote in context:

Why do you believe you lost to John McCain, other than money?

He got more votes than me! If you do an analysis of the election, if we had played by the rules of the Democrats, I would have won, and if the Democrats have played by the rules of the Republicans, Hillary would have won this long ago.

If you look at the process, and I’m not bitter about and it’s nothing that I’m complaining about. It is what it is. But the Republicans had a front-loaded system with winner-take-all states, and the front-load was largely states that were states that are not Republican states, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, California. They were winner-take-all states, but they were big states and delegate-rich. Those were the states John McCain plays very well in. I’ve won the states in the South. I won Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, West Virginia and Arkansas…

But those were all proportionate states. So I won them, but I didn’t get all the delegates. But if you had taken that whole system and reversed it, it would have been a very different outcome.

[The January 19 South Carolina primary was a turning point in the campaign.] Fred Thompson’s presence took votes from me. We would have won by 10 points had Fred not been in the race. We would have won handily in South Carolina, but because the conservative vote split, in essence, three ways, and even though I had more than Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney combined, the fact is, their presence kept me from the two points I needed to beat John McCain in South Carolina. [He lost 29.9 percent to McCain's 33.2 percent.]

Huckabee was asked a question, he analyzed it. He didn’t volunteer some gripe as Lewis and K. Lo suggest. Lewis goes on:

“The greatest threat to classic Republicanism is not liberalism; it’s this new brand of libertarianism, which is social liberalism and economic conservatism, but it’s a heartless, callous, soulless type of economic conservatism because it says “look, we want to cut taxes and eliminate government.”

Egad, Huckabee is against lower taxes and less government? Again, some context, please:

Republicans need to be Republicans. The greatest threat to classic Republicanism is not liberalism; it’s this new brand of libertarianism, which is social liberalism and economic conservatism, but it’s a heartless, callous, soulless type of economic conservatism because it says “look, we want to cut taxes and eliminate government. If it means that elderly people don’t get their Medicare drugs, so be it. If it means little kids go without education and healthcare, so be it.” Well, that might be a quote pure economic conservative message, but it’s not an American message. It doesn’t fly. People aren’t going to buy that, because that’s not the way we are as a people. That’s not historic Republicanism. Historic Republicanism does not hate government; it’s just there to be as little of it as there can be. But they also recognize that government has to be paid for.

If you have a breakdown in the social structure of a community, it’s going to result in a more costly government … police on the streets, prison beds, court costs, alcohol abuse centers, domestic violence shelters, all are very expensive. What’s the answer to that? Cut them out? Well, the libertarians say “yes, we shouldn’t be funding that stuff.” But what you’ve done then is exacerbate a serious problem in your community. You can take the cops off the streets and just quit funding prison beds. Are your neighborhoods safer? Is it a better place to live? The net result is you have now a bigger problem than you had before.

Huckabee’s point is not that government is better, period as Lewis would have left us thinking, but rather that if you want less government, you have to reduce the need for it. Libertarians think government can be reduced without addressing the cultural issues that led to bigger government in the first place. You want less money spent on prisons? Less money spent caring for the elderly? Stronger families are key. The idea that you can have a rotting culture and also limited government is absurd. Huckabee’s idea goes back to John Adams, who warned that our constitution was suited for a religious and moral people and unsuitable for any other. The less moral people are, the less freedom there will be.

Club for Growth attacks Huckabee as well:

Mike Huckabee misses the fundamental point of free-market capitalism, which is that free markets promote economic growth for all people, including the poor, in a way that government simply can’t match. Historically, it has been free markets and private philanthropy–not government–that has generated prosperity, eliminated poverty, and fostered opportunity. When government interferes by trying to manipulate the economy to produce “desirable” results, it almost always ends up doing worse than the market could have done by itself.

Huckabee is subscribing to the liberal, not to mention condescending, notion that people cannot better their lives without government holding their hand a good part of the way. Huckabee is entitled to his opinion, but he shouldn’t pretend to be an economic conservative when he rejects the basic tenet upon which conservatism is based.

Huckabee subscribed to no such notion. Huckabee is no liberal on economics (see his tort reform in Arkansas, his defense of Wal-Mart in his book, his seeking to cut the Capital Gains Tax, and today’s response to Maxine Waters’s proposal to nationalize oil), nor does Huckabee’s statement have to do with government regulations on business (in which case the CFG’s response makes sense.)

I don’t agree with Huckabee on some of this. For example, the Medicare Prescription Drug benefit, as passed by Congress, has sped the insolvency of Medicare and paid for the drugs of seniors who could otherwise afford them. However, his overall point that if we want to really reduce government, we have to seriously address cultural decay rather than expecting a morally invirtuous people can enjoy the same freedom a virtuous one can.

Huckabee supporters, as well as Independent voters, had better be prepared for more of these type of attacks and mischaracterizations from the Conservative media establishment. The 2008 Huckabee campaign is over. But the war on Huckabee has only begun.