During the campaign season, Montana Headlines never tried to hide that we thought that while he wasn't the complete package, Gov. Mike Huckabee was a very attractive and intriguing Presidential candidate. He seems genuinely to care about ordinary people and what happens to them, he compiled an impressive record as a conservative Republican governor in a very heavily Democratic state, he wasn't a negative campaigner (his few slips on this score were exceptions that proved the rule,) and he has the consummate communications skills to convey his principles.
Because of what the Club for Growth did to him before the caucus and primary season ever began, it was clear early on that Huckabee was not going to be the Presidential nominee this time around, and that even if he did somehow manage to get the nomination, it was clear that there would be too many "good Republicans" who would be churlish enough to refuse to support him (just as there are "good Republicans" who will, contrary to the example of Ronald Reagan, refuse to support Sen. McCain, thus assisting the Democratic cause up and down the ticket.)
By process of elimination, it was clear, at least to us, even before the Iowa caucuses, that John McCain, in spite of some big problem spots with the Republican base, had the best chance of being a consensus candidate in the GOP who could actually win. We thus unapologetically and enthusiastically support Sen. McCain. The choice seems pretty clear this election season.
But back to Huckabee.
Gov. Huckabee was in Montana doing a fundraiser for private Christian schools in Billings, and stumping for our Governor/Lt. Gov. team of Roy Brown and Steve Daines. He spoke to a packed out GOP breakfast in Billings, and an overflow capacity luncheon in Bozeman. In the process, he again showed that easy and confident ability to campaign, communicate, and connect with voters that on display all through the primary season.
Huckabee's draw was in part seen by the fact that Sec. State Brad Johnson and our State Auditor candidate Duane Grimes were in attendance at the events, as were many local legislative candidates -- the presence of someone of Huckabee's stature is a rising tide that lifts all ships, and we certainly hope that this visit will not only help Brown and Daines, but will benefit Republicans up and down the ticket in Montana through the excitement created by the optimism that Huckabee exudes about the prospects of the Republican Party. It has been clear as the campaign has worn on that all of our statewide candidates see themselves as part of a Republican team that supports each other, so Johnson and Grimes were also there to show their support for Brown and Daines.
Huckabee's presence in Montana at this point in the campaign can be attributed in no small part to the presence of Steve Daines on the ticket, since Daines headed up the Huckabee effort for the Montana caucuses and developed personal contacts with Huckabee and his team. Not surprisingly, Huckabee came across very well in Billings and was an effective fundraiser and high-profile "rally the troops" visitor. He showed that he had familiarized himself both with Sen. Roy Brown and the political situation in Montana.
As a former Chairman of the National Governors' Association (a bipartsian goup) he displayed a confident grasp of both the big picture and the nuts and bolts of what it takes to be a governor, and how important the choice of a governor is. Of course, all of this is what skilled politicians do, but Huckabee's experience in governing and campaigning (and his natural gift for it) showed.
One insightful point that Huckabee made when being interviewed by the Gazette was when he was asked about Rev. Jeremiah Wright -- he noted that really, Rev. Wright at this point has to want Obama to lose. Wright is clearly not backing off on his views that the U.S. is an instrument of racial oppression, so for Obama to win would prove Wright wrong.
The Hoover Institution scholar Shelby Steele wrote a book within the last year about Sen. Obama explaining why he believed that Obama cannot ultimately win the presidency. It is worth listening to Steele discuss his analysis of why this is so, but it ties directly into what Huckabee said in Billings yesterday. Huckabee, in his last re-election campaign for governor, received nearly half of the black vote in Arkansas -- an amazing feat for any Republican in the South, but one which shows that Republicans can indeed connect with minority communities if they care to try to do so.
The governor and the sinestra blogosphere predictably pointed out the differences between some of Huckabee's policies while governor of Arkansas and those that Brown is proposing.
Well, with all due respect, this just proves that not all Republicans have to think alike on every issue, even while sharing similar values and principles, and supporting each other. It also neglects little things like the fact that when Huckabee took office as governor, his legislature was 95% Democratic. While substantial gains were made over his decade in office in gaining Republican legislators, he never did have a Republican legislature to work with.
And regardless, at a time when some prominent Montana Democrats (including our governor and his brother) are giving the impression that they are ready to throw their presumptive nominee under the bus, it is telling that Montana Republican candidates aren't afraid or ashamed to be seen stumping with the guy who lost the Republican nomination. It would be hard to imagine Republican candidates in Montana running from any of the major Republican candidates this year. Quite a difference.
Gov. Huckabee is a solid common-sense conservative with a gift for seeing where the Republican party needs to go -- particularly in terms of tone. His presence in Montana will only help Brown and Daines, and he will be busy on the campaign trail helping Republicans all across America raise money and campaign. He developed a wide network and admiring group of supporters (a great many of whom don't fit the evangelical Christian stereotype,) and he seems determined to use this political capital to help Republicans get elected, starting at the top with Sen. McCain and working up and down the ticket in states across the country.
While, as we pointed out, Steve Daines probably played no small role in making these appearances come together, one suspects that we would have seen Huckabee here in Montana this year offering to stump for a future Gov. Roy Brown regardless.
One wonders how many other former Presidential candidates will take the time to do the same. We hope that Huckabee will be just the first of many.
Showing posts with label Mike Huckabee. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mike Huckabee. Show all posts
Friday, May 2, 2008
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Why Huckabee can stay in
Byron York at National Review notes that the Huckabee campaign is actually a very pragmatic one. So why is he staying in the race? He certainly knows that he can't win, unless McCain has a stroke or something.
He surely knows that he will be the VP choice only when hades freezes over, due to the vitriol that was hurled at him early in the campaign. Even though he is winning the "very conservative" vote by huge margins, we must remember that he is a liberal, according to all of the reliable pundits and talk-show hosts.
This is really too bad, since Huckabee would be a tireless, battle-tested campaigner who could lock down the greater South for McCain while McCain concentrated on winning swing states and putting the fear of God into Democrats by running hard at them in states like Michigan and Pennsylvania. If the job of a Veep is to be an outstanding campaign surrogate, it would be hard to find someone who would be more proven at that than Huckabee. But it won't happen.
Prior to his winning Iowa, he was widely touted as a likeable conservative southern governor with impeccable social conservative credentials who was an almost inevitable Veep for Giuliani, McCain, Romney -- basically for anyone but another southerner like Thompson.
But then the Huckaboom happened, and the Romney machine,the Club for Growth, and the conservative establishment started their takedown.
So again, why is he staying in the race? Byron York explains:
The main reasons are that Huckabee can afford to keep going, he thinks he can do well in Texas, and that, as the sole recipient of votes from conservatives unhappy with McCain, his support has actually increased.
Mitt Romney pulled out of the race because did not see the purpose in keeping his extremely expensive campaign going in the face of terrible odds; it would have been impossible to imagine a greatly scaled-down Romney operation, going into primaries on a shoestring.
Huckabee, on the other hand, has always operated on a shoestring. In fact, as McCain’s last major opponent, he is positively living large, compared to the campaign’s earliest days.
Part of that is because his campaign has displayed a genius for stretching a dollar. Huckabee won Georgia even though he couldn’t afford to purchase TV ads in Atlanta; instead, he bought time in places like Macon.
He won Alabama without spending much in Birmingham, opting instead for the less expensive Huntsville. And the campaign just loved twofers. “If we could find a media market that covered two states, we were all over it,” the Huckabee aide told me. “Chattanooga, Fort Smith, Joplin – it’s called bang for your buck.”
Now when you compare Huckabee's ability to stretch a dollar, live off the land (so to speak,) and wage a protracted guerilla war for delegates that will almost certainly leave him with more delegates than Romney by the time he is done -- and compare that to the profligacy of the Romney campaign, you have to wonder which one really is the instinctive fiscal conservative. You have to wonder just which one would use tax dollars more efficiently.
Montana Headlines has never questioned the facts of Huckabee's record as governor that made him anathema to a certain type of conservative. No, he didn't see tax cuts as the solution to every problem Arkansas faced, and yes, he was ready to spend money on infrastructure.
But when it comes right down to it, there has always been the sense that Huckabee, at his most basic gut-level, is deeply conservative, across the board. And the votes that have been cast throughout the most conservative swaths of the country by the most conservative voters there confirm that gut-check. While he has been left with evangelicals as his most loyal core supporters, there is a lot more to him than that, and always has been.
While Huckabee has been a gentleman about it, his goal throughout the rest of this campaign has to be to prove that he is able to gather in the votes of conservative voters, even in the face of an inevitable nominee, that he can do it with a fraction of the resources that other candidates have dedicated to the process, and that he can move McCain to the right on a number of issues without hurting McCain or the party. No small feats, and rest assured that he will accomplish them.
He has shown himself to be the most gifted campaigner and communicator in the entire Republican field -- everyone else is a pale and/or stiff imitation. He will be a force in conservative and Republican politics for years to come, and he is solidifying his position. Will he be the next conservative heir-apparent? One can make the case with little difficulty that he certainly has more claim to the title than anyone else.
And it isn't just because he was the only one foolish or deluded enough to stay in. He was, as York points out, the only one who actually could stay in. The only one with the political ability and resources (and ability to manage resources -- Huckabee has apparently long been stashing cash away to be ready for the big media buys that have long been his biggest "must-haves" -- the big Texas markets.)
York again:
Whenever he goes, Huckabee will leave with a stature far higher than when he began the race. He is now a national figure in GOP politics, widely admired as the best natural campaigner in the 2008 field. Good, and perhaps even greater, things await. And it is unlikely that Huckabee wants to do anything in the last days of his campaign to diminish all the gains he has made.
Indeed, and that is why Huckabee started the race running a positive campaign and not engaging in personal attacks, and why he will be the last "opponent" of McCain standing -- ending it on the same positive note, with warm words of respect spoken about him by Sen. McCain. He may even provoke some reconsiderations by those who decided early and quickly to hate him.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Huckabee should stay in
What is extremely amusing is that some self-styled conservatives are calling for Huckabee to drop out, saying that he owes it to the conservative movement to stop McCain.
Let's see -- this is the same group of conservative pundits and PAC's who torpedoed Huckabee's campaign by savagely painting his record in the worst light while ignoring all of Mitt Romney's failings as a conservative. Their point was that Huckabee was a liberal -- so why are they worrying about whether Huckabee will take votes from Romney? If McCain and Huckabee are evil twin liberals, then they should split the evil Republican vote between them, and hurt only each other.
What exactly does Huckabee owe the conservative establishment? Given how he was treated, exactly nothing -- and that's what he should give them at this point. There will be a time for Huckabee to figure out how to put a broader coalition together for his political future -- but now is not the time for that. There will also be a time to get behind the eventual nominee, whoever that is. But for right now, a vote for Huckabee is a vote for Huckabee -- not one for McCain.
Romney spent millions of dollars on negative ads in order to destroy Huckabee. And now Huckabee is supposed to drop out in order to help this guy defeat McCain, a candidate who has treated Huckabee with respect throughout the campaign?
The truest, bluest conservative in the race was Duncan Hunter. He is supporting Mike Huckabee, and not the conservative establishment's latest cause -- Mitt Romney. Maybe he knows something about just how conservative Huckabee really is, and how unconservative Romney really is?
One of the most disappointing things about this race has been the highly prejudicial way in which talk-radio and conservative columnists have worked to eliminate one Republican candidate after another.
The irony is that they are supporting Romney to the hilt, exaggerating his virtues and ignoring his faults. In another race where there was a real conservative, these same pundits would be savaging Romney, taking him down for the count. The only reason they are supporting Romney so strongly is that he is the only non-McCain candidate left standing after they had ignored, failed to ignite, or destroyed all of the other candidates. They ran out of ammunition after spending it all mowing down Huckabee's candidacy.
Frankly, it is hard not to be sick of this whole game of trying to pretend that the conservative movement has any ability to control the Republican party. It can only do it when it has a strong candidate of its own. And this year, they didn't have one.
And this conservative establishment doesn't deserve to pick the GOP's nominee. With their gross distortions of Huckabee and McCain -- and their exaggerations of Romney's virtues, they have shown a lack of intellectual honesty and respectability.
Interestingly, MH finds agreement with no less than Jonah Goldberg, one of our less favorite conservative writers (although much of our dislike of him is based on left-over memories of his earliest and mouthiest stage at National Review Online. He has developed a little more humility, maturity, and restraint since those days.)
Goldberg chides the National Review folks for the over-the-top way in which they have gone after John McCain. And Mr Goldberg is hardly alone -- quite the contrary.
Most importantly, Republican voters are disagreeing with the conservative establishment. With the exit of Giuliani, McCain has leaped to nearly 50% support -- in a 3 man race. This is nothing to sniff at.
But getting back to Huckabee, he should absolutely not drop out. And conservative pundits shouldn't care -- after all, they were the ones who determined that Huckabee was a liberal -- not a conservative. Instead of just saying that Huckabee was a particular variety of conservative within the coalition, they insisted on calling him "liberal" in order to sandbag him more effectively.
So why, exactly, would Huckabee be "splitting the conservative vote" -- when he isn't a conservative in the first place? By urging Huckabee to drop out and endorse Romney -- or at least leave the field to Romney -- all of Huckabee's critics are admitting that they were exaggerating just a wee bit when labelling Huckabee a liberal.
And with that in mind, why should we believe them now, when they claim that there is a world of difference between McCain and Romney? To see stark differences between these two requires an act of intellectual dishonesty that is breathtaking in its audacity. Romney is a Massachusetts liberal Republican. The fact that he is now wearing a new intellectual costume doesn't change that.
It requires giving McCain grief he doesn't deserve -- and it requires giving Romney credit he has never earned. Conservatives need to be honest enough with themselves to acknowledge that they didn't have a candidate this year. Are the earnest promises of a man who just reached political puberty at age 60 more to be relied on than McCain's unwaivering sense of honor and willingness to do the unpopular?
Give us the guy whose flaws we know intimately, if one must choose between Romney and McCain. Romney's record is that of a moderate to liberal Massachusetts governor. He has, at root, less to show that proves he is a conservative at heart than does Sen. McCain, and we can only hope that Montana caucus voters have the sense to see that before falling for the idea that Romney is a conservative Ninja warrior.
Choosing him as the lesser of two evils is a respectable reason to support Romney. But the idea that the Republican party will fall apart under McCain -- and that Romney is the guy to come riding to the rescue of the conservative movement? Not buying it.
Let's see -- this is the same group of conservative pundits and PAC's who torpedoed Huckabee's campaign by savagely painting his record in the worst light while ignoring all of Mitt Romney's failings as a conservative. Their point was that Huckabee was a liberal -- so why are they worrying about whether Huckabee will take votes from Romney? If McCain and Huckabee are evil twin liberals, then they should split the evil Republican vote between them, and hurt only each other.
What exactly does Huckabee owe the conservative establishment? Given how he was treated, exactly nothing -- and that's what he should give them at this point. There will be a time for Huckabee to figure out how to put a broader coalition together for his political future -- but now is not the time for that. There will also be a time to get behind the eventual nominee, whoever that is. But for right now, a vote for Huckabee is a vote for Huckabee -- not one for McCain.
Romney spent millions of dollars on negative ads in order to destroy Huckabee. And now Huckabee is supposed to drop out in order to help this guy defeat McCain, a candidate who has treated Huckabee with respect throughout the campaign?
The truest, bluest conservative in the race was Duncan Hunter. He is supporting Mike Huckabee, and not the conservative establishment's latest cause -- Mitt Romney. Maybe he knows something about just how conservative Huckabee really is, and how unconservative Romney really is?
One of the most disappointing things about this race has been the highly prejudicial way in which talk-radio and conservative columnists have worked to eliminate one Republican candidate after another.
The irony is that they are supporting Romney to the hilt, exaggerating his virtues and ignoring his faults. In another race where there was a real conservative, these same pundits would be savaging Romney, taking him down for the count. The only reason they are supporting Romney so strongly is that he is the only non-McCain candidate left standing after they had ignored, failed to ignite, or destroyed all of the other candidates. They ran out of ammunition after spending it all mowing down Huckabee's candidacy.
Frankly, it is hard not to be sick of this whole game of trying to pretend that the conservative movement has any ability to control the Republican party. It can only do it when it has a strong candidate of its own. And this year, they didn't have one.
And this conservative establishment doesn't deserve to pick the GOP's nominee. With their gross distortions of Huckabee and McCain -- and their exaggerations of Romney's virtues, they have shown a lack of intellectual honesty and respectability.
Interestingly, MH finds agreement with no less than Jonah Goldberg, one of our less favorite conservative writers (although much of our dislike of him is based on left-over memories of his earliest and mouthiest stage at National Review Online. He has developed a little more humility, maturity, and restraint since those days.)
Goldberg chides the National Review folks for the over-the-top way in which they have gone after John McCain. And Mr Goldberg is hardly alone -- quite the contrary.
Most importantly, Republican voters are disagreeing with the conservative establishment. With the exit of Giuliani, McCain has leaped to nearly 50% support -- in a 3 man race. This is nothing to sniff at.
But getting back to Huckabee, he should absolutely not drop out. And conservative pundits shouldn't care -- after all, they were the ones who determined that Huckabee was a liberal -- not a conservative. Instead of just saying that Huckabee was a particular variety of conservative within the coalition, they insisted on calling him "liberal" in order to sandbag him more effectively.
So why, exactly, would Huckabee be "splitting the conservative vote" -- when he isn't a conservative in the first place? By urging Huckabee to drop out and endorse Romney -- or at least leave the field to Romney -- all of Huckabee's critics are admitting that they were exaggerating just a wee bit when labelling Huckabee a liberal.
And with that in mind, why should we believe them now, when they claim that there is a world of difference between McCain and Romney? To see stark differences between these two requires an act of intellectual dishonesty that is breathtaking in its audacity. Romney is a Massachusetts liberal Republican. The fact that he is now wearing a new intellectual costume doesn't change that.
It requires giving McCain grief he doesn't deserve -- and it requires giving Romney credit he has never earned. Conservatives need to be honest enough with themselves to acknowledge that they didn't have a candidate this year. Are the earnest promises of a man who just reached political puberty at age 60 more to be relied on than McCain's unwaivering sense of honor and willingness to do the unpopular?
Give us the guy whose flaws we know intimately, if one must choose between Romney and McCain. Romney's record is that of a moderate to liberal Massachusetts governor. He has, at root, less to show that proves he is a conservative at heart than does Sen. McCain, and we can only hope that Montana caucus voters have the sense to see that before falling for the idea that Romney is a conservative Ninja warrior.
Choosing him as the lesser of two evils is a respectable reason to support Romney. But the idea that the Republican party will fall apart under McCain -- and that Romney is the guy to come riding to the rescue of the conservative movement? Not buying it.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Peace and Goudreau to all men
We're starting to have a little fun posting on Mike Huckabee. We know that we're not supposed to like him because of his fiscal impurities, and we may yet begin to listen to the alternately snide and indignant rebukes of those who are smarter, richer, and more conservative than we are.
But for now, it is satisfying for the future of the American poltical process to see that a guy who has raised $2 million has moved firmly into the lead in the latest Des Moines Register Iowa poll 29% to 24% (a lead that is actually outside the margin of error) over a guy who has raised $62 million -- much of which he has pumped in from his private fortune.
He may not win Iowa, and he certainly won't win the nomination (although you wouldn't know it to hear the hyperventilating going on and to watch the long knives being pulled,) but Huckabee continues to promise to make the ride a more interesting one than it would otherwise have been. And he has reminded us all that it is possible to be a conservative and still have the other half of the electorate believe that you might actually care about them.
And his success (along with Rudy Giulini's, truth to be told) has also reminded us that a whole lot of people respond more positively to a guy who doesn't hold all the correct positions -- but comes across as genuine -- than they do to candidates who hold tightly to every poll-tested position that their handlers give them.
And we've also go to ask: why is it that Mitt Romney, who is from Boston, can't get Barry Goudreau (of Boston fame) to come jam with him in New Hampshire? --
But for now, it is satisfying for the future of the American poltical process to see that a guy who has raised $2 million has moved firmly into the lead in the latest Des Moines Register Iowa poll 29% to 24% (a lead that is actually outside the margin of error) over a guy who has raised $62 million -- much of which he has pumped in from his private fortune.
He may not win Iowa, and he certainly won't win the nomination (although you wouldn't know it to hear the hyperventilating going on and to watch the long knives being pulled,) but Huckabee continues to promise to make the ride a more interesting one than it would otherwise have been. And he has reminded us all that it is possible to be a conservative and still have the other half of the electorate believe that you might actually care about them.
And his success (along with Rudy Giulini's, truth to be told) has also reminded us that a whole lot of people respond more positively to a guy who doesn't hold all the correct positions -- but comes across as genuine -- than they do to candidates who hold tightly to every poll-tested position that their handlers give them.
And we've also go to ask: why is it that Mitt Romney, who is from Boston, can't get Barry Goudreau (of Boston fame) to come jam with him in New Hampshire? --
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Dick Morris weighs in on Huckabee, and other presidential race notes
Mike Huckabee should feel reassured that he really is in the running -- after all, he has lots of people attacking him. In debate after debate, he has been either the top performer, the guy with the most memorable lines, or both. And yet, his opponents never attacked him because he wasn't a threat, and they didn't want to make him look like one.
Now that the Prince of Darkness himself has weighed in on Huckabee, it is official: some folks are worried.
We'll see how many rank-and-file Republicans are worried. The truth of the matter is that most Republicans, particularly in a state like Montana, are working for a living just like their Democratic counterparts.
And as such, things like this excerpt from an interview Huckabee did with Margaret Warner back in October are going to resonate just as much as any "social conservative" buttons that Huckabee might push:
I'm not an establishment Republican. There are so many people who think of Republican as people who are properly pedigreed within a political system...
Well, you know, my dad for a fireman for the city of Hope, Arkansas, worked as a mechanic on his days off. I was the first male in my family lineage to even graduate high school. I know what it's like to be the first sort of in the whole line to break the cycle of poverty, and go on to high school, college, and end up becoming a governor.
But I think my experience really is far more common to the average American than those folks who have all the right things on their resume. America needs a president who understands what struggle is, because most Americans experience it.
MARGARET WARNER: But why is that paradoxical for a Republican?
HUCKABEE: The perception of many people in America is that a Republican is a wholly owned subsidiary of Wall Street. And, in some cases, it's probably true, that the Republican tends to be more connected to people of great wealth.
Now, I think that that's not always the case. I think rank-and-file Republicans are small-business owners. They're factory workers. They're moms and sometimes single moms and housewives. They're all kinds of people.
But there is this perception that Republican equals privilege. And it certainly isn't the case.
The press seems to like him in spite of itself -- he's even the Rolling Stone's "favorite right-wing nut job." That particular obligatorily profanity-ridden piece was naturally more negative than positive, but the author admits to first being lulled off into thinking that a Huckabee presidency might not be that bad, but...
Then I woke up and did some homework that changed my mind. But I confess: It took a little while. Huckabee is that good.
Huckabee was of course guilty of being a conservative Christian -- an unforgivable Rolling Stone sin. But it still made for an entertaining read.
But coming back to Dick Morris, who had a recent piece entitled "Huckabee is a Fiscal Conservative."
We've never worried that much about the subject, since a little economic populism never hurt anyone, but it is a good reminder that even the supposed "economic liberal" in the race is a wing-nut tax-slasher when compared to the bad guys. While Huckabee is still the most interesting guy in the race, it should be pointed out that the reason he is interesting at all is because no-one who is a "complete package" showed up this election cycle.
And it is hard not to be fascinated by a southern Republican governor who carried nearly 50% of the black vote in Arkansas in his last election. Yes, Rudy would give Hillary a run for the cross-dressing vote, but somehow it just isn't the same.
Morris, of course, as a long-time Clinton advisor turned conservative pundit, has seen Huckabee up close and personal, due to the Arkansas connection. He addresses many of the key charges that Novak and others lay at Huckabee's feet, and puts them into context.
Don't worry, the Club for Growth and the Cato Institute aren't going to read Morris's piece and conclude that Huckabee is their guy. But Morris reminds us of the different circumstances that governors face. Novak criticizes Huckabee because of the rise in total tax burden -- remember that this is a number measured in dollars, so when an economy grows, population grows, etc., the number will rise.
Thus, while the state tax burden rose by 47% under Huckabee, Morris points out that nationwide, the total state tax burden rose by 98%. More useful is to look at individual taxes and individual tax rates:
In Arkansas, the income tax when he took office was 1 percent for the poorest taxpayers and 7 percent for the richest, exactly where it stood when he left the statehouse 11 years later. But, in the interim, he doubled the standard deduction and the child care credit, repealed capital gains taxes for home sales, lowered the capital gains rate, expanded the homestead exemption and set up tax-free savings accounts for medical care and college tuition.
Most impressively, when he had to pass an income tax surcharge amid the drop in revenues after Sept. 11, 2001, he repealed it three years later when he didn't need it any longer.
He raised the sales tax one cent in 11 years and did that only after the courts ordered him to do so. (He also got voter approval for a one-eighth-of-one-cent hike for parks and recreation.)
He wants to repeal the income tax, abolish the IRS and institute a "fair tax" based on consumption, and opposes any tax increase for Social Security.
And every state and every time is different. Think about Montana -- Judy Martz raised some taxes to balance the budget while the current occupant of the governor's mansion has raised no tax rates and has given back money in tax rebates. So which governor would you more trust not to raise taxes? Exactly.
By the time most read this post, we'll know who attacked Gov. Huckabee in the YouTube debate tonight, and along what lines. With the latest Rasmussen Iowa poll showing Huckabee in the lead by 3 points over Romney, one can take a wild stab.
Jay Cost over at the Horse Race Blog notes that the conspicuous absence in the "When Republicans Attack!" wars has been Giuliani attacking Huckabee -- the two have a sort of detente, knowing that they are competing for different voters, and that Giuliani will benefit from a strong Huckabee performance in Iowa while Huckabee will benefit from a strong Giuliani performance in New Hampshire.
If they can each manage to pull off upset wins or near-wins, Romney will be done, and then they can go after each other in South Carolina, which would be quite the contest between two guys who couldn't be more different from each other, except that each is verbally very skilled and each is comfortable in his own skin.
We'd still love to see Fred Thompson come out of hibernation and start performing, but for now, it isn't him who has people popping some buttered corn and turning on the YouTube debate in anticipation of what is going to happen next in the race.
If we can't have a complete and perfect candidate, we should at least be grateful that we have an increasingly interesting race. And we can be assured that whoever emerges from the pack to take the nomination will be battle-hardened and ready to go.
Now that the Prince of Darkness himself has weighed in on Huckabee, it is official: some folks are worried.
We'll see how many rank-and-file Republicans are worried. The truth of the matter is that most Republicans, particularly in a state like Montana, are working for a living just like their Democratic counterparts.
And as such, things like this excerpt from an interview Huckabee did with Margaret Warner back in October are going to resonate just as much as any "social conservative" buttons that Huckabee might push:
I'm not an establishment Republican. There are so many people who think of Republican as people who are properly pedigreed within a political system...
Well, you know, my dad for a fireman for the city of Hope, Arkansas, worked as a mechanic on his days off. I was the first male in my family lineage to even graduate high school. I know what it's like to be the first sort of in the whole line to break the cycle of poverty, and go on to high school, college, and end up becoming a governor.
But I think my experience really is far more common to the average American than those folks who have all the right things on their resume. America needs a president who understands what struggle is, because most Americans experience it.
MARGARET WARNER: But why is that paradoxical for a Republican?
HUCKABEE: The perception of many people in America is that a Republican is a wholly owned subsidiary of Wall Street. And, in some cases, it's probably true, that the Republican tends to be more connected to people of great wealth.
Now, I think that that's not always the case. I think rank-and-file Republicans are small-business owners. They're factory workers. They're moms and sometimes single moms and housewives. They're all kinds of people.
But there is this perception that Republican equals privilege. And it certainly isn't the case.
The press seems to like him in spite of itself -- he's even the Rolling Stone's "favorite right-wing nut job." That particular obligatorily profanity-ridden piece was naturally more negative than positive, but the author admits to first being lulled off into thinking that a Huckabee presidency might not be that bad, but...
Then I woke up and did some homework that changed my mind. But I confess: It took a little while. Huckabee is that good.
Huckabee was of course guilty of being a conservative Christian -- an unforgivable Rolling Stone sin. But it still made for an entertaining read.
But coming back to Dick Morris, who had a recent piece entitled "Huckabee is a Fiscal Conservative."
We've never worried that much about the subject, since a little economic populism never hurt anyone, but it is a good reminder that even the supposed "economic liberal" in the race is a wing-nut tax-slasher when compared to the bad guys. While Huckabee is still the most interesting guy in the race, it should be pointed out that the reason he is interesting at all is because no-one who is a "complete package" showed up this election cycle.
And it is hard not to be fascinated by a southern Republican governor who carried nearly 50% of the black vote in Arkansas in his last election. Yes, Rudy would give Hillary a run for the cross-dressing vote, but somehow it just isn't the same.
Morris, of course, as a long-time Clinton advisor turned conservative pundit, has seen Huckabee up close and personal, due to the Arkansas connection. He addresses many of the key charges that Novak and others lay at Huckabee's feet, and puts them into context.
Don't worry, the Club for Growth and the Cato Institute aren't going to read Morris's piece and conclude that Huckabee is their guy. But Morris reminds us of the different circumstances that governors face. Novak criticizes Huckabee because of the rise in total tax burden -- remember that this is a number measured in dollars, so when an economy grows, population grows, etc., the number will rise.
Thus, while the state tax burden rose by 47% under Huckabee, Morris points out that nationwide, the total state tax burden rose by 98%. More useful is to look at individual taxes and individual tax rates:
In Arkansas, the income tax when he took office was 1 percent for the poorest taxpayers and 7 percent for the richest, exactly where it stood when he left the statehouse 11 years later. But, in the interim, he doubled the standard deduction and the child care credit, repealed capital gains taxes for home sales, lowered the capital gains rate, expanded the homestead exemption and set up tax-free savings accounts for medical care and college tuition.
Most impressively, when he had to pass an income tax surcharge amid the drop in revenues after Sept. 11, 2001, he repealed it three years later when he didn't need it any longer.
He raised the sales tax one cent in 11 years and did that only after the courts ordered him to do so. (He also got voter approval for a one-eighth-of-one-cent hike for parks and recreation.)
He wants to repeal the income tax, abolish the IRS and institute a "fair tax" based on consumption, and opposes any tax increase for Social Security.
And every state and every time is different. Think about Montana -- Judy Martz raised some taxes to balance the budget while the current occupant of the governor's mansion has raised no tax rates and has given back money in tax rebates. So which governor would you more trust not to raise taxes? Exactly.
By the time most read this post, we'll know who attacked Gov. Huckabee in the YouTube debate tonight, and along what lines. With the latest Rasmussen Iowa poll showing Huckabee in the lead by 3 points over Romney, one can take a wild stab.
Jay Cost over at the Horse Race Blog notes that the conspicuous absence in the "When Republicans Attack!" wars has been Giuliani attacking Huckabee -- the two have a sort of detente, knowing that they are competing for different voters, and that Giuliani will benefit from a strong Huckabee performance in Iowa while Huckabee will benefit from a strong Giuliani performance in New Hampshire.
If they can each manage to pull off upset wins or near-wins, Romney will be done, and then they can go after each other in South Carolina, which would be quite the contest between two guys who couldn't be more different from each other, except that each is verbally very skilled and each is comfortable in his own skin.
We'd still love to see Fred Thompson come out of hibernation and start performing, but for now, it isn't him who has people popping some buttered corn and turning on the YouTube debate in anticipation of what is going to happen next in the race.
If we can't have a complete and perfect candidate, we should at least be grateful that we have an increasingly interesting race. And we can be assured that whoever emerges from the pack to take the nomination will be battle-hardened and ready to go.
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Steve Daines to head up Huckabee campaign in Montana
Just an interesting tidbit: Bozeman business executive Steve Daines (of GiveItBack.com fame,) is going to head up Mike Huckabee's campaign in Montana.
In spite of the GOP moving up its delegate selection to a limited caucus on February 5th, the hoped-for attention from national candidates hasn't materialized.
It will be interesting to see how Daines approaches his job, since no-one seems to know exactly how this whole caucus thing will work.
Sunday, October 7, 2007
Sunday roundup and branding -- the Gazette, and beyond...
Best of the conservablogs: Again, Mike over at The Last Best Place has a roundup of highlights from the right-thinking Montana blogs. Think dextrous, not sinister -- please, for the sake of the children.
Montana educational suit-filers taking a fall break: Normally, at this time of year, the Montana Quality Education Association would already have a lawsuit working its way through the courts, suing the state of Montana for supposedly inadequate educational funding.
They are going to take a hiatus -- not because the 25% increase in funding in the last couple of legislative sessions is adequate, but because they want to work with the governor and the legislature. What a concept.
It probably helps that the governor is a Democrat and that the educational establishment is probably worried about doing anything to hurt the chances of Democratic legislators at the polls in 2008. Got to get those priorities straight -- there's apparently more to education than money. Except when Republicans are in charge. In which case, sue away!
Rehberg votes for Iraq withdrawal reports: Finally, a sensible bill requiring the President to report on withdrawal issues such as troop numbers and inventories. This is well within the role of Congress, since Congress needs such information in order to know how to fund the effort in Iraq that it has authorized the President to pursue.There are no timetables for withdrawal -- and there shouldn't be. Rep. Rehberg's vote reflects an accurate assessment of what Congress's role should be in the Iraq war.
Huckabee strong in Iowa: Among likely Republican caucus-goers who have definitely made up their mind, Huckabee ranked #1 in a DeMoines Register poll. He ranked 3rd overall in the poll. So far, Huckabee has been running the kind of flawless stealth campaign that Fred Thompson's supporters hoped he would, and he is exhibiting an ability to communicate on the stump that only Rudy Giuliani can rival. Combine that with the bit of life breathed back into John McCain's campaign, and the GOP race just gets more interesting.
In a recent radio interview, former PA Senator Rick Santorum (rumored to be heading for a gubernatorial run) noted that something that was thought to be a relic of the past -- a brokered convention -- is actually a live possibility in 2008.
Ed Kemmick's City Lights: Praising the "Candidates Gone Wild" night recently held in Missoula, we learn that:
The soiree featured a DJ in an Afro wig spinning rap songs, a television meteorologist cracking jokes, one candidate singing a Bob Dylan song and all of the candidates doing a chicken dance. That and a full bar, too. A cabaret troupe from Virginia City used song-and-dance numbers to provide biographical sketches of the candidates, and Justin Timberlake's "SexyBack" played every time the candidates got on or off the stage.
So might having a DJ in an Afro wig playing rap songs be the missing link that Republican gatherings have been looking for as we try to reverse our recent electoral disappointments? Can Kemmick promise good, positive press for the GOP if we do this? We're about ready to try anything. GOP leaders are eagerly awaiting further advice.
Kasparov out to check-mate Putin: In a somewhat overwrought New Yorker piece, we learn more of Garry Kasparov's attempt to politically take on Vladimir Putin. As much as anything, the piece is a reminder of just what impotent forces self-important intellectuals really are in the political sphere. Kasparov is a great chess player, perhaps the greatest of all time. And his innate intelligence is beyond question.
But his politics seem to be naive at best, and his manner seems to have divided the opposition more neatly than Putin could hope for.
After all of the lengthy analysis and inside baseball of the piece, it ends with quotations from Russians who reflect the clear majority opinion in that country right now -- namely that they want Putin to stay. He has brought a measure of economic and social stability to Russia that it hasn't experienced since the rape of the economy by the "free market" barons under Boris Yeltsin.
It is not the business of Americans to pick the leaders of other nations but rather to learn to deal with them, and the fact that many on the right are falling back into old Russo-phobias here in the U.S. is unfortunate.
More to the point, it is self-contradictory, since American conservatives seem convinced that the struggle against Islamic terrorism is the most important issue facing our nation.
One can see why Kasparov would cut a romantic figure for most New Yorker readers, fitting right in with retrospectives on Jack Kerouac such as the one found in the same issue.
But for the pragmatic, it is Putin himself who remains an untapped ally in a country that has faced a militant Islam along most of its vast southern border for centuries.
"We've been here before" -- Iran this time: It is truly amazing that there are those beating the drum for war against Iran just as America is trying to stabilize things in Iraq enough to make a face-saving withdrawal (does anyone thinks that Republicans who are not on the editorial staff of the Weekly Standard are hoping for anything more than a modicum of stability and an eventual quiet withdrawal?)
But here we go again. And again, there are few voices on the right that dare say anything too negative, although the demeanor of the GOP presidential candidates generally reflects a business-like "we need to clean up the mess" attitude.
The American Conservative is one of the few places to find openly non-interventionist foreign policy expositions coming from the right. Ben Stein at the American Spectator is another who favors acknowledging that our troops won the war in Iraq and bringing them home.
From the American Conservative:
After all, we’ve been here before. Asked about Iranian activity in Iraq, spokeswoman Maj. Alayne Conway conceded that the U.S. military has not captured any agents, but “just because we’re not finding them doesn’t mean they’re not there.” She might have been reading from the script Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld used when he warned about Iraq’s phantom chemical and biological weapons: an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Eerie.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Good for Sen. Baucus
Sen. Max Baucus did the right thing in voting against giving voting representation to the District of Columbia. Unsurprisingly, Sen. Tester did the wrong thing in voting for it. Of course, if Tester's election was in 2008 and Baucus's were in 2012, they may well have switched roles, but we can't know that one way or another. So let's just keep it simple, and praise Max.
The reasons why this is the right vote were touched on when MH disagreed with Gov. Mike Huckabee's statement that he would support such legislation.
The simplest means for giving voters in D.C. Congressional representation would be to redraw the boundaries of the District of Columbia. Put all of those residential areas into Maryland, and at the next census, they'd be sure to have their own voting Congressman and would be able to vote for Maryland's Senators. (We'd need to repeal the amendment giving 3 electoral college votes to D.C., but that could happen pretty quickly.)
Barring that, the proper means would be a Constitutional amendment giving a voting Congressional representative to D.C. That such an amendment is proper and indeed necessary to change how D.C. is dealt with is made clear by the fact that presidential electors were granted to D.C. via a Constitutional amendment, not through simple legislation. Again, we would refer readers to the above link.
Those who would bypass the Constitutional amendment process in favor of simple legislation are voting to take the matter out of the hands of the most representative and directly answerable bodies in the nation -- state legislatures. Amending the Constitution is the prerogative of the state legislatures, since the U.S. Constitution is the creation of the state legislatures.
Keep in mind that Congress does not have to initiate Constitutional amendments -- the legislatures of 2/3rds of the states can call for a convention to do so.
So the tools of democracy are wide open to the supporters of Congressional representation for D.C.
Bypass the U.S. Senate entirely, and go for it.
The reasons why this is the right vote were touched on when MH disagreed with Gov. Mike Huckabee's statement that he would support such legislation.
The simplest means for giving voters in D.C. Congressional representation would be to redraw the boundaries of the District of Columbia. Put all of those residential areas into Maryland, and at the next census, they'd be sure to have their own voting Congressman and would be able to vote for Maryland's Senators. (We'd need to repeal the amendment giving 3 electoral college votes to D.C., but that could happen pretty quickly.)
Barring that, the proper means would be a Constitutional amendment giving a voting Congressional representative to D.C. That such an amendment is proper and indeed necessary to change how D.C. is dealt with is made clear by the fact that presidential electors were granted to D.C. via a Constitutional amendment, not through simple legislation. Again, we would refer readers to the above link.
Those who would bypass the Constitutional amendment process in favor of simple legislation are voting to take the matter out of the hands of the most representative and directly answerable bodies in the nation -- state legislatures. Amending the Constitution is the prerogative of the state legislatures, since the U.S. Constitution is the creation of the state legislatures.
Keep in mind that Congress does not have to initiate Constitutional amendments -- the legislatures of 2/3rds of the states can call for a convention to do so.
So the tools of democracy are wide open to the supporters of Congressional representation for D.C.
Bypass the U.S. Senate entirely, and go for it.
Friday, August 24, 2007
Giuliani is big, Romney is rich, Fred Thompson has Big and Rich -- but Mike Huckabee is bad and righteous
Not only did John Rich of "Big and Rich" play at a Nashville fundraiser for Fred Thompson, but "Redneck Woman" Gretchen Wilson and Cowboy Troy (the world's premier country rap-star) were both there to boost Fred too.
John played acoustic guitar and sang “The Battle of New Orleans,” Johnny Horton's hit about previous Tennessee president Andrew Jackson's days as a general in the War of 1812. He also performed the Big & Rich hit “Save a Horse, Ride a Cowboy.”
No word on where Big Kenny stands politically, but regardless, it would seem to be hard for the other candidates to beat this kind of firepower.
Except... that Mike Huckabee can actually play this stuff himself, whether with a pickup band or with his own band of "Capitol Offense." And we now know who Elvis is endorsing. And, if Huckabee and his band can inspire stolid New England Republicans to get down and boogie, just where will it all end?
Look out, Fred Thompson -- you're playing a most dangerous game...
John played acoustic guitar and sang “The Battle of New Orleans,” Johnny Horton's hit about previous Tennessee president Andrew Jackson's days as a general in the War of 1812. He also performed the Big & Rich hit “Save a Horse, Ride a Cowboy.”
No word on where Big Kenny stands politically, but regardless, it would seem to be hard for the other candidates to beat this kind of firepower.
Except... that Mike Huckabee can actually play this stuff himself, whether with a pickup band or with his own band of "Capitol Offense." And we now know who Elvis is endorsing. And, if Huckabee and his band can inspire stolid New England Republicans to get down and boogie, just where will it all end?
Look out, Fred Thompson -- you're playing a most dangerous game...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)