Well, Club For Growth is crowing about Governor Huckabee’s endorsement of Don Young. I’m on record saying that this was something I couldn’t go along with it.  I support Sean Parnell for Congress.

Huckabee didn’t pick the right guy. Nobody does 100 percent of the time. Huckabee’s choice comes from mostly out of loyalty for Young’s support. I can understand it, I don’t agree with it.

That said, the Club for Growth is full of hot air:

Over the past year, the Club for Growth has been criticized by Huckabee and some conservatives for painting the Arkansas Governor as a fiscal liberal. If ever there was proof that that the Club was right from the start, it is this outrageous endorsement of Rep. Young who embodies the worst of the Republican Party’s wasteful habits.

So, endorsing Don Young proves one is a fiscal liberal? Perhaps. I mean after all, Huckabee called him a hero to taxpayers with the bridge to nowhere, etc. Oh wait, that wasn’t Mike Huckabee, that was Grover Norquist and Americans for Tax Reform.

Why hasn’t the CFG run an ad explaining why Don Young is a corrupt fiscal liberal just like Grover Norquist? Probably because Norquist is one of the most powerful men in Washington. You give him this type of smackdown and you’ll smart from it. Huckabee, though is fair game. I don’t believe it’s true of Norquist (who I have many disagreements with) nor do I think it’s true of Huckabee.

To me, this show’s how blindly destructive the Club’s Huckahate is. Is there little press release going to hurt Don Young? Is it going to make people more willing to vote for Sean Parnell? Or, if this thing spreads will it make Alaska’s huckavoters (Huckabee finished 2nd in Alaska) give pause about whether they want to give Parnell their support and give the Club a victory in the Huckawar.

Instead of making this election about Don Young, Sean Parnell, the future of Alaska, and Congressional reform,  CFG is trying to turn this into a battle between them and Mike Huckabee, thus reducing the chance of their guy and my guy winning up there. It’s stupid and it’s destructive, but it’s anti-Huckabee, so the CFG says, “Let’s do it.”

Finally, Kathryn Lopez declares, “Goodbye, Huck.” as if:

1) She’s had anything positive to say about him since Iowa and there was any chance of her supporting him in any future effort after he beat Romney.

2) One Endorsement finishes a political career. This has never been the case, and if so who is going to go and check everyone’s “Endorsement purity” record to decide who is forever voted off?

National Review is set this Friday to release the names of four people it views as unacceptable Vice-Presidential Candidates: Tom Ridge, Charlie Crist, Joe Lieberman, and Mike Huckabee, and frankly I could care less.

In December, I listened to and joined in the DC echo-chamber that slammed Mike Huckabee mercilessly. I fed on the constant negative drumbeat of National Review and their relentless assaults on Arkansas’ former Governor. I bought into it, I regurgitated it.

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 7^th after having won only one competitive primary.

Conservative defeat is the legacy of National Review in the 2008 campaign. Why bother listening to them? Last week, I did a podcast in which I began to talk about some of the activities of John McCain, the nominee that obsessive huckacritics pushed over the top by becoming the echo chamber of groups like National Review and the Club for Growth and I wept for what I helped to bring about.

I feel as Heritage Foundation Founder Paul Weyrich did when he rose to speak to the National Policy Council to confess, “Friends, before all of you and before Almighty God, I want to say I was wrong.”

Over the years, conservative magazines have ceased to speak to common people and explain how and why conservative ideas can make our country better. Instead, the magazines are full of intellectual navel-gazing that no one outside of the conservative movement cares one whit about.

They missed, as we all did, the grassroots movement that was Huck’s Army: thousands of grassroots activists producing miracle wins on little money. They missed the optimism and faith in America that Mike Huckabee exuded? Why? He graduated from school they never heard of, he was an Evangelical, came from the rural South, and didn’t embrace Darwinism as unalienable truth.

There is much of the establishment conservative movement that represents conservative beltway elitism. There time is ending.

There was a time when the New York Times was a Christian-owned newspaper that railed against the evils of abortion and even called it medical malpractice. There was a time when the motto of Harvard was, “For Christ and the church.”

These institutions have become shadows of their former selves, enemies of the causes for which they once existed, but truth lives on. It does not live in the hearts of the Wall Street crowd, beltway political manipulators, or self-righteous pundits, it lives in the hearts of people we never hear from at the national level.

They’re people who work hard, earning $12 an hour if that. They’re the people Barack Obama thinks cling to religion and guns out of bitterness. They’re the people that National Review thinks only refused to back Mitt Romney because of anti-Mormon bigotry. They’re people the left scoffs at for voting against their own economic interests.

But these people really believe in America, and that it’s a place where they can still make a better life for themselves and their children. They believe in a God who still governs in the affairs of men. These are the people who National Review disdains.

So, National Review can feel free to lump Mike Huckabee in with liberal Republicans like Tom Ridge and Charlie Crist, and even a Scoop Jackson Democrat like Joe Lieberman. But it is they who are missing the next great wave of conservatives. 

Beyond this dark moment in the history of American Conservatism, I see glimmers of hope in those who are heeding the challenge of Alex and Brett Harris to “do hard things.” I see it in people across this country who will bare the battle in the heat of the day for the good of their country. There is hope for our country. It just won’t be found in places you’d expect like the offices of National Review.  

Certain conservatives have been suggesting Mike Huckabee has been making pro-Obama statements. Not true.  Huckabee speaks up for himself and people who are jumping to conclusions should at least read what the man has to say:

Greetings, HuckPAC team from Sapporo, Japan:

Janet and I are still in Japan for a few more days. It is about 5am here on Friday which makes it 3 in the afternoon back home in North Little Rock. We are having a great, but extremely packed week. It feels like being back on the campaign trail, except that the speeches are being interpreted in Japanese and the raw fish is sometimes a little tough on a guy who grew up thinking fried catfish was seafood. Yesterday, I visited with some of the scientists at Tohuko University in Sendai City regarding their groundbreaking research in producing solar energy and in the their development of amazing new materials that are lighter and stronger than steel. I also visited with the Governor of the Hokkaido prefect where next month’s G-8 Summit will be held and spoke to the Chamber of Commerce in that prefect on American politics, US/Japan relations, and economic trends in the United States. We are looking forward to being back—we miss the dogs!

My speech to the Foreign Correspondents Club a few days ago seemed to have generated some buzz both here and back home when I mentioned that it would be a “fundamental if not fatal mistake for the GOP to demonize Barak Obama” in order to win the election. Some seem to have taken that to mean I was all but endorsing Obama! Quite the opposite.

I believe his ideas are totally wrong for America and many of his plans would take us the opposite direction from where I think we need to go. He is an ardent supporter for the most liberal and indefensible positions on abortion, including his refusal to support a ban on the most vile forms of all, partial birth abortion. He has stated that he would be an activist in seeking to push for what the anti-life forces euphemistically call “reproductive rights.”

His plan to raise taxes would be an economic disaster for our nation. We would lose jobs and investment and see the economy really squeeze the working class with even higher fuel and food prices.

He would implement more government control on everything from health care to small business and that’s not the right direction for us.

What I am saying is that we need to challenge Obama on the basis that his ideas are the wrong ones—not attacking him personally. If people spend their time repeating a bunch of internet driven drivel about his middle name (he didn’t choose his anymore than I chose mine), or his race (I do sincerely celebrate that our country has moved to a place where a person’s race doesn’t limit him from aspiring to the highest office in our land, but I just believe that due to his proposals and lack of substantive experience, he’s gone far enough—not because of his race, but because of his sincere, but misguided proposals), or his church (there are far more important reasons for us to elect Senator McCain than where Obama went to church).

Politics ought to be VERTICAL and Obama’s ideas will not take this country UP, but DOWN. I think he is a sincere and obviously a very intelligent and charismatic person. For us to deny that is foolish. Our focus should be to logically and systematically explain why ideas really do matter and why some are bad for those struggling as it is to pay the rent.

Elections ought to be about elevating the best ideas and exposing the worst ones—not engaging in character assassination with half truths, innuendoes, and disputable “internet facts…”

Hope you are having a good week and continue to pray for our friends in the Midwest suffering from the devastating floods.

Sayonara,

Mike Huckabee

The Hill has an interesting article on the Club for Growth’s involvement or lack thereof in the Presidential campaign. The Club for Growth could get involved for McCain or they could sit out. The big difference:

Toomey also stressed that McCain’s vice presidential pick will help influence the Club’s decision.

“I think it’s very important,” he said. “It’ll be an important signal, indicating whether he wants to help consolidate the Republican coalition and energize the base of the party or not.”

The Club feels very strongly about South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford (R), whose name comes up often among those speculating on McCain’s short list. Toomey also suggested in a February Wall Street Journal column that Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), former Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas) and businessman Steve Forbes would make strong vice presidential candidates — a slate of names less frequently mentioned, if at all.

The Club for Growth seems to be taking the stance that if America’s electing a 71 year-old cancer survivor, then the real future of the country lies with the Veep. While the other names mentioned are quite farfetched (Steve Forbes and Phil Gramm? What is this? 1996.) Sanford has currency and I think he’s the desire of Club insiders.

Andy Roth on the Club blog went after Alaska Governor Sarah Palin for banning text messaging and watching videos while driving and then pointed to Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal refusing to fight a legislative pay increase. They actually released a full fledged hit on Jindal’s conservative credentials from Nachema Soloveichik. It’s clear, they want a governor and they’d like Sanford.

I’ve met Mark Sanford and he is a fabulous guy, let there be no question about this.  He would be a great President. I think he has absolutely nothing to do with these games the CFG is playing, but it’s clear that they want him to be Veep and don’t mind knocking people off the road to get that result.

This brings a very interesting choice to John McCain. If he places Sanford on the ticket, his campaign coffers are sure to swell from CFG members who would love to see Mark Sanford a heartbeat from the Presidency. Not only that but CFG.net as a 527 could be counted out to pound Obama with millions inunds from the last loophole for free speech, McCain left in McCain-Feingold.

Money is key for McCain. The FEC has a map that lays the numbers bear. McCain trials Obama badly in fundraising by 2.93:1 margin. Put another way. If you added the total funds raised by Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and Fred Thompson to McCain’s total, he’d still trail Obama in fundraising by $30 million. Given that money is the mother’s milk of politics, McCain’s in trouble on that front, and a Sanford pick would close the gap.

The problem with Sanford is that he’s unknown by all but a few political geeks like me. I realized this when I mentioned him on the Michael Reagan show, Reagan thought the guy was still in Congress. Given that few people know of him, it’d be very hard to fix the widespread problems McCain has with conservatives.

Then, you have Mike Huckabee who could shore up McCain’s sagging base among Evangelicals and in America’s heartland. While, he wouldn’t bring  gobs of money along, he would bring volunteers who would work the campaign hard, and really believe in it. Most of Huck’s Army would do everything they could for McCain/Huckabee.

However, the Club for Growth would spend money to elect Mike Huckabee Vice-President about the time I’d cheer for the San Francisco Giants, and so McCain would be cash-strapped.

So for love or for money?

Or what about somewhere in between? Mitt Romney would bring a little bit of money. (Not as much as the Club would for Sanford) and a little bit of love. But how much of this will add up to foot soldiers is questionable and Romney has a lot of detractors.

Of course the most likely result is that McCain goes with neither Sanford nor Huckabee, nor Romney either. Which will leave him with neither a huge amount of love or money from the Veep choice.

And neither Social Conservatives or Economic Conservatives will get what they want. There’s a lesson in there for us if we’ll learn it.

The not-so-subtle effort of establishment conservatives to smear Huckabee continues. Over at Townhall, Matt Lewis quotes Huckabee:

“… 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 whose 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 a question, he analyzed it. He didn’t volunteer some gripe which is what 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 limited government absurd.  Huckabee’s idea goes back to John Adams, who warned that our constitution was suited for a religious and moral and unsuitable for any other. The less more people is, 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 proposal to nationalize oil), nor does Huckabee’s statement having 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.

<!– –>

Mike Huckabee made a stupid joke on stage after a loud noise was heard:

“That was Barack Obama. He just tripped off a chair. He’s getting ready to speak and somebody aimed a gun at him and he — he dove for the floor”

Huckabee apologized and explained:

During my speech at the NRA a loud noise backstage, that sounded like a chair falling, distracted the crowd and interrupted my speech. I made an off hand remark that was in no way intended to offend or disparage Sen. Obama.I apologize that my comments were offensive, that was never my intention.

A solid explanation and one that I would buy. I’m not as good a public speaker as Huckabee, but I’ve preached and spoke quite a bit (probably done 150-200 sermons, about 75 Sunday School lessons, and a few dozen speeches on other occassion.) and if you add in my podcasts (about 600 episodes now.), I’ve spoke a ton.

Sometimes in the middle of a speech, a baby will cry, something will crash, and your concentration will be broken as will that of your audience. You won’t remember your exact spot in the speech. There are a couple ways to handle this.  You stand on stage sputtering, “Uh-uh-uh-uh-uh…” or you tell a joke to get back on your game and back on track.

Perhaps Huckabee imagined because of Obama’s antipathy towards gun owner he’d be paranoid at the NRA Convention and view anyone who had a gun as aiming at him. Whatever, it was Huckabee imagined, he said something stupid on the spur of the moment. He delivered a not funny joke that didn’t even really make sense. Even though it’s been on different topics, I’ve done it before and I’m sure I’ll do it again.

  Does anyone think Huckabee wants Barack Obama assassinated? That he was suggesting it would be a good thing, encouraging it? That he wants Barack Obama shot? Clearly, he stated that’s not his intent and that’s not consistent with who he is.

Some people say this is the end of his career. Yeah, right.  How many times have pundits buried politicians this year? The ones who have been trying to do the funeral have been anti-Huck folks on the right and liberals in search of something to distract from the issues with the Obama campaign. This will pass and in 2 weeks, people will most likely not remember it.

Over at his blog, Governor Mike Huckabee has opened a discussion:

Last night was a reminder of what a tough year this will be for Republicans. The loss of the Congressional seat in Mississippi was tough. We had a great candidate, but the Democrat very effectively ran as a pro life, pro 2nd amendment conservative. I’m convinced that for the GOP to have wins this year we have to focus on specific issues and not party building (for us) or party bashing (against them).

What do you think the GOP needs to do to reverse the slide in support and start winning elections?

Huckabee in his MSNBC election analysis hit the nail on the head when he said the Republican Brand was damaged nationwide. I asked my wife, who is the less partisan of the two of us, what the Republicans had to do.

Her answers included: 1) Following through on commitments, 2) having a platform that means something, and 3) honesty.  Those are good starts. Here are my thoughts:

1) Get Serious With People

A lot of Republican leaders could care less about the rights of the unborn, the future of social security, or any of the issues that they pretend to care about. They’re pandering to our fears and making promises they have no intention of keeping. They’ll say anything to get elected. We need Republican leaders who actually believe in the principles of Republican power. Too many of our Republican leaders in Washington are just hungry to hang onto their own power and have no principles.’

People are getting sick of it and what’s killing us is a Republican leadership in Washington that at its core things Republicanism is about lower marginal tax rates and blowing up terrorists.

2) Deal With Tough Issues

Continuing to run up deficits while not addressing entitlements is idiotic. It’s time to address it.  Also, we have to have Republicans who aren’t afraid to drill in ANWR and solve the energy crisis. We have to get serious about taking care of the budget and reducing spending. What we had in a Republican Congress and a Republican White House included Tom DeLay’s inane statement that government was cut back as much as it could be.

3) Persuade the American People

When you have a vision, the thing to do is to persuade people of that vision to make the case. Republicans can be divided into two classes: 1) Those that pander to voters and accommodate them at their lowest and least, 2) those that echo around ideas in columns, preaching to the choir. Republicans have to learn to educate and make their case to ordinary Americans particularly in the middle class.

4) Republicans Must Admit Error and Protect Us From the GOP Errors

When I was younger when the GOP took power, I thought term limits was a poor idea. (After all, we’d term limit the good Congressmen as well as the bad ones) and the Balanced Budget Amendment was a nice idea, but not essential. After all, with Republicans in power, why would there be a problem balancing the budget? Oh, if I knew then what I know now.

 Fundamentally, term limits, a balanced budget Amendment, and a line item veto are vital tools, not secondary mechanisms. Republicans should advocate this reform agenda up front and center. What we’ve learned is that the best of party platforms will not protect a political party from the corrosive force of arrogance of power.

I’d advocate a term limit of two 6-year terms for the Senate and four 2-year terms for the House. The longer members of Congress, the more they’re likely to think of their constituents as them and the government as us. Also, the less likely they’ll be focused on doing what’s right and the more they’ll be focused on building a legacy.

I’d favor requiring a Constitutional Amendment to balance the budget and for line item vetoes. We need to honestly admit that we have human weaknesses and we need to check those weaknesses lest they destroy the country.

In the comic books, Superman gave Batman a piece of Kryptonite because he knew the dangers his power could pose to those around him. Republicans should reach the same realization.

Doug Ross has some more policy suggestions that I’d wholeheartedly endorse.

A couple interesting stories regarding Mike Huckabee hit the wire. First, Robert Novak reported that Huckabee wants John McCain to lose:

Huckabee’s announced support of McCain is unequivocal, and he is regarded in the McCain camp as a friend and ally. But credible activists are spreading the word that Huckabee secretly allies himself with the bitter-end opposition. That hardly seems possible considering his public backing, but critics of Huckabee’s 10 years as governor of Arkansas say he is all too capable of playing a double game… 

Nevertheless, the word is that some evangelicals dispute Huckabee’s support. One experienced, credible activist in Christian politics who would not let his name be used told me that Huckabee, in personal conversation with him, had embraced the concept that an Obama presidency might be what the American people deserve. That fits what has largely been a fringe position among evangelicals: that the pain of an Obama presidency is in keeping with the Bible’s prophecy.

According to this activist, at the heart of the let-Obama-win movement is longtime Virginia conservative leader Michael Farris — the nation’s leading home-school advocate, who is now chancellor of Patrick Henry College (in Purcellville, Va.) for home-schooled students. Best known politically as the losing Republican candidate for lieutenant governor of Virginia in 1993, Farris is regarded as one of the hardest-edged Christian politicians. He is reported in evangelical circles to promote the biblical justification for an Obama plague-like presidency.

Mike Huckabee has emerged from obscurity to become a major factor in American politics leading evangelical Christians. The McCain campaign counts on him to energize supporters who would rather wait for Huckabee 2012, not to encourage those dreams.

Mike Huckabee responded unequivocallyat HuckPAC:

On another note, I was very disturbed by a column by Robert Novak that quoted some “anonymous source” in saying that while I strongly supported Senator McCain, I thought that maybe America “deserves Obama,” as if to say that I secretly hoped he won.

Where do people dream up this stuff? Forget the “anonymous” sources—there’s nothing anonymous about my stand and here it is. We don’t “deserve” Obama—we DESERVE a President with the character, convictions, experience, and wisdom to see the problems we face and try to lead us to solve them. We deserve a President who truly loves this country and from whom there is no doubt as to his respect for Faith, Family, and the kind of Freedom that those before us have given their lives to pass on to us. John McCain meets that criteria and that’s why I am campaigning for him and not hoping for Obama. The nonsense that I want Obama to win this year so I can run in 2012 is absurd. I love my country more than my own ambition. So let the record and truth be clear. And let the “anonymous” sources either show the courage to stand up and be accountable for their comments or shut up and leave commentary to people who aren’t afraid of their own shadow.

Huckabee is clearly ticked and the denial couldn’t be stronger. For what it’s worth, I think that when it comes to winning elections, Huckabee is like most Republicans. Whatever the problems with McCain, he doesn’t want Obama to win.

However, the story doesn’t end there. Because James Pethokoukis reports Huckabee is the frontrunner for VP and many economic conservatives don’t like it. Given the timing of the two stories, it raises some interesting questions. A cynical person might conclude that the religious conservative leader who spoke to Novak didn’t want Huckabee on the ticket and made the statement in order to cast doubt on Huckabee’s loyalty to stop McCain from putting him on the ticket. Good thing I’m trying to be less cynical or I’d be blaming the whole thing on Mitt Romney’s people.

That said, a McCain-Huckabee ticket makes sense for McCain. One has to take a look at the polls to see why Huckabee is needed. Barack Obama has been giving himself a series of self-inflicted wounds for week upon week surrounding cultural issues and where is McCain at? The latest Real Clear Politics Poll of Polls shows Obama up 4.5%. The national tilt of this election is toward the Democrats and McCain hasn’t been able to stop it. Republicans are unenthused with McCain’s campaign, he’s lagging behind Obama in fundraising.

McCain’s problem is that he inspires no one. There’s going to be a lack of volunteers in the Fall. He’s not going to look as good as Obama in the debates. He hasn’t really been able to capitalize on Obama’s mistakes. Michelle Malkin rightfully pointed out that McCain has his own share of contempt for Americans.

I remain of the opinion that McCain will lose the popular vote. His only hope is to win the electoral college. Obama is most vulnerable in America’s heartland. Places like Iowa, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Missouri, Colorado, and Ohio hold the key to the election. McCain’s problem: While he currently leads the polls in Ohio, it was the narrowest big state in the last election and had there not been an anti-gay marraige Amendment on the ballot, the state’s votes would have almost certainly have gone to John Kerry. Given the current state of the economy, it’s likely to end up falling to Obama.

Of course, Obama may not need Ohio. If he holds America’s blue states, he could win Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa, and Nevada, he would be the next president. If Bob Barr is the libertarian nominee, Obama winning Nevada becomes a foregone conclusion.

Of course, winning the presidency without bellweather states like Missouri, Kentucky, and Ohio would be odd.

This is where Huckabee could help. Huckabee has often been described as a regional Southern Candidate. However, his wins in places like Iowa and Kansas, as well as his strong finish in Missouri suggest he is as one commentator suggested, a heartland candidate. The key for McCain will be winning the heartland of America and Huckabee is an assett.

Huckabee would also help McCain in terms of the dynamism and likability of the ticket. His ability to handle himself on the talk show circuit in an articulate manner will add something to a ticket that features John McCain as a grumpy old man.

Huckabee also has better political instincts than McCain. Huckabee may have ticked off Republicans in his career, but he didn’t make an art of it. He backed off amnesty and would be a valuable advisor if McCain would listen.

Some perceived negatives aren’t there. There are many economic conservatives who will not support a McCain ticket with Huckabee on it. However, most of the people who take that position were going to give McCain little more than their vote.

Huckabee will likely be able to get a sizable number of his supporters to volunteer for the campaign. The McCain campaign is likely to be outspent by a giant margin and Huckabee knows about how to fight. McCain and the GOP faces a passive aggressive stay home vote from Social Conservatives and Huckabee could combat this.

Concerns about Huckabee’s faith should be considered buried due to the Reverend Wright scandal. To attack Huckabee’s religious beliefs and statements would no doubt lead to a resurrection of Reverend Wright, and none of Huckabee’s statements or beliefs come close to the offensive level of Obama’s pastor.

The risk for McCain in choosing a former rival for Veep has had mixed result. The last two candidates to do this Michael Dukakis in 1988 and John Kerry in 2004 found the strategy unsuccessful. In part, the presence of a former Rival on the ticket reminds some people that they would really want the Veep candidate as President and makes them think less of the nominee. You can’t afford to be overshadowed by your nominee. If you’re in camp McCain, Do you really want people to walk away from the Republican Convention talking about how great Huckabee’s VP acceptance speech was?

As for Huckabee, the Veep ticket could do great harm to his political career. If McCain/Huckabee were to lose:

1. The conservative media establishment would lay the blame on Huckabee. “If only McCain had chosen someone else…” would be the mantra. Of course, the same people will blame Huckabee regardless. If Huckabee were to turn down a VP offer, he would be labeled a selfish person who cost the election. And the Novak story sets up a scenario if a Huckabee isn’t nominated for VP where Huckabee is given responsibility for the loss because of a private lack of enthusiasm for McCain that suppressed traditionalist voters.
2. Huckabee’s 2012 campaign would be harder. Because of the blame that would go with being on the ticket, getting nominated would be difficult. After being Gerald Ford’s VP pick in 1976, Bob Dole was pulvarized in 1980. Former Vice-President Dan Quayle had to drop out after being beaten by Alan Keyes at the Iowa Strawpoll. If losing the Presidency is a great way to get the Republican nomination for President, losing the Vice-Presidency is a great way not to get it. The only losing VP candidate to be elected President: 1920 Democratic VP nominee Franklin D.  Roosevelt.

If McCain/Huckabee wins:

1.  He is saddled with being McCain’s man.  This means that all or almost all of the things McCain does to tick off conservatives, Huckabee will have to defend. One would hope that as President Bush has let Dick Cheney publicly dissent from his position in support of the Marriage Amendment, that Huckabee wouldn’t be left in a position to defend Embryonic Stem Cell Research, but you never know with McCain. In addition, a McCain/Huckabee administration would resurrect talk among conservatives that there was a secret conspiracy between the two during the primaries.
2. Likelihood of becoming President increases if he’s elected VP, but it could be a hard road. Since the FDR/Truman years, no party has held the White House for more than 12 years. If McCain steps down after one term or two, the odds of Huckabee keeping the Republicans in the White House for a 4th or 5th consecutive term would be thin, and if Huckabee loses as the party nominee, there won’t be a second act.

 Bottom line: A VP nomination probably does more harm than good for Mike Huckabee’s plans and career goals, but it’s the best chance McCain has.

Originally posted here and here.

For the last month and a half, Governor Mike Huckabee spent no time with his boots on the ground in Pennsylvania. In fact, I don’t think he campaigned there period. His voice was not heard on radio ads. His visage was not seen in TV spots. The Hucka-bus did not traverse the turnpike. Calls were not made to prospective voters on his behalf. Any grassroots efforts were independent, few, and far between. No debates were held to match the Democrats.

Anyone up on their politics knows that the reason for this inactivity is the fact that Huckabee dropped out of the race after “Super Tuesday 2″ on March 4th, when it became unmistakably clear that he would not prevent John McCain from reaching the required 1191 delegates. According to his word, Huckabee threw his support behind the Arizona Senator.

Yet, over 91,000 residents of the Keystone State still pulled the lever, if you will, for the former Arkansas governor yesterday. While the mainstream media—and, by the trickledown effect, the rest of us—are enamored by the fracas on the Democratic side, this is a stat that will, in all likelihood, go largely unnoticed. But it should not.

Some may say that this was merely a collection of protest votes. If that is the case, it’s still a big deal. Combined with Ron Paul’s votes, over a quarter of Republican voters said “no”—or at least “not yet”—to McCain. This is a stern warning to the presumptive Republican nominee: He does not have the conservative base locked up; he should not get too cute with his VP pick.

But what if the eleven percent Huckabee garnered is more than a display in Republican “civil disobedience”? After all, Ron Paul reportedly ran radio ads in Pennsylvania, and his supporters are still battling hard with their “Operation Chaos.” Paul actually received almost 128,000 votes, or 16 percent. If people wanted to simply register their disdain for McCain, they’d either write in their favorite candidate or vote for a candidate still in the race (albeit feebly), who hasn’t endorsed McCain, wouldn’t they? (Unless, of course, there’s that much antipathy towards Ron Paul and his non-interventionism.)

Perhaps the people of Pennsylvania were sending a clear message: We like Huckabee. The Keystone State is critical in November, and McCain’s not going to pick Paul (Would Paul even accept the invitation?). So, obviously, that leads us to Huckabee.

Huckabee is the kind of fella who can connect with those “bitter,” “frustrated,” “clingy” small-town Pennsylvanians whom Barack Obama apparently has no qualms about insulting. For those who “cling to religion,” Huckabee is very outspoken and articulate about his faith. He’s a full-blown supporter of the Second Amendment, for those who “cling to guns.” He rejects gay marriage and amnesty, for those with “antipathy” towards those different from them. He even supports a policy of fair trade, as opposed to our broken free trade system, for those who have “anti-trade sentiment.”

Huckabee knows how to reach out to the little guy. He is one himself! People don’t see a lifelong politician, a business mogul, or a big-city elitist when they look at him, because that’s not who he is. Who is he? The type of guy who could help McCain in Pennsylvania this November.

Now, I don’t mean to start a big brouhaha of all the reasons why Huckabee would be a terrible choice. I’ve heard them. I’ve also heard legitimate arguments as to why a Huckabee supporter shouldn’t want McCain to select him. But two points of this post are clear: McCain has a lot of work to do, and he could use someone like Huckabee to help. Pennsylvanians proved that.