I'm Walkin' on Sunshine

Woo hoo, K Street Mole is in a very good mood because it's Friday, Huckabee is within spitting distance of his goal of 2,500 contributions by Sept. 30 (but keep 'em coming, and don't forget to email me if you've completed the challenge), and best of all...
I just met my man Mike Huckabee in person for the first time. :-)

It was a great event, and Mike was every bit a personable talking to me as he seems on TV. He told us all a great story about being between flights in the Dallas airport, and he sat down at an information booth that was closed for the evening so he could get a little work done between flights with a comfy chair, tabletop, and place to plug in his laptop. He said about a dozen people asked him where the bathroom or restaurants were. Instead of saying "I don't work here, I'm running for President" he just gladly pointed the way.

That's what a President should be: a man of the people, not "above" the people, who points the way to a better America.

3 Days Left for September Top-Tier Huckabee Challenge

So far only 3 people have written me to qualify for the Top-Tier Huckabee Challenge, in which I have pledged to donate $50 to the Huckabee campaign for each person who joins Team Huckabee and writes to major media sources explaining why Huckabee should get more coverage. (Follow the link for details.)

While I plan to continue the challenge after the end of September, Huckabee needs the contributions now, by September 30, the end of the quarterly reporting. I'm sure lots more people have fulfilled the requirements of the challenge -- they just haven't emailed me to tell me about it yet. Please email me at kstreetforhuck@hotmail.com by 6:00 p.m. Eastern on Sunday, September 30 so I can be sure to fulfill my side of the bargain by midnight.

Go Huckabee!

Michael Steele Lambasts "Front-Runners" for Ducking Thursday's Debate

Michael Steele, former Lt. Governor of the People's Republic of Maryland, Republican with the best-run Senate campaign, best TV ads, and least deserving to lose in 2006, and now Chairman of GOPAC, expressed extreme frustration with the GOP "front-runners" for backing out of the Morgan State University debates coming up this Thursday.

"I spent months working to set this up, and the candidates have known about it since March," he said, in response to a question about how to attract more minority voters to the Republican party at a small fundraising reception in Northern Virginia this evening. "People ask me to connect them with minority voters, and I set them up, but it doesn't work if every time they turn around, the candidate's not there."

"This is a shame, because the Republicans have much to be proud of. This week is the 50 year anniversary of the integration of Central High School in Arkansas, under a Republican President, Dwight Eisenhower. And the Republican Party is the original party of African Americans."

"Republicans can't afford to ignore minorities. George Bush wouldn't be President if it weren't for getting 16% of the black vote in Ohio in 2004. That was up from just 6% or something like that in the previous election. It really makes a difference, and we can't afford to write off the minority voters."

Attendees at the fundraiser were shocked and dismayed to learn about the "front-runners" skipping this debate. They asked who was participating. When Huckabee's name came up, Steele noted, "he won 45% of the black vote in his last election as Governor." A Virginia legislator interjected "he's a good man."

Okay then, people, if you're willing to pony up $250 or more in support of local elections to see Michael Steele, and you're disgusted by the behavior of the current GOP Presidential "front-runners," let's put the same kind of money up for the one man who can score a landslide against Hillary Clinton by capturing nearly half the minority vote, in addition to earning the support of solid conservatives and middle class workers of all races!

(Jim Geraghty over at NRO's Campaign Spot keeps positing excuses for this self-destructive behavior. I think the real reason the "front-runners" have skipped the last two debates is because every time they show up for a debate, Huckabee wipes the floor with them. If they don't show, most people don't watch, so Huckabee gets noticed less, and they get shown up less. If they keep debating Huckabee, he has everything to gain and they have everything to lose, so they simply duck and focus on their precious fundraisers.)

Is the Fair Tax a Good Reason to Support Huckabee?

Yes and No. But it is definitely not a reason to oppose him.

In anticipation of Vertical Day, let me offer some thoughts on an important issue that Huckabee wants to discuss with the American people, while the other candidates avoid it: a pure consumption tax to replace the federal income tax (with features to avoid hardship for the poor and lower-middle class), dubbed the "Fair Tax."

The Fair Tax is fair because it rewards both hard work and savings, no matter where you are on the income scale. It also discourages consumption, because that is what gets taxed. Wall Street would much prefer a flat income tax, which simplifies the system and rewards people who are more financially successful than average, but does not discourage consumption. Wall Street thinks consumption is the number one measure of a healthy economy, because the more you consume (buy) the more profits they make off of you, causing stock prices to rise. But is consumption really a good measure of economic health?

Let's take two scenarios.

• Scenario 1: Joe and Jane each work full time for $40,000 salary each, for total family income of $80,000. They spend $25,000 on day care for their two children, and spend $5,000 a year on commuting costs. Their house payments are $25,000 a year, they spend $8,000 a year on food (eating out frequently and buying pre-packaged food to save time), $3,000 on clothes, and $3,000 on miscellaneous necessities. They pay a 20% flat tax on their income--$16,000. At the end of the year, Joe and Jane have $5,000 more in debt than they did at the beginning of the year, but they consumed $44,000 in goods and services.
• Scenario 2: Jack works full time for $40,000 and Jill stays home with the children and does a little work from home for $10,000, for total family income of $50,000. They spend nothing on day care, and their commuting costs are halved ($2,500). Their house payment is the same ($25,000) but they only spend $5,000 on food because they eat at home more and make more from scratch. They spend the same $3,000 on clothes and $3,000 on miscellaneous. They have only consumed $13,500, far less than Joe and Jane. If they paid a 30% consumption tax on this, that's $4,000 in taxes. At the end of the year, they've put $7,500 in the bank!

Who would you rather be? I think the answer on Main Street would be nearly unanimous (unless you're a woman who really hates staying home with your children -- in which case, why did you have them in the first place?). But Wall Street much prefers Joe and Jane, because they consumed more than 3 times as much as Jack and Jill! There isn't much opportunity for Wall Street to make money off of Jack and Jill because they provide more goods and services for themselves.

This is why the Fair Tax is absolutely right from a philosophical, pro-family and even pro-environment point of view.

Now let's talk about practicalities. If Mike Huckabee is elected President, will he be able to make the Fair Tax law? Sorry to disappoint you, but almost certainly No. Here are some reasons why:

• The President can't make law himself under our Constitution. He has to get a bill from Congress to sign. Congress won't enact the Fair Tax because...
• Under our current tax system, there is a big deduction for home mortgage interest. Houses sell for about 15-30% more than they otherwise would because you're buying a big tax deduction with the house. The Fair Tax does not favor home ownership over renting. Without any tax benefit to mortgage payments, housing prices would likely drop drastically, which would enrage homeowners, i.e. the great majority of voters. The homeowners would "punish" Congressmen who vote for the Fair Tax.
• Congressmen rely on big donations from wealthy people who like to consume a lot themselves, and want others to consume even more to improve corporate profits. The donors would "punish" Congressmen who vote for the Fair Tax.
• Remember how I said that stock prices rise when people consume more? With the Fair Tax, people will consume less, causing stock prices to fall.* The media will declare that the sky is falling because the stock prices are falling, and anyone with a 401(k) won't be too happy either (including a lot of y'all on Main Street). The media and investors will "punish" Congressmen who vote for the Fair Tax.

So are the editors of National Review right when they criticize Huckabee for supporting it? Well, I think they are right that this should not be a foundational pillar of his platform, and I agree it won't be enacted. So what's the value?

The value of talking about the Fair Tax is it starts a national conversation about what our priorities should be. Do we really want to measure our economic good by consumption? Or is that an immoral and unsustainable goal for our society? Is the good of Wall Street really aligned with the good of Main Street? If not, what can we do to get Wall Street more aligned with Main Street, instead of the other way around?

The real genius of the Huckabee campaign is not a slogan like "Fair Tax." It is a conversation about what it really means to govern for the "general welfare" of this great Nation.

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

* On further reflection, this is an over-generalization. For companies that have a globally diversified market, they will experience a lower cost of capital and demand for consumption in the rest of the world will more than pick up the slack for lower domestic consumption, resulting in higher stock prices. But for companies that sell goods or services primarily or exclusively to Americans, the lower cost of capital is of little help if consumption demand falls, because the main use for capital is for expanding production capacity. If demand falls, increased supply only makes the situation worse by driving down the price (which can wipe out any profit gains from a lower cost of production). Therefore, it is only the companies with primarily domestic markets that are likely to experience lower stock prices. But you can certainly expect these domestic companies to have a substantial and powerful lobbying presence in Congress.

"Right-leaning" Media Gag on Huckabee?

Since I posted the Top-Tier Huckabee challenge, a lot of other bloggers have started initiatives to get better media coverage for Huckabee, particularly among "right-leaning" outlets such as National Review and certain Fox News and talk radio pundits. One Mom's blog is particularly helpful, linking to contact info for the media outlets and even providing suggested language for a letter.

It is truly shameful that the New York Times covered Huckabee's 63% win at the Value Voters Debate, while NRO completely ignored it (until it received complaints, and then it gave a buried dismissive mention). What is going on here?!

Could it be the Wall Street factor? Huckabee threatens them because he puts the middle class and poor first. He wants more good jobs to stay onshore, which improves the standard of living for average Joes but cuts into corporate profits. (At the same time, he's no class warrior, and spends several pages in "From Hope to Higher Ground" explaining why people who make a lot of money from hard work and risk should not be penalized for that, but should be lauded for the jobs they create.) And a flat tax on consumption scares Wall Street, because they want to be able to consume, consume, consume while hiding behind deferred compensation plans and tax benefits for capital gains. A consumption tax would favor savings (creating competition with them for provision of capital, while simultaneously lowering demand for luxury goods and McMansions) and give them no tax shelters for hiding - except cutting consumption, which is beyond the pale to Wall Street.

Any subscriber to the print National Review knows that they constantly operate in the red and have to take "donations" to survive (though they are not a tax-exempt organization). Perhaps their Wall Street benefactors have put a gag on them? And O'Reilly and Sean Hannity operate out of New York City as well -- is it their Wall Street friends or pressure from Rupert Murdoch?

Hate to be a conspiracy theorist, but that's my best shot at an explanation for why these media sources are ignoring as "irrelevant" a charismatic candidate who is in exactly the same position that Bill Clinton was 16 years ago.

Please prove me wrong by storming the editors' desks until they remove the gag! Head over to One Mom's blog for shortcuts.

Top-Tier Huckabee Challenge

[Updated 9/19 with simplified rules to qualify - see "fine print" below.]

I firmly believe that if voters merely get to know Huckabee as a "top-tier" candidate, he can win. He is the most dynamic and appealing of the Republican candidates, and the most in touch with the values of the "Republican base." At the same time, he has the most appealing message for middle class independents, who will determine who sits in the White House. Every conservative friend or family member I talk to says "I like Huckabee the best, but can he win?" My answer is this: he just needs to be seen by the American public (or at least likely Republican primary voters for now) as a top-tier candidate and yes, he can win.

How do we Huckabee supporters help him be seen as top-tier?

1. We announce our support publicly with bumper stickers and other signs that can be viewed by friends and strangers alike.
2. We influence the pundits who lead the opinions of Republican voters to start covering Huckabee as a serious candidate.
3. We help him raise more money so he can pay for ads and events that get him more exposure.

I realize that #3 is particularly hard because Huckabee does not appeal to the Republican moneybags so much as the middle class rank-and-file. He freely admits this on his Team Huckabee fundraising appeal video. So I'm proposing this challenge so together we can maximize our impact to help elect the best Presidential candidate in the field.

For each person who (1) joins Team Huckabee with a contribution of $20.08 or more, (2) prominently displays a Huckabee sign or sticker, and (3) writes letters urging well-known pundits or media sources to give Huckabee top-tier coverage, I will donate $50 to the Huckabee campaign, up to the legal couple limit of $4,600.

Let's leverage our support for all it's worth! Your letters to pundits and signs of support are worth far more than my $50 because they have the potential to draw in many, many more supporters who would each be willing to join Team Huckabee. But if you also report your donation to Kevin Tracy's blog, you can get another 50% match of your donation. Think about it: your $20 for Huckabee + my $50 match + "Semp's" $10 match = $80. You've just quadrupled your monetary gift to the Huckabee campaign, and the exposure you're giving him is priceless.

Power to the People, as Laura Ingraham says!

I'm a lawyer, so here's the fine print on how to take me up on this challenge:

1. Join Team Huckabee with a donation of $20.08 or more. Please note you must go through the Team Huckabee website, instead of the Mike Huckabee website, or your donation will not be treated as "joining." (Don't ask me why. Take it up with the Huckabee campaign staff.) You will get an ID card and bumper sticker in the mail. (It's okay if you did this already some time ago.)

2. Put that bumper sticker or other Huckabee paraphernalia some place a lot of people will see it, like your car bumper, on the bag you carry to work, a sign in your front yard if you live on a busy street, etc.

3. Write a letter to a well-known media source or pundit explaining why you think Huckabee can win and deserves "top-tier" coverage and either have it "published" in that source or get an individualized response back from the person you wrote to. Posting comments on other articles doesn't count, but if The Corner on NRO quotes something you wrote, for instance, that does count. Getting through on a talk radio show also counts. If you aren't successful in getting recognized by the "opinion gatekeepers" then you can show me 3 attempts instead. (By "well-known" I mean something that is read, heard or viewed by thousands or at least hundreds of people regularly, preferably targeted at key Republican primary voter groups such as political conservatives, conservative Catholics, Evangelicals, or homeschoolers.) One Mom's blog has great pointers on writing these letters and sending them to radio and "print" media.

Email me with forwarded copies of your letters to media, your Team Huckabee ID number (if you signed up recently and don't have an ID card yet, you can forward me the email showing you signed up instead), and a description of how you're publicizing Huckabee to: kstreetforhuck@hotmail.com. Please send it all in one email - I can't keep track of challenge-takers "in progress." In return, I will report publicly on this blog once a month how many Team Huckabee members qualify for the match (no names), and if you're one of that group, I will email you a redacted copy of the receipt for my donation for that amount.

I am not in any way associated with the Huckabee campaign. This challenge is in no way "coordinated" with Huckabee's campaign. This is pure and spontaneous grassroots activity - you be the seed and I'll be the fertilizer. (It's okay - lawyers are frequently called worse.)

Shame on Club for Growth

They spent September 11, a sacred and solemn day in this nation, putting up a hatchet job website devoted to slamming Mike Huckabee.

Maybe this is my own private conspiracy theory, but I am convinced that the number one thing holding Huckabee back right now is opposition from Club for Growth. Many of the big Republican donors are under their sway, and I think they've intimidated (or at least influenced) the conservative pundits into ignoring Huckabee.

I remember thinking Club for Growth was a good development when I first read about them in National Review several years ago. But increasingly they are becoming like Judicial Watch. Remember them? Back when Clinton was President and Al Gore was trying to cheat his way to the Presidency, Republicans loved this watchdog group. But founder Larry Klayman didn't know when to stop, didn't know how to choose his enemies or battles wisely, and it didn't take long for Judicial Watch supporters to walk away. Klayman left in 2003, and who has heard of them recently?

Likewise, Club for Growth has gone from opposing Democrats and RINOS to attacking anyone who votes for any tax for any reason. They are inflicting serious damage on Republicans by doing this. In Virginia, for instance, they are outspoken critics of the transportation compromise achieved in Richmond this year that will finally set aside billions of desperately-needed transportation dollars for Northern Virginia. Hey Club for Growth, did you realize that the suburban areas of Northern Virginia are a key swing vote for statewide elections, and that fully half of NoVa voters say improving transportation is the most important issue for them in state and local elections? Instead of praising the sensible Republicans who finally got a compromise through that will provide real relief for terrible traffic congestion without raising income or sales taxes, Club for Growth writes misleading talking points that go straight into the arsenal of Democrats, attacking the "abusive driver fees" that are mostly controversial because of a change made by our Democratic governor.

Oh, you poor (rich) boy, you can't drive your sports car 85 miles an hour or run a red light and get off with a $200 ticket - now it's a whopping $1,000 (over 3 years). These Club for Growth guys are perfectly illustrated in this new Onion video.

Look, I hate high taxes and taxes that discourage hard work, savings, and innovation as much as you do. But government does have the responsibility to provide transportation infrastructure, and has to pay for it somehow. Not all transportation spending is pork. When public transportation is so packed that people can't get on and all the major arteries in the area are parking lots during rush hour (and even on weekends often!) then government really does need to do something about it.

In NoVa it's transportation, and apparently that was a big issue in Arkansas when Huckabee was Governor, but the need to balance tax policy with other government priorities is a nationwide issue. A new Roll Call article notes that independent voters are most interested in positive government action on issues like health care, and Tax Tourette's Syndrome won't get a Republican elected to the White House.

Oh yes, and politics is about the art of compromise. If you want to get something done, you have to accept certain things you don't personally support because it is part of an all-or-nothing package. Counting small tax or fee hikes as black marks against politicians who vote for or sign a bill because the package is a good thing on balance is the basest form of demagoguery.

It's time for conservatives to toss Club for Growth on the "has been" heap with Judicial Watch.

P.S. Here's a great rebuttal to the Club for Growth slanders against Huckabee.

What Have You Done to Promote the Huckabee Revolution Today?

I'm reading "From Hope to Higher Ground" on the subway during rush hour, perching my book high so plenty of people can see the dust jacket. How about you?

More on Bad Education Benchmarks

I heard the saddest story last night. My husband was talking with an old family friend who has been a middle school librarian for ~30 years. She told him that her job has recently become boring, because many of the teachers in her school have stopped doing research projects with the kids because they are so focused on the scores on the standardized reading tests. So the students don't come to the library anymore, and they don't learn how to do research (other than using Google) or write a report.

This tactic pays off - the bored librarian works in one of the only middle schools in the county that didn't "fail" adequate yearly progress this past year. But then, it also has one of the lowest immigrant populations in the county too, so they had an advantage to start with.

Yet this county is considered to have the finest schools in the state, and parents stretch their budgets beyond the limit to pay the mortgages that get their children into these schools, which have long produced very high rates of college attendance, high SAT scores, tons of honors and AP courses, etc. But now, just in the last year or two, they've stopped teaching middle school students how to research and write papers so they can make sure even the slowest, least interested students will pass the standardized exams. Guess what that is likely to do to the SAT scores and college success of county graduates in a few years?

I'm going to have to differ with Huckabee a little bit here. He says the states should set the testing benchmarks, but the more I think about it, the more I question the utility of standardized testing for accountability. Saying that standardized tests are needed to keep educators accountable is a lot like saying standardized restaurant reviews are needed to keep restaurants accountable. True, the health inspector should ensure the food is safe, and restaurant reviews can help people pick a new one to try, but primarily the public holds them accountable by voting with their feet. Maybe the bureaucrats decide the quality of a steak is an important benchmark for a restaurant and a reviewer pans the steak at a particular establishment, but what about people who prefer salad and find their salads to be great? Should the government (whether federal, state or even local) be "failing" restaurants on the basis of non-hygiene criteria set by bureaucrats? Likewise, should the government be "failing" educators who teach students how to write a really good essay without making sure they can define the word "gerund"? Or educators that spend a lot of time making sure students understand and can use the scientific method but their students haven't memorized many random science facts they'll never need to know again?

If you want accountability, make the schools accountable to parents by giving them choices. I agree with Huckabee that private school vouchers may not be the best way to do this. Public school choice plus private school tax credits are much better, because then parents and the public get to choose whether public schools or private schools (or both) are more worthy of educational spending.

Reflections on the Health Care Quagmire

Yesterday, Dr. Scott B. Rae (a PhD in philosophy/ethics, not an MD) gave a very insightful and thought-provoking talk on health care as part of the Faith & Law lecture series (despite the name, most attendees at these great weekly lectures are Hill staff and agency staff, not necessarily lawyers). He did not offer any easy answers or talk about any Presidential candidates, but what he said underscores a lot of Huckabee's health care points.

Main theme of Dr. Rae: we want 4 things out of health care, but unfortunately it is impossible to achieve all at once: 1) high quality and innovation, 2) universal access, 3) choice of doctors and treatments, and 4) low cost. [(1) and (2) obviously work against (4). The choice factor works in favor of low cost only if individuals are personally responsible for paying for their choices, otherwise it will also work against low cost.] Because they can't all be maximized simultaneously, we have to rank them in importance. It is best if public policy enables people to rank these things for themselves, instead of having the same ranking forced on all of society.

Now for the "ah ha" moments of Dr. Rae's lecture, which really jive with Huckabee's positions:

Insightful point #1: We should stop talking about universal insurance as the goal. The real goal is access to care, which is not the same thing as insurance. A lot of people with insurance can't get the care they need and a lot of people without insurance do get care at other people's expense.

Insightful point #2: If there is a human "right" to health care, it must be understood as a right only to a minimal level of health care, not all the health care you want. As with other essential needs such as food and shelter, society (via some combination of government and charity) should guarantee a certain floor amount for everyone. Food stamps and soup kitchens are good - a just society needn't make sure everyone can eat steak or live in a McMansion. Same thing should go for health care. Health care above the floor is a consumer choice you should have to pay for yourself.

Insightful point #3: As Huckabee says, we don't spend enough on preventative care and way too much on catastrophic care. Huckabee also notes that reforming medical liability is an important way to reduce cost. Dr. Rae's lecture made me realize for the first time that reforming medical liability is absolutely essential to shifting health care dollars to preventative care. Here's why medical liability reform is a huge twofer:

• People consume more health care dollars in the last 12 months of their lives than the rest of the lives combined. Much these dollars don't come from their own pockets, though. They come from insurance (passing on costs to other insurance holders) or they are debts to hospitals and doctors that are never paid (so hospitals and doctors raise rates on routine procedures to make up for all the money they're losing on bad debts).
• A lot of this end-of-life spending is for futile treatments - things that will not cure a person. (Includes expensive treatments that only slightly extend lifespan, and treatments meant to cure that are administered after it is too late that actually can accelerate death.) Doctors very frequently give dying people futile treatments because of medical liability. If they refuse the treatment and the person dies (as they almost certainly will), the family may bring a wrongful death suit against the doctor. One doctor even admitted to Dr. Rae: "if you told me to stop treatment and your family wanted me to keep going, I would keep treating you even though you didn't want it, because you're going to be dead soon but your family will still be alive to sue me."
• Doctors are afraid of simply being sued even if there is very little chance they will be found liable for anything. Many insurance companies will raise their rates so much it puts a doctor out of business if the doctor is merely named in a suit, even if the doctor wins. Medical liability reforms won't work unless they address this factor.

Dr. Rae didn't say how to solve the last problem, and admittedly I don't think Huckabee has yet either. As a lawyer who has done some work in the health insurance field (not for the insurance companies), here are my two cents:

1¢: Government can and should mandate that insurance companies can't raise rates on doctors who are sued but found not liable.

2¢: Medical malpractice and medical wrongful death suits should be required to go to special courts or arbitration boards that specialize in medical issues. Ordinary jurors cannot understand whether a doctor acted reasonably or the science of medical causation. They understand is that someone is dead and their family is grieved, and plaintiffs' attorneys love to perpetuate class warfare against "highly paid" doctors (exhibit #1 John Edwards), seriously undermining the fairness of these cases.

It's the Economy Too, Stupid

I was underwhelmed by the debates last night. The only memorable moment was the Huckabee - Ron Paul dust-up, where Huckabee concluded that honor in doing the right thing in Iraq is more important than the Republican Party. And how! This is exactly why Huckabee should be the man running against Hillary in the general election, but unfortunately also why he has a hard time raising the dough and exposure to get the Republican nomination.

I think the main reason the debates were so lackluster is because the questions were designed to highlight candidate positions that we already know about. And apart from the Libertarian Party candidate crashing the event, the answers elicited were mostly remarkable in their lack of differences.

A near-total focus on national security issues is the culprit here. The debate mostly covered immigration and Iraq/Iran, and all the candidates are trying to appear strongest on the same basic positions: defend our borders and we have to finish the job in Iraq to avoid genocide. A few "family values" questions were tossed in, but only to one or two candidates each.

Notably absent: any questions about domestic policy issues such as healthcare, education and the economy. Huckabee pointed this out in his after-debate interview with Hannity & Colmes. Five debates without a single question about education?!?

The housing market, the key repository of middle class wealth, is an absolute mess right now. Homeowners are panicking over falling prices and dried-up demand. Non-homeowners are praying for the prices to fall because housing prices have more than doubled since 1999, while real median income still hasn't recovered to its 1999 level, pricing most people out of buying a first home. The credit crunch and shaky home prices dampen spending and growth in many other sectors as well. This isn't worth discussing?

The percentage of people who lack access to health care continues to grow, even while total domestic spending on health also continues to far outpace inflation. Medicare entitlements are a looming disaster. And real wages for full-time work are falling, so that middle class families can only keep up by working more and spending time with family less. None of this is worth discussing?

Though I can't say I have any data to back this up, I think a lot of Americans who say they want us out of Iraq in polls are simply sick of hearing about Iraq all the time. They want the President to start focusing on the domestic issues that directly impact them and their children, and they would tolerate a longer stay to keep the peace if they don't feel neglected at home. President Bush isn't doing that, and neither are Giuliani, Romney or McCain. I like Mike because he addresses these domestic issues with good ideas whenever he gets a chance. Too bad the moderators last night didn't give him one.

More K Street for Main Street Not Buying Fred

This just in on NRO's Campaign Spot: rumors that the Arlington Group is turning against Fred Thompson and toward Mike Huckabee.

The Arlington Group, for those outside the Beltway, is a one-stop-shop for mobilizing Christian/conservative grassroots organizations for action on Capitol Hill. I've worked with some of their lobbyists - truly the "good guys" of K Street.

Update: Another unnamed individual reinforcing the bad self-fulfilling prophecy. I'm sick of seeing good people led by the nose by conventional wisdom. The Mary Matalin machine has such great judgment that we lay people must all follow her lead? Uh, who is her husband again?

Back to School Day

NRO's Campaign Spot has taken notice of K Street Mole and acknowledged that a workplace smoking ban is consistently pro-life, but then suggests that Huckabee's priorities are misplaced, citing a litany of challenges our nation faces right now. Hold it right there. Huckabee was asked whether he would sign nationwide ban on workplace smoking into law if Congress sent one across his desk. This is hardly a pillar of his platform. You will search in vain for any mention of smoking policy in Huckabee's priorities for health care reform.

So let's move on to one of the serious issues Geraghty mentioned: "few feel like our schools are preparing our young people to work in an era of globalization." Perfect issue to address on the first day of school for many students and teachers, including my husband.

Mike Huckabee has more to say about education than any of the other leading candidates.

• Kudos to Giuliani for supporting school choice, but knowing the nation isn't ready for that yet, what can the President do in the near term? (And note to Giuliani and Romney - please put your policies in writing, not just video. I can't even access the longer explanation of Giuliani's education platform because the video feed isn't working.)
  
• Fred Thompson only says the federal government intervenes in state education policymaking too much. Fine, Huckabee agrees. But Thompson says "it is appropriate for the federal government to provide funding and set goals for the state to meet in exchange for that funding" but says nothing about what those goals should be. A key point that needs to be addressed.
  
• Mitt Romney also gets kudos for mentioning school choice and English-only classrooms, but a big jeer for saying anyone in the top quarter of their high school class should get a free ride for state university - a massive tax dollar giveaway. He also supports the testing requirements of No Child Left Behind without addressing any of the problems.
  
• John McCain doesn't even mention education on his issues list. (Honestly, why am I even mentioning this guy?)

Let's talk about what's wrong with No Child Left Behind. Not just the funding issues that Democrats harp on. The testing regime itself is terribly flawed because (1) it is myopically focused on certain subjects, causing education in other important subjects to be neglected, and (2) it sets up the impossible target that 100% of students will be proficient in these subjects by 2014.

Working backwards: 100% proficient? Anyone who has ever taught at the pre-college level knows this is impossible. You can lead students to water but you can't make them drink. There will always be some students who simply don't care and won't do any work, no matter how easy the teacher makes the subject or how much he or she tries to motivate them. The only way you get these students to pass a standardized exam is to take it for them. (The extreme focus on passage rates for end-of-year exams also strips teachers of time for creativity, part of the reason it is so hard to motivate the students.) And while teachers do cartwheels to try to prod and push recalcitrant learners into minimal proficiency, all the kids who really do want to learn get - you guessed it - left behind (in the sense that they get little attention and don't reach their potential).

Moreover, NCLB labels a school system as "failing" even if test scores are increasing overall, if some demographic groups do not improve as much as others. You end up with ridiculous results, like high schools listed among Newsweek's 100 best schools in the nation (on the basis of proportion of students taking AP and IB courses) that fail to make "adequate yearly progress" under NCLB. Talk about an incentive to hold back the bright students!

As for the myopic focus on reading and math: yes, reading is fundamental to everything else. But with so much pressure on grade schools to achieve universal proficiency in just these two subjects, other subjects are being jettisoned. My husband, who went to public school not so terribly long ago in the same system where he now teaches science, finds that students are now less prepared for high school science, and concern over passage rates for statewide tests (implemented after he graduated) has led some area high schools to drop their science fairs so they have more time to drill the standardized curriculum. In the NCLB era students are also spending less time learning about our government, an essential element of becoming a good citizen. And as Huckabee points out, many students are losing education in the creative subjects altogether.

Our students are learning how to take tests, but that is not a fundamental skill for competing in the global economy. Too many students are coming out of high school and college now with no ability to think, to communicate clearly, or to be creative. Huckabee understands the real reason we're falling behind other first world countries (where, incidentally, secondary students score higher on standardized tests because the students with less academic aptitude have already been culled out of the testing pool and placed in vocational education that can actually interest and benefit them, not because these countries are better at creating Lake Woebegone): "Our future economy depends on a creative generation," he says. NCLB needs a radical overhaul. "While there is value in the 'No Child Left Behind' law's effort to set high national standards, states must be allowed to develop their own benchmarks," Huckabee notes, unlike the other Republican front-runners who don't seem to see any problem with the current federal benchmarks.

Self-fulfilling Mistake?

I had a very interesting exchange today with an old friend, who I thought might be persuadable to join the Huckabee team. (Big Buchanan fan in 2000 when he was director of a non-profit; now a mole on Wall Street so he can provide for his 9 children.) Here in slightly abbreviated form for your illumination:

Wall Street Mole (in response to K Street Mole's expression of skepticism about Fred Thompson's campaign):

I'm aware of his reputation [as a "junkyard dog"], and sure it is well-earned. Hard to tell how it will play with soccer moms and core Republican women voters, and there's a minefield of Gennifer Flowers's out there ready to blow up. The abortion lobbying business is troubling, I grant you, but his voting record otherwise is solid on the issue, and he's attracted the support of solid conservatives.

FT is far from perfect and no Reagan, but I think it's too far to go and too long odds for Huckabee or Brownback, this time at least. If I'm right, the next question becomes which candidate who espouses conservative views is most likely to gain momentum and stop Hillary next November?

K Street Mole:

Here's my question: why has FT attracted the support of so many conservatives? As far as I can tell, it is because:
1. His votes in the Senate were reliably conservative.
2. He does not espouse socially liberal views (Giuliani).
3. He is not anti-first-amendment, pro-illegal-immigration (McCain), or Mormon (Romney).
4. He has been on a TV show, so people recognize his face.

Numbers 1-3 explain why conservatives are willing to vote for him, despite the bimbo erruptions to come. Number 3 explains why he wouldn't completely bomb in a general election. But only #4 is a positive factor suggesting he could capture swing voters in the general election. I think that's a pretty weak positive, and could backfire because people might not take an actor seriously. I have strong doubts that face recognition will trump distaste over his personal life. Particularly because liberals willing to overlook his personal life will not be attracted by 1/2.

So what is there in FT to attract the type of people who voted for Bill Clinton despite his indiscretions? Nothing, I would say. Can you think of any reason he is likely to gain momentum among independents and beat Hillary? I'd be willing to get on board the train if someone could answer me that.

I think Huckabee has something positive to offer swing voters, which is fresh perspective on domestic issues people really care about. So what if those swing voters never saw him before he got the Republican nomination? Simply by virtue of being the candidate he would get tons of media exposure to overcome that issue. And he is already getting attention from the MSM because the interesting dark horse angle, and the attraction of the populist elements of his campaign rhetoric. Earned media is worth more than grainy attack ads that the big donors pay for.

Wall Street Mole was essentially rendered speechless by this. His response:

I would be thrilled to see Huckabee take off, btw. Just don't see it happening. I know that people like me saying that is self-fulfilling, but I'm out of the mix these days, watching from the electronic wings. If Thompson impresses from the hustings, he has a shot. Most people vote on image, and he's got a leg up.

Yes, my Wall Street friend, people like us saying that Huckabee has no chance and Thompson is the one with "image" IS self-fulfilling. The key word in the next sentence is IF. IF Thompson impresses swing voters he has a shot. But Wall Street Mole can't tell me - and no one can - what evidence there is that Thompson will impress swing voters. As far as I can tell, the only reason he has traction with conservatives is because he's getting attention from the likes of Sean Hannity and National Review. That won't sway the Reagan Democrat in Ohio whose employer went bankrupt last year. Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised next week, but I am terribly afraid the conservative opinion leaders have hitched their wagon to the wrong horse.

The only way to turn around a bad self-fulfilling prophecy is to stop repeating it and start acting to reverse it.

Pro-Life Means Pro-LIFE

Are "pro-life" and "anti-abortion" precisely synonyms, only different in revealing the bias of the speaker? Or does pro-life really mean something more than anti-abortion?

Anti-abortion means you believe that abortion is killing a human person with a right to life, and therefore abortion should never or very rarely be legal.

Pro-life means you believe the same thing as someone who is anti-abortion. But it can mean so much more:

- Pro-life means you support the local crisis pregnancy centers and maternity homes that help women in desperate situations give life to their babies. It's more than a bumper sticker - it is time or money shared to give life to individual persons in need.

- Pro-life means you don't support the death penalty whenever there is any reasonable doubt that the person is guilty of pre-meditated murder. (Yes, I know a jury already decided the person was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. But can you really expect a dozen people with no knowledge of legal standards or scientific/evidentiary methods of proof to decide to acquit an accused when loved ones of the victim are clearly grieved before them, on the basis of "reasonable doubt"?)

- Pro-life means society gives people the means to be healthy and stay alive. Stay-at-home parents and people too sick to work need access to healing professionals just as much as employees, children and seniors. (The best way to do this is highly debatable by people of goodwill, but a pro-life person agrees this should be the goal.)

- Pro-life means you don't believe you are entitled to carry on activities that endanger the lives of others. You are not entitled to blow carcinogenic smoke into other people's lungs, you are not entitled to sell food or products that carry health risks without at least informing customers about the hazardous contents, and you are not entitled to drunk or reckless driving.

Some Republicans may bristle at some of these aspects of being pro-life. Particularly the last one -- according to some, this is supporting a "nanny state." No. A nanny state tells you that you can't eat Doritos or smoke in your own house. A pro-life state says that Frito Lay has to tell you what is in those Doritos and says you can't smoke in public places where other people have to breathe your exhaust fumes. A nanny state pays for your condoms and Cialis. A pro-life state tells insurance companies they can't refuse to give ongoing necessary treatment to people with chronic conditions like multiple sclerosis or Lyme Disease.

Huckabee is not just anti-abortion. He is pro-LIFE. That's why I think he deserves the votes of all pro-life citizens, regardless of party affiliation. Let libertarians sulk about smoking bans - if you are a pro-family traditionalist, a social-justice Christian, or anyone else who believes that the number one duty of government is protecting our right to life, Huckabee is your man.