Smokescreen - Lifted

Back in August, after Ames when Mike Huckabee was just starting to get any attention at all, he stated at a cancer forum that he would support a ban on smoking in the workplace nationwide, just as he had fought for it in Arkansas. The National Review Online crowd went wild, declaring him a "nanny stater" and thus began NRO's war on Mike Huckabee.

Here's the irony: just as Huckabee has revised his position, saying that these types of smoking bans are best handled at the state and local level, not federal, the founder of National Review, William F. Buckley, has published his mea culpa in the matter of defending this deadly practice in the name of personal freedom:

My own story is that I am the founder of a doughty magazine which, if space was solicited tomorrow by a tobacco company, would agree to sell the space. We would come up with serious arguments featuring personal independence and pain/pleasure correlations to justify selling the space, but I would need to weep just a little bit on the inside over the simple existence of tobacco.

Again, the personal story. My wife began smoking (furtively) when 15, which is about when I also began. When we were both 27, on the morning after a high-pitched night on the town for New Year’s Eve, we resolved on mortification of the flesh to make up for our excesses: We both gave up smoking. The next morning, we decided to divorce — nothing less than that would distract us from the pain we were suffering. We came to, and flipped a coin — the winner could resume smoking. I lost, and for deluded years thought myself the real loser, deprived of cigarettes. Half a year ago my wife died, technically from an infection, but manifestly, at least in
part, from a body weakened by 60 years of nonstop smoking. I stayed off the cigarettes but went to the idiocy of cigars inhaled, and suffer now from emphysema, which seems determined to outpace heart disease as a human killer.

Stick me in a confessional and ask the question: Sir, if you had the authority, would you forbid smoking in America? You’d get a solemn and contrite, Yes. Solemn because I would be violating my secular commitment to the free marketplace. Contrite, because my relative indifference to tobacco poison for so many years puts me in something of the position of the Zyklon B defendants after World War II. These folk manufactured the special gas used in the death camps to genocidal ends. They pleaded, of course, that as far as they were concerned, they were simply technicians, putting together chemicals needed in wartime for fumigation. Some got away with that defense; others, not.

Those who fail to protest the free passage of tobacco smoke in the air come close to the Zyklon defendants in pleading ignorance.

In some ways I am surprised NR allowed this to be published at all, but I suppose they can't deny the wishes of their founder to do public penance on this matter. Though I certainly do not support criminalizing tobacco on the grounds of saving people from themselves, smoking in public certainly meets the legal definition of a "nuisance": a personal activity that imposes unacceptible risks and costs on others in the vacinity. The law has forbidden or punished nuisances even from the days when the state was truly only a "night watchman." Knowing what we know in 2008, there is no excuse on the grounds of "personal liberty" for allowing persons to impose this deadly nuisance on the lungs of others. Whether this is best handled state-by-state or nationally is a matter of pragmatic political judgment, but the policy considerations are the same.

CEO Pay and Abortion?

Speaking of associative fear-mongering, today's article by Jeffrey Lord qualifies as the stupidest condemnation of Huckabee by association yet. Huckabee has said that there's something wrong with an economy where CEOs make 500 times what many of their workers do, often for running their companies into the ground, and advocates pro-global competitiveness policies designed to help raise wages of the working and middle class. He has never said a word about capping wages of executives. But Mr. Lord simply asserts, with no factual basis, that regretting income disparity = government setting executive pay. From there he spins a fanciful Orwellian tale, in which there are no limits on government power, and in that world it makes sense that the government also has the power to declare a right to kill unborn children. This teaches us... the strange way Jeffrey Lord's mind works.

The associations here are astoundingly irrational. In addition to the original, counter-factual leap into government-set executive pay, there's the the complete contradiction that an all-powerful government invents new individual "rights." A government that micromanages everything subordinates individual rights to the designs of the state. The invention of new "rights" such as abortion is the mark of a political worldview that elevates individual rights above all moral considerations and the general welfare of society. These are completely opposite concepts. (Except that both are embraced by the Democratic party--but that's another topic entirely.) In a command and control society, like China, abortion is not a "right" but a mandate, a tool for achieving government control over population.

Mr. Lord ignores the open and obvious true connection between Huckabee's comments on executive pay and his position (unequivocally against) abortion: belief in the inherent dignity of all human life. As persons made in the image of God, we are not to practice the law of the jungle with each other. Every human being has the right to life, and to fair wages for his or her labor. The point is not to envy the wealthy, but to remind the wealthy of their responsibility to treat their subordinate workers fairly--just as parents have the responsibility to provide for their children.

It seems Mr. Lord's perspective has been so narrowed by party-line politics (Republicans are against abortion and for the law of the jungle in economics; Democrats invent "rights" to abortion, gay "marriage" etc. and criticize income disparity) that he cannot conceive of a political philosophy grounded in human dignity. I hope, for the sake of our nation, that few people share this distorted perspective.

Conservatism's Inquisitors on Brink of Causing Their Own Demise

Polls over the last few days show that Republican primary voters are starting to believe the hype of the pundit classes that Huckabee is a one-state wonder and McCain is the man with momentum. Mike Huckabee was recently running in first place in Michigan and South Carolina, but he is rapidly losing ground to John McCain, and to a much lesser but still significant extent, Fred Thompson.

Much of this is the result of relentless attacks by pundits such as Rush Limbaugh and National Review against Mike Huckabee for being supposedly heterodox as a conservative. Most of what they claim against him is based on exaggerations, mischaracterizations and associative fear mongering. The exaggerations and mischaracterizations (e.g. feigned outrage at a 47% increase in taxes in Arkansas during Huckabee's term, never mind that income rose more than 50% in Arkansas and this 10+ year change only amounts to 3.7% annually; legitimate concern about certain voucher proposals = anti-school choice) are the sheen of legitimacy painted on an irrational fear of Huckabee based on associative thinking. Jonah Goldberg's recent NR article, The Horror of Huck, finally, honestly, reveals the true reasons that Huckabee's record is held to an impossible double standard in comparison to the other GOP candidates: "It's a Compassionate Conservative!" which Goldberg equates with several horror movie villains.

In the minds of Conservatism's Inquisition, Huckabee talks a lot about the struggles of the average Joe, John Edwards talks a lot about the struggles of the average Joe, therefore Huckabee's policy positions must be similar to John Edwards. Huckabee is compassionate in his outlook and embraces conservative social views, George W. Bush calls himself a "compassionate conservative" and supports expanding Medicare entitlements and quixotic federal meddling in education, therefore Huckabee must support expanding Medicare entitlements and more federal money and meddling in education. Never mind that a 10-minute perusal of Huckabee's website would reveal that Huckabee's policy prescriptions do not mimic either Edwards or Bush and actually show a great deal of fealty to the Reaganite principles of peace through strength, the power of innovation, and personal responsibility.

Unfortunately, a lot of voters don't take the time to read through Huckabee's website and they take the characterizations of Rush Limbaugh and his ilk on faith. Even if they don't listen to talk radio or read NR, they are likely to see one of Mitt Romney's attack ads or Fred Thompson's attack performance at the Fox News debate on January 10 and instantly believe the accusations that Huckabee is too "liberal" for Republican primary voters.

But who is more orthodox as a conservative? Only Fred Thompson, who is a dead man walking in this election by now. Despite a South Carolina bump from his uncharacteristic passionate (but entirely negative) performance last week, there is no realistic chance Fred could win the nomination, and even less the general election.

Mitt Romney is also orthodox, if you look at his paint-by-numbers conservative policy statements circa 2007 and ignore what he did or said from 1992 through 2006. But he isn't electable either, not because of his religion but because of his persona. When the nation seems poised at the brink of recession, and in any case a lot of families are struggling economically, people are not drawn to a guy born with a silver spoon in his mouth, a TV-perfect physique and an equally TV-perfect family, with a sense of entitlement that because of his "hard work" (ignore his fortunate accidents of circumstance) he can do anything he wants, including buy the Presidency, and anyone else who isn't succeeding just isn't working hard enough. Even though someone finally got through to him recently with the message "it's the economy, stupid," Romney's rosy declarations that Michigan can get back the same jobs it lost cannot reestablish his credibility with voters having incomes under $100,000.

Which leaves the pragmatic voter who identifies himself or herself as "conservative" with... John McCain. Oops! That's not what the self-proclaimed arbiters of conservatism want! But in expending so much fire power on Mike Huckabee, they have let the public forget McCain's decades of serious heterodoxy from conservative principles:

• Rape of the First Amendment - seriously limiting the ability of citizens to effectively communicate political views to the public through the McCain-Feingold Act, violating the first and most fundamental principle in the Bill of Rights.
  
• Opposition to Bush tax cuts - McCain does not believe the core Reaganite economic doctrine that tax cuts can actually improve government revenue if they are designed to stimulate economic growth. Huckabee agreed to certain tax increases when they were absolutely necessary to pay for critical government functions, but he also believes in pursuing tax cuts and changes that stimulate economic growth and improve American competitiveness.
  
• Opposition to addressing conservative social issues - In the Senate, McCain has fought tooth and nail to prevent votes on conservative social issues, and he also undermined the effort to use the "constitutional option" to stop the Democrats from imposing liberal litmus tests on judicial appointments. Former Senator Rick Santorum has been very outspoken about these points in recent days.

This is only a partial list of John McCain's serious defections from conservative principles. But to the conservative pundits, I ask this question: Would you rather lose your "right to smoke" in public indoor spaces, or your right to free political expression? Would you rather pay a small increase in the gas tax to stimulate innovation toward energy independence or see a return to Clinton tax rates and the death tax? Assuming you can't abide by McCain, you better turn your fire off of Mike Huckabee and onto John McCain immediately. Forget your unelectable puppets and form an alliance with Mike Huckabee before it's too late.

Remember, conservative pundits, that "John McCain looks at things through the eyes of the New York Times editorial board." If you keep encouraging a bitter 3-way split among the core conservatives, you won't get a nominee who listens to you at all. You will become entirely irrelevant, ruined by your own overzealous prosecution of Mike Huckabee.

Identity Politics Do NOT Explain the Huckaboom

Many of the conservative establishment pundits are continuing to insist on this talking point. NRO says again today that Huckabee "ran on his religion" to win in Iowa, but he needs to broaden his appeal beyond Evangelicals to win the nomination. That's rich coming from the publication that has gone all-out to convince other types of conservatives that Huckabee is a wolf in sheep's clothing and somehow his occasional support for a small tax increase to cover the state budget is soooo much worse than McCain opposing the Bush tax cuts or Romney raising fees in Taxachussets.

As someone who left the Evangelical camp for Rome Sweet Home a decade ago, I certainly don't support Huckabee because he's an Evangelical. Yes, some people are motivated to support him for this reason. Frankly, I find some downright loony comments out there on the wild west web where people associate their support for Huckabee with visions from God or apocalyptic predictions. But there aren't nearly enough people in this nation who think that way to account for the Huckaboom we're seeing in serious polls.

A few pundits are willing to acknowledge this and look at the Huckaboom phenomenon seriously. I want to commend Michael Medved and David Brooks for being two of today's best commentators on Huckabee's Iowa caucus victory.

Medved says "Stop Lying About Huckabee and Evangelicals!", crunches the numbers, and points out this statistical gem:

Yes, Huckabee’s 46% of Evangelicals was a strong showing, but it was directly comparable to his commanding 40% of women, or 40% of all voters under the age of 30, or 41% of those earning less than $30,000 a year. His powerful appeal to females, the young and the poor make him a different kind of Republican, who connects with voting blocs the GOP needs to win back. He’s hardly the one-dimensional religious candidate of media caricature.

Brooks offers this insightful commentary:

Some people are going to tell you that Mike Huckabee’s victory last night in Iowa represents a triumph for the creationist crusaders. Wrong.

Huckabee won because he tapped into realities that other Republicans have been slow to recognize. First, evangelicals have changed. Huckabee is the first ironic evangelical on the national stage. He’s funny, campy (see his Chuck Norris fixation) and he’s not at war with modern culture.

Second, Huckabee understands much better than Mitt Romney that we have a crisis of authority in this country. People have lost faith in their leaders’ ability to respond to problems. While Romney embodies the leadership class, Huckabee went after it. He criticized Wall Street and K Street. Most importantly, he sensed that conservatives do not believe their own movement is well led. He took on Rush Limbaugh, the Club for Growth and even President Bush. The old guard threw everything they had at him, and their diminished power is now exposed.

Third, Huckabee understands how middle-class anxiety is really lived. Democrats talk about wages. But real middle-class families have more to fear economically from divorce than from a free trade pact. A person’s lifetime prospects will be threatened more by single parenting than by outsourcing. Huckabee understands that economic well-being is fused with social and moral well-being, and he talks about the inter-relationship in a way no other candidate has.

In that sense, Huckabee’s victory is not a step into the past. It opens up the way for a new coalition.

A conservatism that recognizes stable families as the foundation of economic growth is not hard to imagine. A conservatism that loves capitalism but distrusts capitalists is not hard to imagine either. Adam Smith felt this way. A conservatism that pays attention to people making less than $50,000 a year is the only conservatism worth defending.

Exactly! Brooks still is skeptical that Huckabee has what it takes to win the nomination, but he concludes "starting last night in Iowa, an evangelical began the Republican Reformation."

Yes, this is a reformation of the GOP, but it may be more Vatican II (elevating the importance of the "lay" grassroots and tweaking outdated customs) than Martin Luther (wholesale rejection of certain "doctrines"). After all, Huckabee did choose to quote G.K. Chesterton at his victory speech, not Tim LaHaye or even Abraham Kuyper.

I'm not suggesting that Huckabee is a closet Catholic or anything other than an Evangelical. My point is that what makes him a great candidate is that he reaches beyond the Evangelical box, to understand and represent the concerns of people of goodwill beyond denominational labels.

Huckabee - The False Conservative?

Today Robert Novak calls Huckabee "The False Conservative" in the editorial pages of the Washington Post. As I have said before, what scares fusionist "conservatives" about Huckabee is that he is the true conservative, not them, and he demonstrates their economic liberalism (in the classic definition of "liberalism"--meaning completely unrestrained free markets) may not be not necessary to form a governing majority. Novak's article pretty clearly admits this:

The rise of evangelical Christians as the force that blasted the GOP out of minority status during the past generation always contained an inherent danger: What if these new Republican acolytes supported not merely a conventional conservative but one of their own? That has happened with Huckabee, a former Baptist minister educated at Ouachita Baptist University and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. The danger is a serious contender for the nomination who passes the litmus test of social conservatives on abortion, gay marriage and gun control but is far removed from the conservative-libertarian model of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.

Notice in the last sentence, Novak switches to the term "conservative-libertarian," showing that this is what he really means by "conservative." He also goes on to complain about Huckabee's desire to conserve the environment, saying it is "anathema to the free market." But what's so "conservative" about supporting absolute free markets even when they destroy the environment, families, or civil society?

Novak also calls evangelicals (and really should include practicing Catholics too) an "inherent danger" even as he admits that the Republicans would have been relegated to permanent minority status--probably would have gone the way of the Whigs--if it weren't for Christian social conservatives joining the Party. It sounds like Novak defines "danger" as dropping the libertarian part of Novak's hyphenated-conservatism, rather than the danger of becoming secularist states like Europe that inevitably slide into socialism when all the moral undergirdings that make economic liberties possible are gone.

Thank you, Mr. Novak, for coming clean about exactly where you and your ilk are coming from in your exaggerated criticisms of Gov. Huckabee.

P.S. I've been reading the other encyclicals over the Thanksgiving holiday and will get back to my commentary on Huckabee and Catholic social thought shortly.

Fighting for Fusionism's Future

National Review has sunk to a new low by publishing this unsupported and unsupportable hatchet job in "The Week":

Mike Huckabee’s rising poll numbers make him the exciting new face in the presidential race, much as Fred Thompson was in the spring. But let’s get serious. Huckabee was an undistinguished governor; both Romney and Giuliani had more executive accomplishments. Huckabee has a better feel for the public’s concerns over health care and wage stagnation than other Republicans; but his distinctive solutions, such as protectionism, would be terrible public policy. Some conservatives fantasize that Huckabee would expand the Republican coalition. But as Patrick Buchanan demonstrated, the blue-collar protectionist voters that populism attracts do not make up for the free-market voters it repels. Huckabee isn’t even the complete social conservative he has been made out to be: He opposes school vouchers. Huckabee is a compelling orator. Would that he had more compelling things to say.

(By the way, the only assertion of fact here--"he opposes school vouchers"--is factually wrong. All the rest is an inflammatory statement of opinion.)

Why is National Review being so negative about Huckabee, when he is 100% solidly pro-life and pro-family, doesn't support the horrid violation of the 1st Amendment that is the McCain-Feingold Act, and is an effective and genuinely likable spokesman for conservative ideals and against big-government disasters like Hillarycare?

I think it is because the popularity of Huckabee highlights the ongoing breakdown of fusionism, which is National Review's foundational philosophy.

What is fusionism, you might ask? It is fusing together two distinct dogmatic beliefs: the invisible hand of free markets will always result in the greatest economic good, and personal moral conduct should be governed by standards revealed by the Judeo-Christian religions.

The odd thing about fusionism is that when you accept the proposition that free markets always produce the greatest economic good, you must reject the idea that government economic policies should ever be governed by standards revealed by Judeo-Christian morals. Government should not show any special care for widows and orphans: the free market is the tide that lifts all boats, and anyone left without a boat must simply hope for some non-governmental charitable act to save them.

In other words, under fusionism, we take our religion into the public square, except we leave it at the market door. There's a great deal of tension inherent in this view, especially since Judeo-Christian morals teach us lessons of corporate responsibility to lift up those who are economically vulnerable.

Moreover, pure, Darwinian free markets are on a cataclysmic collision course with the traditional family. In our post-agrarian society, children are no longer an economic asset for parents. Instead, they are a huge economic drain, in direct costs and opportunity costs for parents who can't devote themselves as much to their jobs. Our industrial and service-oriented economic system rewards the childless and the people who focus on work outside the home. The economic incentives are all wrong when it comes to families. As Jennifer Roback Morse has argued well, the laissez-faire family doesn't work.

The internal contradictions in fusionism have always been fairly evident, but somehow it still worked for a long time. When many women still stayed at home to raise children and the government tried to control prices, the push toward a more laissez-faire economic policy actually helped families. But today is a different story. Wages have been depressed because of so many more women working (and unchecked immigration), housing prices are out of reach for many middle class families in many areas now, good jobs are moving overseas, the entry ticket to a middle class job (the college degree) gets much more expensive every year, and the retiring Baby Boomers are about to crush the economic future of our children. Unless we change the economic incentives for families, we're on track for the demographic winter that is already crushing Europe.

National Review sometimes acknowledges these issues--particularly Mark Steyn, who often writes about our demographic doom. And a couple years back there was the "crunchie con" edition, acknowledging the conservatives who want to "act local" to reclaim traditional families and communities and resist the dehumanizing trends of globalism. But just as often, or more often, they publish articles in which rising personal consumption is presented as a good thing, and any limits on globalism as apostasy.

Huckabee takes the side of Mark Steyn and the crunchie cons, and says No to Darwinism in all its forms. He isn't a fusionist, he's just conservative. Conserving life, conserving the environment, conserving family bonds. And by golly, the people of faith in America like that! What if the conservatives don't need the extreme economic liberals (in the old sense of the word liberal) to form a governing coalition? What is the future of fusionism then?

Perhaps there isn't much of one. In which case, there may not be much of a future for fusionism's greatest herald, National Review.

Money, Money, Money

Thanks to the 5 Huckabee supporters who emailed me to let me know they completed the Top-Tier Huckabee Challenge in September! I donated $250 more to the Huckabee campaign last night on your behalf.

Fantastic news up on the Huckabee website this morning: 3,525 donations in just 2 weeks, far surpassing their goal of 2,500!! Congratulations to Mike Huckabee and all of his supporters who chipped in. I'm looking forward to finding out how much money he raised soon, and hope and pray the Q3 fundraising will finally prove he is "top-tier" to the money-obsessed pundits.

And now look who is trying to raise money to "Stop Hillary": National Review Online, that same website that poses as a conservative news source but dismisses Huckabee most of the time and when they do cover him, it is usually sarcastic or distorted.

I encourage anyone who reads NRO to write to Kathryn Jean Lopez and let her know that your money is backing the person who can really stop Hillary--Mike Huckabee--and that NRO does not deserve any financial support so long as they undermine him with unfair coverage.

"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.)