Potomac Primary Today!

I finally got my opportunity to cast my vote for Mike Huckabee this morning. All DC, Maryland and Virginia voters, remember to vote today!

My baby is "leaping in the womb" a lot this morning. I guess she's cheering on Mike Huckabee! Thanking him for staying in the race on behalf of unborn babies and voters who are concerned about having honorable, family-oriented leadership in this nation.

From the two of us: GO MIKE!!

Nothing's the Matter with Kansas

In the first caucus since Romney's departure left the GOP nomination a two-man race, Huckabee beats McCain by a whopping 61 to 22%! (With 3/4 of precincts reporting - exact final tally may change.)

One of the central claims of the book "What's the Matter with Kansas" is that economic conservatives have taken advantage of social conservatives, taking their votes and activism for granted while not actually delivering on the social issues and promoting economic policies that undermine the very family values the social conservatives care about.

Whatever else you might think of this book, today's Kansas caucus proves that social conservatives are not dupes, and they are working hard to wrest control of the GOP away from the country club Republicans who think they can just use and abuse the real foot soldiers of the party.

Mike Huckabee is a great Presidential candidate to represent American families because, unlike John McCain, he combines:

• Rock solid commitment to defending the sanctity of life and marriage;
• Understanding that both tax cuts and infrastructure investments stimulate the economy and the well-being of all Americans -- wise governance is balancing the two;
• Conviction that free markets are generally good, but don't come before families; and
• Commitment to do everything possible to stop the loss of American jobs and national security to illegal immigrants and foreign nations.

McCain has many heterodoxies from the economic conservatives too, but ultimately he is still a country club Republican:

• Supports giving amnesty to illegals, so the rich can continue to support their lavish lifestyles with very cheap labor;
• Has no commitment to supporting pro-life or pro-marriage issues;
• Dumped his first wife after an accident left her less attractive, to marry into wealth;
• Shut down many sources of funding for political activity, making grassroots challenges to the Washington status quo more difficult, and ceding more power to the wealthy lobbyists who expect to buy "access" with $2,300 checks.

Let the country club pundits convince us the race is over? No way! Kansas has spoken, and the heartland Republicans have declared loud and clear: WE are the GOP.

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.

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.

Lessons from the Virginia Election

The Day of Reckoning came in Virginia yesterday, what's done is done, and I am able to focus on the Huckabee campaign again.

We did our best (and a special shout-out to Kevin Tracy for handing out fliers in the cold rain yesterday morning even though he isn't registered to vote in the Commonwealth), but the Democrats took control over the Virginia Senate nonetheless.

A few lessons learned from yesterday's election, that we can use going forward into the Presidential race:

1. Republican obstruction of government spending on key infrastructure is a losing position. Besides Bush fatigue, the main reason Republicans lost here is because the down-state GOP legislators have been reluctant and parsimonious in funding the transportation improvements that the urban/suburban areas desperately need. Transportation is the most important issue for half of Northern Virginia voters, and they're willing to pay for it: the transportation bond referendum passed 82-18% last night. So Club for Growth, shut up and stop slamming Huckabee for supporting a tax increase to fix the roads in Arkansas.
   
   
2. A Republican tacking to the left on social issues picks up no votes - only loses some of the base. There were 3 very hot Senate races in NoVa: Davis-Petersen, O'Brien-Barker, and Cuccinelli-Olesek. Each Republican incumbent was fighting a tsunami of money from the Democratic Party of Virginia. Mrs. Davis tacked to the left on social issues, never saying anything conservative on these issues, courting the gay vote, and opposing people with concealed carry permits being able to bring the guns into schools, libraries, etc. She lost by the biggest margin: 45-55. O'Brien and Cuccinelli made no apologies for being socially conservative and the Democrats attacked them in TV ads for it. O'Brien lost just barely: 51-49, and Cuccinelli is still hanging by a thread with the absentee ballots yet to be counted. Not that this is a rosy picture, but it certainly throws cold water on the theory that somehow Giuliani can pick up electoral votes in blue states without losing them in the South. Ask your local campaign chair, Mrs. Davis, how well her liberal swing worked out for her.
   
   
   
3. Huckabee needs to fight harder against rumors he is soft on immigration. As I went canvassing door-to-door, I got an earful a number of times about how important it was to crack down on illegal immigration, which is draining public resources, contributing to congestion, and lowering the quality of life in the area in numerous ways. The Republicans in Prince William County, who focused on this issue, did just fine last night. By contrast, Mrs. Davis sent one mailer on this issue -- in August. Bad choice. A lot of people in the district who are traditionally Democrat are exercised about how illegal immigration is ruining their neighborhoods, and she would have had a fighting chance if she showed them why she represented their views. Huckabee has got to do everything he can to toughen his image on this issue.
   
   
   
4. Republicans who think just anyone can beat Hillary are fooling themselves. There has been a strong shift toward independents voting Democratic by default because they're fed up with the Republicans who are in power. Moreover, the electorate is really upset about the negative campaigning (I heard that time and time again while canvassing and standing outside the polls yesterday) and want positive solutions. Unless the Republican candidate is charismatic, stays positive, and focuses on new ideas on important issues instead of attacking Hillary, the disgusted middle will vote for Hillary as a matter of anti-Republican momentum or just stay home.

On a more happy note, I was able to gather 125 signatures of bona fide registered voters yesterday to help get Huckabee on the Virginia primary ballot. This is one of the toughest states: we need 10,000 good signatures of registered Virginia voters for Huckabee to be on the ballot. (All the candidates do -- the Giuliani and RP people were out getting signatures at my polling place yesterday too.) As a practical matter, that means 20,000 signatures, because many will be illegible or the person isn't registered to vote. All Virginia Huckabee supporters, please pitch in! Contact David John if you're willing to help gather signatures.

October 19 - Why Your Country Needs YOU in Washington

Reported today in the Washington Times:

Fifth-ranked in the polls, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has backing of the leaders of many small-to-medium sized evangelical congregations and interest groups but not the most widely influential leaders like [American Family Association (AFA) Chairman Donald Wildmon] and Dr. Dobson.

"It would seem that Christian leaders could well rally around Mike Huckabee if they are in search of a candidate they like," said Republican election-law attorney Cleta Mitchell. "It isn't as though there isn't any candidate they could support." Mrs. Mitchell supports no candidate but thinks Mr. Huckabee "is actually a pretty impressive candidate and is doing a credible job of making his presence felt in this race."

Mr. Wildmon agreed. "Could the social-conservative leaders support Huckabee? Yes. Have they done so yet? No," he said, adding that he is "part of a group who have pledged not to go public to endorse anybody until the end of October." If current alignments haven't changed by then, however, public declarations of fealty will reveal a badly splintered Christian right.

My friends, why do you think they're holding out until the end of October? I'd venture to say because the biggest national conclave of Christian conservatives is slated for October 19-20 in Washington, DC, and they want to test the waters there first.

If you read the rest of the Washington Times article, it discusses how Fred Thompson has failed to become the rallying point for Christian conservatives, and Evangelicals are afraid of Romney's Mormon faith, leaving them deeply divided or undecided between the two not-so-attractive candidates.

Our country needs us to do everything we can to get the Christian conservative bloc to rally around Mike Huckabee. If you're pro-life then anything else will be a disaster. Neither Thompson nor Romney can rally the base well enough to beat Hillary Clinton, and of course Giuliani is openly contemptuous of pro-lifers and family values. If Giuliani is nominated, then approximately half of Americans will have no party head to voice their deeply-held belief that all human beings possess the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And of course, a third party candidate would only guarantee the election of Hillary Clinton.

How can we do this? I hate to admit it, but blog discussions won't get us very far because very few undecided people read them. We need to get out there and talk with these very Christian conservative leaders who are waiting until the end of October and tell them why we think they need to get behind Huckabee. Moreover, we need to talk with and convert their employees and members, who the leaders will listen to more than some faceless person sending an email.

The place to do this is the FRC Action Washington Briefing on Friday, October 19! This is worth the financial sacrifice. (And conference registration is very reasonably priced, at $95/$50 for students.) People on the ground are worth far more than money when it comes to grassroots action. If there is any way you can come to DC and "work the rooms" for Huckabee, and you're weighing the cost of taking a day off of work and/or coming to DC versus donating the same amount to the campaign, come here! You can leverage your money and efforts for so much more by showing up, wearing a Huckabee pin, and telling numerous GOP activists (who will never read a Huckabee blog otherwise) why our nation needs them to give Mike their support.

Important Note: The Presidential straw poll voting concludes on Saturday at 1 pm, according to the latest schedule posted online. Gov. Huckabee's scheduled speaking time has also been moved to the Saturday morning session. This means that conference-goers will not hear Huckabee speak on Friday, making it all the more important to prime them to wait to hear him speak and not cast an ill-informed vote on Friday.

Moreover, after Q3's disappointing fundraising numbers, we need to demonstrate the power of Huckabee's grassroots network. It's one thing to vote online in the straw poll (which you definitely should do if you absolutely can't come to DC, by joining FRC Action and then casting your vote), but it's entirely another to demonstrate that Huckabee's grassroots are committed to trecking long distances for him, and not just in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Please see my post from yesterday if you would like tips on where to stay if you're coming in from out of town. Regardless of whether you're local or coming in from out of town, if you do plan to attend please email me to let me know, so we have a sense of how many Huckabee supporters are coming and have an opportunity to meet up.

Please register for the conference ASAP, because the original print form had a deadline of September 15, and who knows when they will close the online registration.

Between now and October 19, I plan to provide more coordination information as the situation develops. Moreover, I plan to post my best "lobbying" tips -- expert advice on how to persuade political types. I do this for a living, and am happy to share the tricks of the trade to help you be more effective in persuading other conference-goers to put their votes, money, and efforts behind Mike Huckabee.

Let's win this one for the Gipper!!

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.