Recently in Politics Category

Yesterday Phil Johnson, of the aptly named Pyromanics blog, threw gasoline on the flames of the debate about Christian involvement in politics with his provocatively titled post, "How Evangelicals Traded Their Spiritual Authority for a Mess of Political Pottage." Near the conclusion Phil writes:

How did the evangelical movement get so far off track? I wouldn't suggest that evangelicalism's recent obsession with political activism is the only factor, but I do think it's a major one. If the same energies and resources that were poured into failed political efforts had been channeled into evangelism instead, I'm convinced that would have been instrumental in producing more spiritual good and hindering more of society's evils than all our lobbying, demonstrating, and voting combined.

I'm a fan of Phil's work so it's with some reticence that I criticize his argument. But it's worth debating because it contains a commonly held erroneous view. Aside from the false dilemma and the assumption that energy and resources that produced a failure would have been successful had they only been applied elsewhere, Phil's contention fails for the simple reason that his premise is based on a myth.

Contrary to what many secularists claim--and many Christians believe--we evangelicals are not all that politically involved. Sure, like most Americans we talk a lot about politics, especially in an election season. But the claim that we are involved in actual political activities--lobbying, organizing, campaigning, etc.--would be difficult to support with actual evidence.

I say this not only as a self-professed (and self-critical) member of the "religious right" but as one who has direct observation post on the political battlefield. From my vantage point it is easy to see that the commitment--much less the influence--of Christians in politics is wildly overstated.

For example, Family Research Council (FRC)--the premier lobbying organization of the Christian right in Washington, D.C.--has been attempting to collect signatures on an online petition asking President Bush to approve new Title X regulations ensuring that no taxpayer money goes to subsidize the abortion facilities of groups like Planned Parenthood.

To date, almost one million emails have been sent to Christians asking them to do nothing more than add their name. This is about as minor a level of commitment or involvement as it gets yet only about 3% have done so. More Christians voted for the 5th place contestant on last week's American Idol than have petitioned to defund abortion mills.

This is the typical reaction at the grassroots level to almost every political initiative in the "religious right." Lot's of talk; little to no action.

FRC is considered one of the major players in the world of conservative evangelical politics. And yet the organization's ability to have any influence or impact in the political realm is limited by the lack of grassroots commitment. Though FRC and similar groups attempt to rally the troops, they are unable to lead the army of politically engaged evangelicals because such a group is all but nonexistent. 

[Note: This post is an adaptation of an address I recently gave for a conference of pre-law advisors at Regent University Law School which itself was originally based...on a previous blog post.]

I'm honored to be able to speak to you today for I am a great admirer of your work. Indeed, it is my opinion that pre-law advisors are significantly undervalued despite the fact that you carry out one of the most important tasks in the legal profession--talking people out of becoming lawyers.

While it is true that the bar exam and law school admissions officers perform the same function, though perhaps more brutally, pre-law advisors provide the first line of defense in preventing people like me from stumbling into a career in law.

In 1987 I entered the University of North Texas as a freshman with the intention of someday becoming an attorney. The first week I was there I scheduled an appointment with the pre-law advisor, expecting him to tell me that I could choose any major I wanted, as long as what I wanted was to major in political science.

Instead, the first words out of his mouth were "Why do why to be a lawyer?" I was so caught off guard that I ended up answering truthfully--telling him that I wanted to be part of a profession that made a lot of money. He then set about ripping my response, explaining why this was a terrible justification. I gave him another lame reason and he shot that one down too. That went on for several minutes before I laid out the dumbest rationale of all. I told him that my friends and family always told me I'd make a good lawyer "because I was good at arguing."

He leaned forward in his chair and gave me a pitiable look generally reserved for fools who are about to make a disastrous life choice. "Mr. Carter," he said, "how good could you be at arguing when you can't even make an argument for why should be a lawyer."

That day he planted a seed of self-awareness' within me. I realized two things about myself: (1) I really would make a terrible lawyer and (2) I'm really not all that good at arguing.

So today I won't even bother trying to argue my case. Instead I'll just throw out a pile of assertions and conjectures and let you sift through it all to see if there is anything of value.

Yesterday Senator Barack Obama gave an impassioned and heartfelt speech on race in America. After reading the text online my first reaction was, "Great speech...I wonder who wrote it."

Now if that wasn't your first thought it's probably a sign that you don't live in Washington, D.C.

Wait? You thought Obama wrote it himself? Well, I suppose that's not outside the realm of possibility. And I suspect he did throw in an anecdote and had a hand in adding a line or two. But wrote the whole thing himself? Extremely unlikely.

What is more probable is that the Great Race Speech was written by the "baby faced, 26-year-old white guy" Jon Favreau, the Obama campaign's head speechwriter. (Ironic, isn't it, that such a lauded speech on race was most likely written by a Liberal White Dude?) Favreau has become something of a star because of his ability to put words in Obama's mouth. After the Illinois Senator gave his victory speech in Iowa, Michael Gerson, the conservative former speechwriter for George W. Bush, complimented Favreau on his great work. And rightly so.

Still, there is something unseemly about the practice, even if it is an open secret. In most of America, if you take someone else's words and pass them off as your own it's called plagiarism and it's considered a heinous breach of ethics. In D.C. if you take someone else's words and pass them off as your own it's called ghostwriting and it's considered the way business is done. Everyone in town acknowledges that, unless the person is part of the professional class of scribes, most big-wigs in D.C. aren't writing their own material. Indeed, if you want to stump a politico in Washington, ask them about something they wrote in their latest op-ed. They'll need to have some twenty-something staffer "remind" them of what they supposedly wrote.

(Fortunately, Christians are above this sort of chicanery. As the Apostle Paul wrote, "But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God's word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone's conscience in the sight of God." (2 Corinthians 4:2) When we put our name on a work and give the audience the impression we wrote it then it means we wrote it...right?)

But my concern is not that politicians and other Beltway insiders lipsync the tunes produced by unacknowledged wordsmiths. What bothers me is that we watch some politician read someone else's words off of a teleprompter and then fawn over their speech as if we just witnessed the oratorical pyrotechnics of a a Cicero or Churchill .

Technical excellence in delivering a speech is certainly a notable, albeit minor, skill. But if we are moved by the brilliance of the rhetoric why do we not lavish our praise on the person that actually produced the words and ideas? In other words, why do we swoon for the dummy rather than the ventriloquist?

It would be difficult to dispute that Barack Obama has a problem. But despite what is being claimed by many bloggers and journalists, the Senator's biggest problem isn't his relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Sen. Obama's association with the rogue pastor is forgivable; his association with apostasy, however, is inexcusable.

Obama remains a member of an apostate, heretical church that makes no distinction between faith and politics. Trinity United Church of Christ adheres to a black liberation theology, a strain of heresy that makes Christianity subservient to a twisted, racialist political ideology. The purpose of Black theology is, as the movement's founding theologian claims, to make political "liberation" the "central theme of the biblical message."

Consider their introduction on the "About Us" section of the church's website:

We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.

Trinity United Church of Christ is a racist church. That should be beyond dispute. But if you disagree, substitute the word "white" for "black" and "Aryan" for "African." Now consider how comfortable you would be with Hillary Clinton or John McCain going to such a church.

But it gets worse. Beneath that statement they add:

"The Pastor as well as the membership of Trinity United Church of Christ is committed to a 10-point Vision:

1. A congregation committed to ADORATION.
2. A congregation preaching SALVATION.
3. A congregation actively seeking RECONCILIATION.
4. A congregation with a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA.
5. A congregation committed to BIBLICAL EDUCATION.
6. A congregation committed to CULTURAL EDUCATION.
7. A congregation committed to the HISTORICAL EDUCATION OF AFRICAN PEOPLE IN DIASPORA.
8. A congregation committed to LIBERATION.
9. A congregation committed to RESTORATION.
10. A congregation working towards ECONOMIC PARITY.

Several of the points seem laudatory and explicitly Christian (#1, 2, 3, 5) while a few are unnecessarily divisive (#4, 6, 8, 9). But the use of orthodox Christian terms (salvation, reconciliation) is given perverse new meanings in black liberationist thought.

For example, consider the work of James Hal Cone, the founder of Black theology. (When Sean Hannity interviewed Wright, the pastor asked his interviewer, "How many of Cone's books have you read?") Cone once wrote:

The news of New York Governor Eliot Spitzer's dalliances with high-priced prostitutes fills me with sadness, regret, and dread. Sadness over the Governor's shaming his family in such a public way, regret at having to listen to the smirking schadenfreude of his political enemies, and dread that we'll have to suffer the tedious and inevitable articles and blog posts asking, "What's the problem with prostitution?"

Always ahead of the curve. Matthew Yglesias leads the meme with his post, "Thinking About Prostitution":

Whenever a politician gets caught up in a prostitution scandal, I do need to return to the fact that at the end of the day I don't really think the exchange of sex for money is serious wrongdoing in the sense that justifies criminal sanctions. Obviously, in most cases such conduct will be a form of private wrongdoing against one's spouse, etc., but that's not a matter of public concern. [emphasis in original]

The unstated reason why it is "not a matter of public concern" is because no one is harmed by prostitution, at least not in a way that would necessitate intervention by the state. This is a view commonly held by social liberals and libertarians who believe that the primary (if not sole) purpose of the law is the protection of rights (however narrowly or expansively defined).

In contrast, a traditional conservative view is that law and public policy should be concerned with public health, public safety, and public morality. The first two are shared in common with our left-leaning political cousins; it is the last item that sets us apart. While they have discarded the concept as antiquated, we maintain a view held by thinkers ranging from Aristotle to Thomas Aquinas to Robert George that the promotion of virtue--"making men moral"--is a proper, though subsidiary, role of the government.

As George notes in The Clash of Orthodoxies, "public morals laws, like health and safety regulations, regulate private conduct insofar as it harms or threatens to harm, the public interest." For instance, using the example of prostitution, George argues:

Assuming, again, that prostitution is indeed immoral, then the availability of prostitutes is going to facilitate immoral acts by individuals--prostitutes and their customers. Of course, the commercial sex acts will likely take place in "private," that is, behind closed doors and it could be the case that there is no highly visible publicizing of the prostitutes' availability (though unless there is some way of getting the word out publicly, there won't be much work for the prostitutes). Still, public interests are damaged. The public has an interest in men not engaging prostitutes: for when they do, they damage their own characters; they render themselves less solid and reliable as husbands and fathers; they weaken their marriages and their ability to enter into good marriages and authentically model for others (including their own children) the virtue of chastity on which the integrity of marriages and of marriage as an institution in any given society depends; they set bad examples for others. In short they damage what I have referred to as the community's "moral ecology"--an ecology as vital to the community's well-being, and as such, as integral to the public interest, as the physical ecology which is protected by environmental laws enacted pursuant to the police powers to protect public health.

Although commonsensical, liberal-libertarians will scoff at such talk of "moral ecology." The concept is simply too foreign, too abstract, too pre-modern (i.e., pre-'60s era sexual mores) for them to grasp. While they could connect the dots between the "private wrongdoing" of littering and the inherent public concern with protecting our environment--they know why Iron Eyes Cody is crying--such talk of legislating sexual activity because of public moral harm seems...bizarre.

Regrettably, the same holds true for many people who consider themselves to be "conservatives." Because of a misunderstanding of the concept of limited government, many conservatives today have sided against their own tradition and with the liberal-libertarians on this point. They simply can't comprehend either the concept of moral ecology or the idea that government has any role in making citizens virtuous.

This post is a lament, not an argument so I won't try to defend virtue jurisprudence here. (Besides, if conservatives ignore the wisdom of Aristotle or Russell Kirk why would they listen to me?) The shame is not just that weak and ineffectual men like Spitzer succumb to temptation. No, the true regret is that we have such strong and capable apologists for sanctioning vice. We can survive the individual moral polluter. It's the people who deny that we a duty to protect our moral ecology that will be our downfall.

The Longest Two Months-- While it seems like an eternity has passed, the Iowa Caucus was only 60 days ago. Fortunately this is the last of the significant primaries and the race has been decided on one side and all but determined on the other.

Congrats to McCain -- If winning makes you look smarter, then campaign manager Rick Davis appears to be a genius. He laid out McCain's Path to Victory in December and found a way to make it a reality.

Thanks, Governor Huckabee -- I have many reasons to be thankful for Governor Huckabee's inspiring Presidential run. But there are three other groups who should also be grateful for Mike Huckabee: social conservatives who lacked a voice in the primaries, supporters of John McCain, and Republicans.

If the Republican's hold the White House next year, Huckabee will deserve partial credit. By winning in Iowa, Huckabee derailed Romney's campaign and prevented the Massachusetts Governor's long march toward an inevitable electoral debacle. Huckabee also managed to keep many conservative evangelicals and other members of the traditionalist wing of the party engaged in the race. Their support for McCain may be listless, but Huckabee gave them hope that it may be too soon to give up on the GOP.

An Inevitable Obamination? Maybe Not. -- After the Florida primary I wrote, "An Obama/Anyone ticket would be a disaster for McCain." I still pessimistic enough to believe that it's likely, though I'm hopeful that the abomination of an Obama presidency is not yet inevitable. I'm even starting to see signs that such a disaster may be averted. The reason: people are starting to listen to what Obama says.

Take, for instance, his NAFTA-bashing which has caused our neighbors to the north to worried about the "rhetoric of protectionism." Even Andrew Sullivan, who swoons at the mention of Obama, said the NAFTA pander was "Not his finest hour." (Yes it's a tepid response and yes we all know that if Obama wins that Sullivan will spend the next four years regretting his support (as he did with Bush), but still, any relenting from his incessant Obamafawning is a huge concession.)

Obama has an uncanny ability to inspire in people an audacious hope for the impossible (Example: "The philosophy guy said that he almost always votes for Republican, but he's for Obama this time, although he can't quite explain why. His hope is that Obama will govern like a Republican.") But I'm hopeful that such people will set aside such nonsense and eventually realize that while Obama sounds like a cross between Cicero and The Rock, what he's saying is nothing more than rehashed discredited liberalism.

Rush to Idiocy -- So Rush Limbaugh is urging people to vote for Hillary. Hugh Hewitt is aghast ("If Hillary ekes out close wins, stays alive, gains the nomination and the White House, will Rush hold the Bible at her Inauguration?") but I can't say that I'm really surprised. Rush is an entertainer and for all the hype about his ratings, his audience isn't that large by show business standards (he has half the audience of Fox's reality show Moment of Truth). He needs a Clinton presidency to remain relevant and give people a reason to tune in to his daily gasbaggery.

Still, I refuse to believe it worked. I refuse to believe that Republicans in Ohio and Texas are voting for Hillary in the primary because some radio clown told them it was the optimal strategy. I refuse to believe it because (a) the fact that McCain is the nominee shows that Rush is not that influential and (b) Republicans can't be that stupid. (While I'm certain about (a) could I be wrong about (b)?)

I agree with Lars Walker: "It seems to me that if you love this country you've got to hold the electoral process in a kind of reverence. The fact that there are cynical people out there who game the system doesn't justify us, the people who say we believe in moral absolutes, in pretending to belong to a different party so we can sabotage its nomination process. If they did it to us, I'd be angry about it."

Say it ain't so, Republicans; say you didn't stoop that low.

The Most Significant Number -- In 2004, Ohio proved to be the key state for President Bush's reelection victory. In a tight race, Bush beat John Kerry in the Buckeye State by 118,457 votes. So how does it look four years later? With 81% of the precincts in Ohio reporting, the Democratic candidates received 1,745,199 votes while the Republicans received less than half that amount -- 867,000.

If the GOP is relying on a victory in Ohio to shift the Red-Blue divide toward McCain then we're in serious trouble.

During this election cycle we've been exposed to two contrapositive perceptions: pundit-based reality and voter-based reality.

Pundit-based reality is the political simulacra created by the bloggers, journalists, radio talk show hosts, and other confident opiners who understand how the world should work. Voter-based reality is the messy electoral aftermath that occurs after voters cast their ballots and show us how the world actually works. For the past few months we've been living in the pristine bubble of pundit-based reality only to have it popped by the inexplicable actions of the Voter Class.

Here are some of the lessons we learned on Super Tuesday:

Pundit-based reality: Huckabee is stealing votes from Romney.
Voter-based reality: Huckabee is competing for votes with McCain.

In the latest USA Today/Gallup poll Huckabee supporters were asked for whom they would vote if the race came down to John McCain or Mitt Romney.

The results showed that McCain wins over Romney as the second choice of Huckabee voters by more than a 2 to 1 margin, 64% to 28%. McCain beats Romney 42% to 24% with Huckabee in the race (Huckabee gets 18% of the vote) and expands that margin to 53% to 30% with Huckabee voters forced to choose between the two candidates.

A more likely scenario is that Romney's continued presence in the race siphoned off votes and support for Huckabee.

Pundit-based reality: Romney is a full-spectrum conservative; he is the only one that can bring together the "Reagan coalition."
Voter-based reality: Romney is a poor-man's Michael Bloomberg; he never had a legitimate shot at the nomination.

Out of the six states that Romney won, four were caucuses (MN, ND, CO, MT) that were largely uncontested and favored the candidate with a strong organizational structure. The only primary states Romney was able to win were the ones in which he has previously resided – UT and MA. (The only other primary state that he won before Super Tuesday was another state where he lived – MI.) In other words, Romney can win if he can pay to organize party volunteers at a rally. What he can't seem to do is convince people to go to the polling booth and actually cast a ballot for him.

Without the ability to self-finance his campaign, we would now be referring to Romney as the CINO (conservative in name only) who washed out in Iowa. Sadly, he'll continue on despite the fact that his base of support consists of Mormons, talk radio hosts, and people who really, really, hate McCain.

Pundit-based reality: A McCain-Huckabee ticket would be unacceptable to the party.
Voter-based reality: The majority of GOP voters would be fine with a McCain-Huckabee ticket.

Can anyone explain why a ticket comprised of the two candidates that will win/have won the most delegates, as chosen by Republican voters, is considered an unacceptable option for… Republican voters? Are the pundits unaware that the GOP voters that vote in the primaries are the same GOP voters that vote in the general election?

Pundit-based reality: Rush Limbaugh's opinion carries a great deal of weight.
Voter-based reality: Thanks, but we can think for ourselves.

Adding to his recent string of embarrassments, Rush Limbaugh made the unforced error of endorsing Mitt Romney. If El Rushbo truly believes that Romney "is a candidate on our side who does embody all three legs of the conservative stool" then he needs to hang up his Golden Microphone, for he has lost all sense of discernment. I truly don't think Rush is dumb enough to believe that is true. So why does he think that we voters are dumb enough to believe it just because we hear it proclaimed on our AM radios?

What has happened to Rush? The reason he was once entertaining is because he'd tell us "Dittoheads" what we already knew was true (e.g., liberal are silly). That was his shtick and he did it well. But somewhere along the way he started taking himself too seriously. He seems to think that he is the adjudicator of who and what is considered to be "conservative." For him to give the impression that he is some sort of thought leader is both mildly amusing and moderately insulting. His primary audience is conservatives, a group that doesn’t take its guidance on how to vote from entertainers (and yes, Rush is first and foremost, an entertainer).

As a pundit I understand that having 12 million listeners per week is reason to be in awe of Rush. But as a voter that doesn't impress me much. If I need someone with a large audience to tell me how to vote I'll turn to Wolf from American Gladiators.

Pundit-based reality: McCain will destroy the GOP.
Voter-based reality: McCain is the leading choice for a majority of the GOP.

Listen, McCain is not my first choice. But he appears to be the inevitable choice of our party. If he's nominated I'll vote for him for the simple fact that his is far better than Obama or Clinton. If you disagree, then quietly vote for the third party candidate of your choice. But for heaven's sakes, stop whining, stop hyperventilating, and stop all the hyperbolic, Tony-award worthy dramatics. It's unbecoming.

The animosity toward McCain is even more bizarre when you consider that he's not that different than the other "acceptable" candidates. Fred Thompson co-sponsored McCain-Feingold and no one accused him of tearing up the 1st Amendment. Romney was for abortion, amnesty, and an assault weapons ban until--what, last week?--and no one seems to hold that against him. And Giuliani, a candidate that really would have rent the party in two, was once touted as the only alternative to Hillary the Inevitable.

Now, McCain is considered to be less acceptable than Hillary. I don’t get that at all. The Coulter-Clinton-Buchanan Axis is not in the best interest of the party, our movement, or our nation.

It's time we gain some perspective. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." The voters have presented us with facts that we can no longer deny. It's time for us to to face up to our situation and stop living in the fantasy realm of a pundit-based reality.

Update: If I seem a bit harsh on Romney, I have my reasons—and it has nothing to do with his religion. See this post for The Case Against Romney.

[Note: I did not want to write this post. I'm tired of discussing politics and politicians and was looking forward to discussing something--anything--else. But many people have chastised me lately for basing my political view on emotion rather than reason (Dude, I don't do that. I'm not Rush Limbaugh.). So this is a partial defense of my position. I hope that even where we disagree that we can remember that our differences in political opinions are ultimately trivial and should not be treated as more important than is necessary. As Dennis Miller used to say, "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong."]

Many people have harshly criticized me for my harsh criticisms of Mitt Romney. They believe that my attitude is merely a matter of "sour grapes" over my preferred candidate fairing so poorly. While this claim is untrue, I have to take some responsibility for giving that impression. My experience working on the Huckabee campaign did leave me with a less-than-favorable impression of Romney and his staff.

In this respect, Romney is unique. I didn’t like Rudy Giuliani either yet had warm feeling toward his staffers. I did like Fred Thompson, but maintained a strong dislike for his team (except for my friend Jon Henke). And I respected both the staff and candidate of Team McCain. So it wasn't just a matter of campaign rivalry.

No, what really turned me off of Romney was closely examining his positions and character--and finding both lacking. Unlike many of the people who chastise me for not jumping on the Romney bandwagon, I have done my due diligence in examining the candidate.

Listed below are just some of the reasons why I think he is an unacceptable choice to be President. The list is lengthy but not exhaustive. I could have made the post twice as long and still not covered all the concerns I have about Romney.

But before we jump in, let me say that this is not meant to change anyone's mind. I'm not trying to put Romney supporters on the defensive. They surely have thoughtful reasons for supporting him just as I believe I have thoughtful reasons for withholding my support.

John McCain -- McCain didn't just win Florida -- he won the GOP nomination. Though many pundits, bloggers, and radio hosts will spend the next week trying to deny this obvious fact, it is the reality that we must face. Huckabee was critically wounded in South Carolina. Florida has finished off Giuliani. And Romney's chances have also been crushed, though he thinks he is rich enough to buy an alternative reality. However, Romney can't overcome the fact that when he faced McCain in NH, SC, and FL he was thrashed every time.

We have to give credit where its due. Team McCain has found a way to carry their candidate to victory. McCain's campaign manager released the Path to the Nomination video back in December. At the time it seemed overly optimistic. Today, it appears prescient.

I'll admit that I'm troubled by the idea of a McCain presidency. He still seems to me to be a cross between Conan and Charles Foster Kane: A fascinatingly flawed and haunted man whose main goal in life is to crush his enemies and see them driven before him.

Still, as John Mark Reynolds notes, "The good news is that unlike any Democrat running McCain is pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, against torture, and for winning the War on Terror." True enough. Also, having McCain as the nominee really ticks off all the people that unfairly trashed Huckabee (Rush, Mark Levin, et. al.). It may not be enough to ease my discomfort over McCain, but it nevertheless brings me great pleasure.

°°°°°°

Mitt Romney -- One of the reasons that McCain will be the nominee is because the establishment tried to sell Mitt Romney as the "full-spectrum conservative" candidate. Apparently, the pro-Romney pundits thought we GOP voters are either extremely gullible or, more likely, that we have very short memories.

As primary voters in IA, NH, and FL discovered, Romney has previously supported many liberal positions, including abortion rights, the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a ban on "assault weapons", government mandated health insurance, etc., ad naseum. Holding these positions today, however, would make him unelectable so he had to discard his deeply held pro-choice, pro-gay principles in favor of ones more palatable to the GOP base.

While it's difficult to discern when the flip-flopping metamorphosis into a "full-spectrum" conservative was completed, we can be generous and say that it occurred in 2003, the first year he was Governor of Massachusetts. That would have given him a few months to backtrack from all his campaign promises. Now let's put that date into perspective.

When Romney became a conservative he was 56 years old (4 years older than Mike Huckabee is today). The year Romney became a conservative we invaded Iraq and captured Saddam Hussein. The year Romney became a conservative Ruben Studdard won American Idol, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King won the Oscar for Best Picture, and Queer Eye for the Straight Guy premiered on Bravo. The year Romney became a conservative is the year I started this blog.

Think about that for a moment. Not only have people being reading blogs longer than Romney has been a conservative but people have been reading this blog longer than Romney has been a conservative.

Personally, I prefer to have a President who has spent a bit more time becoming familiar with conservative arguments, principles, traditions, and values. I suspect that outside of the elite pundit class, most conservatives feel the same. Romney may have been endorsed by National Review. But most conservative prefer to endorse a candidate who has actually read National Review.

°°°°°°

Rudy Giuliani -- Back in March I wrote about Irrational Exuberance and the Rudy Bubble:

On November 13, 1998, a little-known, privately-owned web portal called TheGlobe.com went public. Although the company had never made a profit and had a net loss of $11.5 million for the previous nine-month period, the stock jumped to $97. The first day the stock price rose 606%, setting a record for an initial public offering. In order to buy $1 of the company’s earnings—not profit, just earnings—investors were willing to pay roughly $1,388. (In comparison, people now pay around $47 for $1 of Google's earnings.)

Eventually investors came to their senses and priced the company at its true value. Today you can buy a share of stock in TheGlobe.com for 4 cents.

How could otherwise sane investors pay so much for a company that was worth almost nothing? The answer is that they convinced themselves that the rules had changed. The internet had ushered in the “new economy” making the old valuations and metrics obsolete. Companies no longer had to make a profit in order to be worth billions; they just had to have a website.

It’s easy to look back on that era and scoff at such absurd behavior. But while we may not be so easily fooled by internet stocks the stock in political candidates is prone to bouts of “irrational exuberance.” Consider, for example, how otherwise serious people believe that Rudy Giuliani can actually be elected president. Many people have convinced themselves that the rules have changed and that social conservatives will discard their principles and embrace a candidate who has never held national office because of his imaginary credibility on "national security."

In Florida, sanity prevailed and the Rudy bubble popped.

°°°°°°

Mike Huckabee -- The Huckabee campaign has taught us two lesson about election finances: (1) Having the most money doesn’t ensure an easy path to victory, and (2) Having the least money does ensure that the path to the nomination will be nearly impossible. As John Mark Reynolds says, " Mike Huckabee would have been a major contender with the kind of money that either Rudy or Romney spent on the race."

Fortunately, he still has enough money to stick around and bleed votes from Romney. That won't be enough to secure the nomination but it will help show that he is a contender for 2012.

Ron Paul -- What's in a name? Consider that Paul received 60,000+ votes in FL running as a Republican. That's enough for a weak fifth place showing. But what if instead of running as a Republican he had garnered that many votes as a Libertarian candidate. Then the achievement would have been much more impressive. (Counter-argument: Paul could not have sparked that much interest running as a third-party candidate.)

°°°°°°

Outlook Last week I said, "A Clinton-Obama/Obama-Clinton ticket would be unbeatable in the general election. While McCain would do slightly better than Romney, both would be crushed by the Democratic landslide." I'd modify that somewhat. An Obama/Anyone ticket would be a disaster for McCain. An Obama/Hillary would be a tighter race, but not much better. A Hillary/Obama matchup against McCain/Huckabee would be a nail-biter. But as of now, I'd still think the Democrats would win.

Earlier this week the Pew Research Center released the results of a survey which asked Republicans and Democrats to list the top priorities for both President Bush and Congress in the coming year. More than a quarter of Americans (27%) say this year's State of the Union address is less important than those in the past but a solid majority of 56% agreed that the president's focus should be on domestic policy.

Apparently, someone on the President's speechwriting team was aware of the survey results. In his State of the Union speech, Bush addressed 18 of the 21 issues considered to be a "top priority." Listed below are the issues, the percentage of Republicans and Democrats that considered it a "top priority", and the section of the SOTU speech that most closely matches the topic.

Defending the U.S. against terrorism (86%--74%)

"Since September 11, we have taken the fight to these terrorists and extremists. We will stay on the offense, we will keep up the pressure, and we will deliver justice to the enemies of America.

We are engaged in the defining ideological struggle of the 21st century. The terrorists oppose every principle of humanity and decency that we hold dear. Yet in this war on terror, there is one thing we and our enemies agree on: In the long run, men and women who are free to determine their own destinies will reject terror and refuse to live in tyranny. That is why the terrorists are fighting to deny this choice to people in Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the Palestinian Territories. And that is why, for the security of America and the peace of the world, we are spreading the hope of freedom. […]

On the homefront, we will continue to take every lawful and effective measure to protect our country. This is our most solemn duty. We are grateful that there has not been another attack on our soil since September 11. This is not for a lack of desire or effort on the part of the enemy. In the past 6 years, we have stopped numerous attacks, including a plot to fly a plane into the tallest building in Los Angeles and another to blow up passenger jets bound for America over the Atlantic. Dedicated men and women in our Government toil day and night to stop the terrorists from carrying out their plans. These good citizens are saving American lives, and everyone in this chamber owes them our thanks. And we owe them something more: We owe them the tools they need to keep our people safe."

One of the most bizarre aspects of this primary season has been the tendency of conservatives to repudiate politicians for holding historically conservative positions. For example, there once was a species of Republicans that advocated for limited government and fiscal prudence. These "deficit hawks", as they were called, are all but extinct now so most of us younger conservatives don’t recognize them when we see them. A prime example is John McCain.

There are numerous reasons why conservative voters should be wary of McCain. But his fiscally prudent position on tax cuts is not one of them.

Here, for instance, is his defense for his old-fashioned (read: conservative) position on the Bush tax cuts :

Rich Lowry: If you don't mind, I want to ask you a domestic policy question, a straight talk question, if you will. In retrospect, was it a mistake for you to vote against the Bush tax cuts?

MCCAIN: No, because I had significant tax cuts, and there was restraint of spending included in my proposal. I saw no restraint in spending. We presided over the greatest increase in the size of government since the Great Society. Spending went completely out of control. It's still out of control. Wasteful earmark spending is a disgrace, and it caused us to alienate our Republican base.

Patrick Ruffini expressed a typical reaction by conservatives to the statement:

Real fiscal conservatives understand that tax relief is a good in and of itself, generating economic growth and keeping the government's grubby hands off more of our money. John McCain doesn't. Spending is a real problem, but to tie spending to tax cuts is nothing more than a liberal ploy to keep taxes high.

Tying spending to tax cuts is a "liberal ploy"? Tell that to Alan Greenspan.

I don’t want to pick on Ruffini but he has adopted a disturbing tactic that has become all too frequent among my fellow Republicans: instead of presenting an argument, simply dismiss a policy/politician by applying the label "liberal."

Contrary to what some might claim to be a "real fiscal conservative" requires adherence to fiscal disciple and recognition of economic realties. Almost all conservatives pay lip service to the first, yet many today seem to ignore the latter. To my mind, there appear to be only three reasons not to tie tax cuts to spending reductions--and all appear to defy reality.

Kudos to McCain -- He's a moderate Senator, a terrible campaigner, and tends to be his own worst enemy. Yet John McCain managed to pull off a win in a close race against a conservative governor and the best campaigner in the race. I'm impressed. McCain knocked out the two most conservative candidates—Thompson and Huckabee—which should make it easy to best the two remaining moderates—Romney and Giuliani. The race is now McCain's to lose. If he doesn't get in his own way, he should have a clear path to the nomination.

The Fat Lady Clears Her Throat -- Governor Huckabee needed to win South Carolina. He didn’t. I don't want to say its over because miracles are still possible (a win in Florida would put him back in contention) but it isn't likely he'll be the Republican nominee.

Prediction -- In a few weeks, when the conservative punditry realizes that a man they truly despise (McCain) will be the eventual nominee, they'll suddenly "discover" that Huckabee's record and positions were more conservative than they had led people to believe. The admission will lead to a backlash among conservatives who trusted that the pundits were telling the truth about Huckabee rather than unfairly maligning him because they were ashamed to have a barefoot hillbilly preacher as the head of their party.

The Other Side -- Because they are both first-term relatively inexperienced Senators, both Clinton and Obama would normally need to add someone with experience (either a governor or a general) to their ticket. [Correction: Clinton is in her second term.] But the GOP is so weak this year that they don’t need to play it safe. Indeed, the smartest move would be for them to set aside their differences and join forces. A Clinton-Obama/Obama-Clinton ticket would be unbeatable in the general election. While McCain would do slightly better than Romney, both would be crushed by the Democratic landslide.

Just Say No -- If McCain is smart he'll offer the VP slot to Huckabee. If Huckabee is smart he'll turn it down. The failure of John Edwards campaign is a reminder that the country doesn't like general election losers. Rather than being on the losing ticket in '08, Huckabee should sit out the race and wait until 2012.

Can't Buy Him Love -- Republicans are far too impressed by wealth and business acumen (neither of which are relevant qualities for being a successful POTUS) so it isn't surprising that Romney appeals to the GOP establishment. Still, it has become obvious that Romney would no longer be in the race if he were not a very, very, very wealthy man. He spent over $100 million in Iowa and New Hampshire for two second place finishes and another $4 million in SC only to come in a distant fourth place. He also spent who knows how much to win uncontested races in Wyoming and Nevada. That is simply astounding. The GOP could add "Generic Super-Rich Guy" on the ballot and pull in 15% of the primary vote in every state, yet Romney hasn't done much better than that. How much more money will Romney spend before he realizes that it's over?

Foreshadowing -- Anyone wondering what went wrong in the Huckabee campaign should read this article in Thursday's edition of the Wall Street Journal. It says more than I can say.

Bumrushed -- Rush Limbaugh spent the past week disparaging both McCain and Huckabee. Yet both men took the top two slots in one of the most conservative states in the union. What does that say about Rush's influence?

Goodbye, Fred -- Jeff Emanuel has an excellent post-mortem on Thompson. The only thing that I'd add is that I've lost a great deal of respect for the Senator. I was a FredHead from the beginning but he turned out not to be the man I thought he was.

Other Analysis -- John Mark Reynolds provides a more succinct and astute analysis that I can provide. I think he is spot on (at least up to point #5).

Fair Warning -- If this post sounds a bit snarky, it's because this is only the 15th day of 2008 and I'm already tired of the primary season. How are we ever going to make it to February 5th much less to Election Day?

Kudos to Romney -- After spending over $100 million dollars, he finally won a contested race. That’s…uh…impressive.

He didn’t buy his win -- Instead of buying a victory Romney tried a new tactic--selling out. In a stunning display of pandering, he sold out the so-called "economic conservative" wing of the party in order to curry favor with the downtrodden Michigan voters. As Jennifer Rubin wrote in her post Where Did The Economic Conservatives Go?

[W]hat does [Romney's speech] have to do with a conservative, free market view of the U.S. economy? Are we now reduced to mimicking Soviet industrial policy? And where does this end? Surely every stumbling industry in the U.S. which failed to get its house in order should line up at the door to get their slice of the pie. Really, if not Romney, at least his conservatives supporters should have the intellectual honesty to say "What?!" But such is politics and it may work.

Oh, and about those supporters? None of them criticized him for it. His friends at The Corner turned their heads and pretended that no one heard about it. Likewise, Hugh Hewitt didn’t mention that his favorite governor was embracing socialism. And the Club for Growth--a group which launches attack ads if Huckabee even pays sales tax--showed that they really are in Romney's pocket by remaining silent. As Rubin said, such is politics.

Frontrunner for Four Days -- For the next four days Romney is considered to be the "frontrunner"…just as McCain was for six days after NH…just as Huckabee was for five days after Iowa…

Isn't it rather silly to call someone a "frontrunner" after every single primary or caucus?

For the past few months I've been defending Governor Mike Huckabee against an onslaught of attacks on his character, positions, and record. When I worked for the campaign I spent a significant portion of my time clearing up misconceptions for journalists and parrying dishonest accusations made by other campaigns. And here on this blog I've written numerous posts responding to the questions posed by bloggers and rebutting claims made by sundry interest groups.

Yet all this time I've failed to make a positive case for why I feel Governor Huckabee to be the most visionary and conservative candidate in the race. I naively assumed that everyone was seeing what I was seeing. Indeed, I'm embarrassed to admit that I failed to recognize that not everyone would have the same familiarity with his policy positions as his former Director of Research.

To rectify this situation I've compiled a list of his most significant policy positions on a range of issues--from tax reform to national security. While all of this information can be found online, I thought it would be useful to cut away the excess verbiage in order to provide as succinct a set of statements as possible. I've also included a prefatory section that explains Governor Huckabee's philosophy of governance.

Although this compilation is not exhaustive, I do believe that it provides a useful outline for anyone who wants to familiarize themselves on Huckabee's true positions on the issues.

Philosophy of Governance

Governor Mike Huckabee: "To me conservative governance means following the "original intent" of the Founding Fathers, it means recognizing that Jefferson won the debate with Hamilton, and that we want very strong, energetic, innovative states, with government both as limited as possible and as close to the people as possible. The states should not usurp functions that can be handled locally, and the federal government should not usurp functions that can be handled by the states. An important part of being a conservative President for me would be strengthening federalism. Conservative governance also means an emphasis on personal responsibility and letting the free market function unencumbered, so that Americans have tremendous opportunity, but not a guaranteed outcome. It means smaller, more efficient government; lower government spending; lower taxes. It means keeping the government out of our lives and letting families keep as much of the money they earn and make as many of their own decisions as possible. It means allowing younger workers to have personal Social Security accounts. It means getting entitlements under control.

I believe that our rights come from God, not from our government; that the people should retain as much power and be left alone as much as possible; that the federal government should not do what can be done at the local or state level; that our government belongs to the people, not the lobbyists and special interests; that government at all levels exists to serve the people and not the other way around; that we must respect the separation of powers and no branch should usurp the authority of another; that my greatest responsibility is to protect the American people from all threats; that the free market, low taxes, and minimal regulation are the keys to economic growth and prosperity; that Americans are owed equal opportunity, but not an equal outcome; that we are a culture of life and recognize that each individual has intrinsic value and worth; that we are only as strong as our families; that we owe a huge debt to those who have given their lives for this country to protect the freedoms and way of life for which they sacrificed.

I would weigh all of my decisions in the context of those principles to assure that I am doing the right thing and not the popular or expedient thing. I will always err on the side of protecting life, strengthening our families, and protecting our citizens and our country from possible threats to their safety."

(Response provided to the American Conservative Union)

Issues and Positions

Am I wrong about Mike Huckabee?

For the past few months I've been arguing that Governor Huckabee is a solid and consistent conservative. I even went to work for his campaign in a role that gave me a clear and detailed view of both his record and his policy positions.

Yet many conservatives that I respect believe that I am wrong. In the last debate Sen. Thompson even said Huckabee would "bring about liberal economic policies, liberal foreign policies." Are they seeing something that I am not?

I think it is clearly time that both sides of the "Huckabee is a liberal" dispute either "put up or hush up." I want to start by allowing others to convince me that I am wrong. To do this I ask that they give me a specific and briefly detailed explanation for why they make the claim, providing both specific evidence and why it veers from conservative principles. For example, they might say:

"Point of fact: Mike Huckabee allowed the Democratically-controlled legislature to raise the fuel tax 3-cents a gallon in order to pay for improvements to roads and highways. Why this is not conservative: True conservatives do not believe that taxes should ever be raised for any reason whatsoever."

Feel free to leave your challenge in the comments section or on your own blog. Later next week I'll respond to as many of the points as possible. While we may not all come to a complete agreement, at least our reasons will be based on evidence rather than the hearsay of Huckabee's opponents.

Yesterday a friend sent me a self-described rant about Rush Limbaugh and the future of the Reagan coalition. Now I haven't been a regular listener of Rush's show since…hold on, let me think…1992?...so I don’t know whether his critique is accurate (unless Rush has changed in the last 15 years, though, I'd say it was close). But I think it could be applied more broadly to my own critique of conservative talk radio.

My own view is that such shows are good for shoring up the base but no longer broaden the appeal to attract people to the conservative movement. Because of this I think that talk radio is a format that will have almost no impact (unless it is detrimental) in reestablishing the Reagan coalition.

My friend feels much the same way so with his permission I've reposted the "rant" below. Rather than using his name (which some readers would certainly recognize) he asked to use the pseudonym Charles Lightoller.

What's the purpose of a Presidential debate? The answer to that question determines how the events should be judged. Yet from reading the post-debate coverage, most pundits and bloggers seem to miss the point entirely.

Many political junkies score the debates like boxing matches, awarding points for landing punches against an opponent. That is why their analysis is often useless in judging the actual impact it will have on the race. Rather than trying to win by TKO, the purpose of a debate is to sway undecided and less-than-committed voters by giving them a reason to vote for a candidate.

While I can't claim to be completely objective, that is the standard I used for grading the South Carolina debate.

Winner (3-Way Tie): McCain, Huckabee, and Romney

McCain: Coming off the win in NH gives McCain a few extra points. He needed them to make up for his answer on global warming, an unforced error that may have cost him a few votes. On other issues, however, he gave a passable performance. He deftly handled the national security issues and made a strong case for being the best choice for commander-in-chief.

True, the constant harping on The Surge was a bit overdone, though it likely played well in a state with a heavy military presence. On the other hand, the majority of active-duty servicemembers--the ones most likely to be impressed by his performance--probably vote absentee in other states. Still, he may have won over some National Guardsman and South Carolina veterans. He needs to take all the votes he can get to pass Huckabee. Score: A-

Huckabee -- Voters just now tuning into the election saw a candidate who was solid on foreign policy, empathetic about their economic concerns, and not afraid to admit he was a Christian. Add to this Huckabee's good-humor and unflappability and you get a solid boost in the polls. Score: A

Romney -- Unlike the previous few debates, Romney was not the primary target of attack (that honor fell to Huckabee). That helped him to focus on the issues, which he handled with aplomb. He was knowledgeable on foreign policy and gave a tough answer on immigration. The abortion question could have hurt him but by being less than truthful (contra his claim, he was not forced to pay for abortions that were not medically necessary) he prevented it from doing any damage. While Romney didn't get the standout performance he needed to boost him in South Carolina, he also didn't' do anything that would damage him in Michigan. For this debate, Romney joined the circle of winners simply by not losing. Score: B

Loser (2-Way Tie): Thompson and Paul

Thank you, NH Democrats -- While I can understand why the GOP establishment wants to write the obituary for the Clinton Era, we shouldn't forget that we actually want Hillary to get the nomination. Any Republican who thinks Obama would be the weaker general election candidate hasn't been paying attention the past few weeks. The Democrats in NH did us a huge favor by maintaining Hillary's viability.

Kudos to McCain -- Apparently, the people of New Hampshire can't be bought either.

Forget the Bradley Effect… -- Some people are already speculating that the Obama was a victim of the Bradley effect, a phenomenon where statistically significant numbers of white voters tell pollsters in advance of an election that they are either genuinely undecided, or likely to vote for the non-white candidate, but those voters exhibit a different behavior when actually casting their ballots. I think this speculation is unwarranted.

As Steve Taylor noted on Monday, "For whatever reason there seems to be two kinds of NH polls out there–the kinds where the margin between Clinton and Obama is 5% or less, and those were the margin is 10% or more." If you assume the Bradley Effect then you probably were biased by the polls that showed the wide margin. If you think Obama lost a close race that he wasn’t really expected to win anyway, you probably believed the polls that showed the race was tight going into the primary.

…Consider the Sullivan Effect -- Instead of the Bradley Effect, I think the NH results may be the result of the Sullivan Effect: The effusive fawning over the candidate by the "Oakeshottian conservative" Andrew Sullivan caused liberal Democrats to have second-thoughts about Obama.

Sullivan officially endorsed the far-right libertarian Ron Paul yet has been constantly singing the praises of the solidly-liberal Democrat Barack Obama. Now if you're wondering how that makes sense then you're not a regular reader of The Daily Dish. Reading Sullivan's political commentary is like watching a David Lynch movie--it's oddly compelling and has some interesting moments but ultimately has no coherent theme.

Still, some people are convinced politics is rational. They assume that if Sullivan appreciates both Obama and Paul then they must be more alike than it might first appear. Since there is no doubt that Paul is a man of the Right, it raises questions about whether Obama is really an exemplar of the Left.

Now it's true that most NH Democrats probably aren't regular readers of Sullivan's blog. But I suspect that he has enough of a trickle-down influence that he could affect a few thousand votes in a small Blue State like NH. Although we can never know for sure, it would be a delicious irony if Sullivan damned Obama with his deafening praise.

Shorter Sullivan Effect -- The fact that Republicans were intrigued by "post-partisan" Obama made him less appealing to traditionally partisan Democrats.

Pundits Don't Know Anything (Redux) -- Need further proof? Check out the last week's worth of posts on NRO's The Corner.

I love the gang at NRO. I really, really do. But they have shown how the inability to be objective about candidates can lead to wishful thinking rather than prophetic analysis. For such astute political minds, this outcome--and the collapse of Romney--shouldn't have come as a surprise.

This Ain't No McSurge -- ABC News' Ron Claiborne reports: "To state the obvious -- The McCain win is huge. It reshapes the GOP race, at least for now. McCain now, arguably, becomes the front-runner."

No, it doesn’t. McCain has owned NH since 2000. This was his race to lose. The real test was whether Romney could pull out a win against a significant challenger and for the second time in a row he has shown he cannot.

Not to take away from McCain's victory but it will be his last win until February 5.

Skip Michigan, Mitt -- If Romney wants to have a chance to win in Michigan he needs to avoid campaigning in that state. As the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire have shown, the more they get to know Mitt the more they realize they don’t like him.

Hunting for Duncan's Voter -- If they were to do a recall I think the NH election commission would find that I actually received more votes than Duncan Hunter.

Future Predictions -- Huckabee will win at least two of the three following primaries: Michigan, South Carolina, and Florida.

Run, Rudy, Run -- If Giuliani was a savvy politician he'd drop out of the race now and run again in a future election. It worked for him before (he wouldn’t be in the race now had he stayed in the NY Senatorial race and lost to Clinton) and can prevent him from an embarrassing end to his political career.

In the RCP tracking polls he's currently running 4th Michigan, 5th in South Carolina, and 3rd in the national poll. He's also barely hanging on in Florida, which makes his late-start strategy look more foolish every day. If he was smart he'd drop out now so that he'd remain viable in the future…which is why I hope he keeps on running until he runs his career into the ground.

Delectatio Morosa Hughabusto -- What's that German word that means taking pleasure in someone else's misforturne? Oh yeah, schadenfreude. I have that.

While I am cognizant of the unwritten rule that conservatives should never criticize Rush Limbaugh, his recent distortions of Governor Huckabee's record require a response. I don’t think the errors made by Rush are intentional, but they are without excuse. Rush has more money that the Huckabee campaign so he can afford to hire a fact-checker.

For instance, HotAir recently posted this clip as their "Quote of the Day":

In the clip Rush claims that, "[Huckabee] does oppose school choice." This is patently false.

Under the "Education" section of Governor Huckabee's website he clearly states, "I am a strong supporter of public school choice." Governor Huckabee is a supporter of school vouchers, and has always been a supporter of school vouchers; he supported them as far back as his first run for public office, as a U.S. Senate candidate, in 1992.

Naturally, Rush is free to criticize the positions of Governor Huckabee. But he owes it to his listeners and the conservative movement to get his facts right.

(By the way, I find Rush's disdain for the word "populism" (representation or extolling of the common person, the working class, the underdog) rather bizarre. As a friend of Rod Dreher asked, "When did Rush Limbaugh stop being in favor of Reagan Democrats?"

I realize that he thinks a "populist" is "somebody who wants to grow government to take problem-solving and sadness and all these things, out of your daily life and replace them with whatever government can do so you will become dependent." But that is not what the word means. And even Rush doesn’t have power to redefine terms as he sees fit. )

The New Leadership -- The conservative punditocracy thought they could bluff their way into a Huckabust. They assumed that if they just ignored his record and his policy positions (the generous interpretation) and labeled him a "populist", a "liberal", and "not a conservative" then the con-sheeple in Iowa would end this Deliverance-style hillbilly nightmare at the caucus.

Instead, the voters in Iowa decided to think for themselves. They examined Huckabee's record and found it to be the most consistently conservative record of any of the candidates (yes, you heard me right). They realized that he was, like them, not a one-outta-three-legged conservative but a One-Legged Stool Regan conservative. They realized that his policy positions and his personality could carry him all the way to the White House. And then they voted accordingly.

We may let the DC/Manhatten-axis think they are the "elite" but the true leaders of the resurgent GOP were at the Iowa caucus.

How'd They Miss It? -- The conservative media is part of the GOP establishment so it's easy to comprehend how they missed the rise and appeal of Huckabee. But what accounts for the conservative blogosphere missing out? Does it march in lockstep with the mainstream (conservative) media? This is one of the most significant rises in Republican Party history in decades and yet no one in the blogosphere seemed to have foreseen it coming. Why is that?

Change These Three -- If he had a degree from Yale rather than Ouachita Baptist University, if he spoke with a Midwestern twang rather than a Southern drawl, and if he had spent a decade as an investment banker rather than a pastor then Mike Huckabee would be the Republican establishment's "favorite son" right now. I truly believe that you could change only those three things and that would be enough to make him palatable for his critics.

They Still Don’t Get It -- How many times can the "elite" conservative pundits be wrong before we stop listening to them? Case in point: Mark Hemingway at NRO, "The only people I know who are excited about a Huckabee victory are friends who are rigidly pro-life Democrats. That about sums it up."

Let's look at CNN's entrance polls to see what type of people are drawn to Huckabee:

• In Vote by Ideology he took both "Very Conservative" and "Somewhat Conservative" while McCain and Romney split the "Moderate" vote.
• On the four top issues listed (illegal immigration, war in Iraq, economy, and terrorism) he had the top percentage.
• Took 40% of the female vote--more than Giuliani, Hunter, McCain, Paul, and Thompson combined (34%)
• Took the top percentage in every category on the "Events in Pakistan"
• Took the top percentage in "Feelings About Bush Administration" in every category except "Angry" (which Paul took, naturally).
• Took the top percentage in every category "Vote by Income" except "$100,000 or More" (which Romney took, naturally).
• Took the top percentage in every region of Iowa
• Took the top percentage in every age category.

Unlike Hemingway and most of the rest of the chattering class, the caucus voters are actually familiar with Huckabee's record and positions on the issues. That is why he won and why they are still scratching their heads wondering what happened.

Message Over Money -- No matter what happens after tonight, Huckabee's victory proved that message can matter more than money. If the GOP would take that lesson to heart we'd soon be the permanent majority party in America.

Before I announced that I was going to work for the Huckabee campaign, the news broke on NRO's The Corner. I suppose it's fitting then that my departure was also told first on an online media source. While I was planning to announce my leaving closer to the day of the caucus, Jonathan Martin from Politico beat me to it. There has been a lot of speculation about what it portends, but the actual details are rather banal.

At the end of November Family Research Council generously gave me a 30-day leave of absence so that I could go to work for Mike Huckabee's presidential campaign. I thought working on the campaign would be an invaluable experience so I jumped at the opportunity, knowing full well that it was only a temporary measure. At the time Governor Huckabee was still behind in both the Iowa and national polls. The question "What if he has a chance to win it all?" was something I figured I'd have to deal with when the time came.

Now the time has come for me to return to my job and my longsuffering wife. I am extremely grateful to FRC and to my family for their generosity and patience. I'm also thankful to the entire staff at the Huckabee campaign headquarters for allowing me to be a part of the team. Hopefully, after Governor Huckabee wins several primaries (and opens an office closer to the DC area) I'll be able to help him once again in an official capacity.

In the meantime, I'll share some of what I learned on the campaign trail. Although I can't share any secret inside-the-campaign information there are a few lessons I learned during my 30-day adventure. None are particularly profound and some are quite obvious. Much of it may even be particular to the fact that I worked with such a small team. Still, I thought it might be worthwhile to share some of them in order to confirm what you might already suspect about Presidential politics.

"You don't have to read a book to have an opinion," said Tom Townsend in Whit Stillman's brilliant comedy Metropolitan. The same seems to hold true for articles in foreign policy journals: you don’t have to actually read the article to have an opinion on it.

For example, in a post examining the field of Republican Presidential candidates my friend Jeffrey Collins made the following comment about Governor Mike Huckabee:

Joe Carter's efforts aside, I just can't take [Huckabee] seriously. Putting aside for the moment that I'm afraid they may have permanently damaged Joe's ability to intelligently defend his positions (the quality of Joe's discourse has been in steady decline), there numerous reasons I have trouble supporting Huckabee.

I have to admit that Jeffrey has a point. Too often I take for granted that people have accessed the same facts and information that I have and that our disagreements are merely a matter of interpretation. For example, one of the areas that Collins highlights is Huckabee's foreign policy which he considers to be "truly naïve…"

The basis for the criticism appears to be Governor Huckabee's recent article in Foreign Affairs. But rather than link to that article, Jeffery links to a blog post by Justin Higgins that selectively quotes from the article and concludes: "The War on Terrorism is the most important issue of our time, and Mike Huckabee is wrong on the issue."

My problem in trying to defend Huckabee on this issue it that I have been working under the naïve assumption that people have actually read the article that they are criticizing. Like most people, I suspect that neither Justin nor Jeffrey has read the piece in its entirety. If so, I'd be curious to hear what they dislike.

(I'll confess that I thought the style of the paper was lacking while I find the substance quite meritorious. The "arrogant bunker mentality" line made me cringe, though just about ever foreign policy expert agrees that there is some truth to the criticism.)

Since there is no chance that people will bother to read the entire 5000+ word article, I've cut it down to the key policy statements. I think this will help make it easier to debate the merits of Governor Huckabee's position on America's Priorities in the War on Terror.

If the boy is father to the man, then I was raised by a profligate dunce. Even though I had learned the power of compound interest in high school, I foolishly squandered my trivial savings at a time when the "eighth wonder of the world," as Albert Einstein called it, would have had the greatest impact. Had I invested a mere $2,000 in an index fund at the tender age of 22, I would now be $40,000 richer and well on my way to being a millionaire by the time I reach retirement. Economists might say my choice was rational, but it certainly wasn't optimal.

Fortunately, I had a distant relative--Uncle Sam--that occasionally stepped in to save me from my own economic incompetence. For example, during my first week of Marine Corps boot camp I had to fill out a form in which I had the choice to "opt out" of the Montgomery GI Bill. If I did not check the box I would have $100 a month deducted from my pay for six months and in return I would have $36,000 to use for college. Although several of my fellow recruits chose not to participate, the majority of us took the lazy way out and left the box unchecked. That act of sloth made me $35,400 richer.

My experience was an example of an action taken by what The Economist refers to as the "avuncular state": "worldly-wise, offering a nudge in the right direction, perhaps pulling strings on your behalf without your even noticing." Advocates of this form of paternalistic governance include behavioral economists who term such approaches "asymmetric paternalism", "benign paternalism", "cautious paternalism", or as Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler, two University of Chicago professors who published an intriguing paper on the topic call it, "libertarian paternalism":