The so called conservative pundits have been doing the same thing of course. And McCain characterizes himself as a conservative as well when he knows very well that he is not. And through all of this it appears that the electorate is buying the story. I suppose the old saw that voters have short memories is true.

The point of this post is to point out how contrary to conservatism John McCain’s record and rhetoric really is. In act after and and statement after statement John McCain has demonstrated himself to be anything but a conservative.

A great place to start in examining that record is a piece by Mark Levin at National Review Online entitled The Real McCain Record. In that article Levin chronicles McCain’s record and a plethora of issues. Beginning with McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform (which limited the only class of free speech the founders had in mind, political speech) Levin demonstrates how far from conservatism McCain is and has been. The list includes the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill, the McCain-Lieberman anti America global warming bill, the McCain-Kennedy-Edwards trial bar bill masquerading as a patient’s bill of rights and McCain’s attempts to decimate the America pharmaceutical industry by importing drugs from Canada.

Then there was McCain’s opposition to both Bush tax cuts. Today McCain claims his opposition was based on his desire to also cut federal spending. Even that reasoning is weak considering that penalizes tax payers for the government’s excesses but that was not his rhetoric at the time. Rather, McCain engaged in typical liberal class warfare rhetoric.

According to Levin, as chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee “McCain was consistently hostile to American enterprise, from media and pharmaceutical companies to technology and energy companies.” Then there’s McCain’s role in the “Gang of 14, which prevented the Republican leadership in the Senate from mounting a rule change that would have ended the systematic use (actual and threatened) of the filibuster to prevent majority approval of judicial nominees.”

Levin then goes on to McCain’s defense record. Of course, McCain supporters claim that he will vigorously prosecute the war against radical Islamic fascism. McCain’s record, however, suggests otherwise.

His supporters point to essentially one policy strength, McCain’s early support for a surge and counterinsurgency. It has now evolved into McCain taking credit for forcing the president to adopt General David Petreaus’s strategy. Where’s the evidence to support such a claim?

Moreover, Iraq is an important battle in our war against the Islamo-fascist threat. But the war is a global war, and it most certainly includes the continental United States, which, after all, was struck on 9/11. How does McCain fare in that regard?

McCain-ACLU — the unprecedented granting of due-process rights to unlawful enemy combatants (terrorists).

McCain has repeatedly called for the immediate closing of Guantanamo Bay and the introduction of al-Qaeda terrorists into our own prisons — despite the legal rights they would immediately gain and the burdens of managing such a dangerous population.

While McCain proudly and repeatedly points to his battles with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who had to rebuild the U.S. military and fight a complex war, where was McCain in the lead-up to the war — when the military was being dangerously downsized by the Clinton administration and McCain’s friend, former Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen? Where was McCain when the CIA was in desperate need of attention? Also, McCain was apparently in the dark about al-Qaeda like most of Washington, despite a decade of warnings.

According to Gun Owners of America, McCain voted in 2004 to force gun owners to purchase trigger locks when they purchased a handgun. In 2004 he offered an amendment to a gun show bill that would have banned the private sale of handguns at gun shows unless a background check was run. The article includes numerous incidents of McCain treading on the second amendment. That should come as no surprise considering his view of the first amendment.

The Club for Growth said, “While Senator McCain’s economic record contains a number of pro-growth positions, such as his support for school choice and free trade, and his steadfast opposition to wasteful government spending, his overall record is tainted by a marked antipathy towards the free market and individual freedom.”

Let us not forget the Keating Five scandal of 1980s. This from Wizbangblue.com:

Few remember that John McCain only narrowly survived the Keating Five Scandal of the 1980′s involving the corrupt dealings of Charles H. Keating and the Lincoln Savings & Loan. Keating was responsible for the collapse of Lincoln, yet gave McCain and four other members of congress over $1.3 million in political contributions to help influence banking and other legislation. McCain later attempted to whitewash his role in this scandal by becoming the poster boy in the congress for campaign finance reform.

Slate.com has a pretty thorough explanation of what happened and it isn’t pretty for McCain. Charles Keating ended up going to prison for bilking depositors in his Lincoln Savings and Loan out of billions of dollars. It was the biggest of the savings and loan scandals and McCain was wrapped up in it. Keating contributed large sums of money to McCain’s campaign and sought McCain’s assistance with federal investigators. McCain claimed he was just making sure a constituent was being treated fairly but Keating was McCain’s long time friend as well as contributor.

John McCain’s record is one of corruption, consistent opposition to the Republican Party and conservative ideals. He has a reputation for fits of anger and anyone in Washington knows that you cross John McCain at your own peril because he will do everything in his power to get even. He is dishonest and will do and say pretty much anything to get elected.

Much has been said over the last few days about Rush Limbaugh’s assertion that he may not vote for the Republican nominee this year. I’ve had my disagreements with Rush during this campaign season but on this I’m in agreement. If John McCain wins the Republican nomination I will not vote for him. I’ve written about being careful about what you say regarding other Republicans because you may find yourself having to vote for them. In this case I’m not worried about it because there is no conceivable circumstance where I would vote for McCain. He is in the same category as Lindsey Graham. In McCain’s case I won’t vote for the Democrat nominee but I will either vote third party or not vote at all in the presidential race. There is simply no way I can, in good conscience, vote for this man. And I’m convinced that there are many like me.

That brings us to the widespread claim that John McCain is the only candidate who can beat Hillary Clinton (or Obama). I don’t believe McCain can beat either of them. Despite what the polls may say, McCain is the least electable of the Republican candidates. He does not inspire the rank and file of the Republican Party. There is so much bad blood that he would only serve to divide the party. And the claims that those in the middle, the so called moderates, would vote for him in large numbers is, I think, simply untrue. By and large those people will break for the Democrat candidate. McCain will get some of them, to be sure, but not enough to do the job. As for the Republican base, many will stay home. Others will vote third party. Some may even vote for the Democrat in protest. But at the end of the day, McCain will not have the support of the base. He will not have the support of conservatives.

And all those “conservatives” endorsing McCain today are, I believe, doing so because they believe the claim that he is the only one who can win. It is a lie perpetuated by the left with the help of the media. As Rush pointed out to a caller on Friday, what good is the endorsement of the New York Times? Does anyone believe they will endorse McCain over the Democrat nominee? Of course not.

UPDATE:

For even more details about McCain’s record of dishonesty and liberal policies, see Ann Coulter’s column, ‘Straight Talk’ Express Takes Scenic Route to Truth. The more you learn the more you realize McCain is a scoundrel!

Giuliani had a solid lead in Florida before the early primaries.  Some polls had him over 36%.  Then the early primaries happened and Giuliani was not playing in any of them.  That changed the political landscape.  Now Giuliani, who has spent heavily in Florida, is tied for third with Huckabee who hasn’t spent much and isn’t campaigning there.  Pretty much everyone believes that if Giuliani doesn’t win Florida his campaign is over.  I think it likely he’ll come in forth. 

The polls show Romney and McCain in a statistical tie for first in Florida.  I suspect Romney will handily defeat McCain in the sunshine state, giving McCain a likely second place finish.  Of course, the large liberal northeastern snow birds could tilt that the other way. Second is as good as last in this winner take all state and if that is where McCain ends up it hurts him a lot.  Huckabee will be third which will give him no delegates but it will still energize his campaign because he will again have done it without much money, meaning he has real, solid support.

What does all that mean going into Super Tuesday?  I think it will be a three man race at that point with Romney leading the pack.  McCain and Huckabee will be fighting for second place.

There are, of course, some wildcards in play.  Where will Thompson supporters go?  They should go to Huckabee since both Huckabee and Thompson were going for the same constituency.  Some will go to Romney because he is the most conservative of the front runners (if you don’t consider Huckabee a front runner).  Some, like ALa of Blonde Sagacity, seem determined to go with McCain, primarily I think, because of his war record.  I’m mystified by that since these people consider themselves conservatives but they can ignore McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, etc.  But many of them bought pretty much anything Thompson said and Thompson attacked Huckabee relentlessly.  That was no surprise considering Huckabee was his main opponent.  They were, after all, reaching out to the same constituency.  Once again, violation of Reagan’s eleventh commandment takes its toll.

Then there’s the small group who supported Duncan Hunter.  Hunter is now endorsing Huckabee, which has to really irk some of the pundits on the right as well as Thompson supporters.

I still think Huckabee has a decent shot but I concede he has an uphill battle and the odds are against him.  If, as I am predicting, Giuliani comes in third or forth in Florida, he is toast.  His support has already shrunk considerably and without a win in Florida it will pretty much dry up.  That leaves a three man race with Romney, McCain and Huckabee going into Super Tuesday.

I am convinced that McCain cannot win overall in states that have closed primaries.  In the South Carolina primary McCain did not do well among those who consider themselves conservative or very conservative.  He also did not do well among those who are pro-life.  Additionally, Protestants and those who attend church regularly went largely for Huckabee (Source).  I said last week, McCain barely won South Carolina and it took independents crossing over to give him that win and had Thompson not been in the race Huckabee would likely have won anyway.  None of this bodes well for McCain going forward.  The best thing he has is the claim of momentum coming out of South Carolina and I’m not convinced he really has any momentum, though the media has worked hard to generate some.

Based on what is known now, I believe Romney is the most likely winner on Super Tuesday.  How well Huckabee does will depend on his ability to stretch a dollar and enlist the active support of the organizations that already exist in the FairTax community and the evangelical community.  That carried him in the Iowa Straw Poll, it carried him in the Iowa Caucus and it has the potential to carry him on Super Tuesday.  The question is, will those organizations mobilize?  If they do Huckabee could defy the odds and the pundits and be positioned to take the nomination.  If they do not, Romney wins on Super Tuesday.  Either way the best McCain can hope for is second and that would mean the end of his candidacy.  Indeed, if Romney is the clear winner after Super Tuesday he will likely be the nominee.  As much as that thought does not appeal to me, it is infinitely preferable to a McCain win.  Still, I have hope, if not giddy optimism, that Huckabee can pull this off.

If, by some miracle, McCain emerges from Super Tuesday a winner, the Republican Party is in real trouble!  More on that possible outcome in another post.

Because it was still quite close I don’t think second place does too much damage to Huckabee.  And, because independents won it for McCain, I’m not convinced that will translate to states that hold closed primaries.  I certainly hope it won’t because McCain is many things but conservative is not one of them.

Thompson came in a distant third.  Had he been a close third he might have still had a decent position but he was 13-14 points behind Huckabee.  In my view that pretty much ends it for Thompson.  He may hang in there a little longer but his campaign is effectively over.

Listening to FOX News the consensus seems to be that after today the race has been reduced to McCain, Romney and Giuliani.  I pray that isn’t the case considering none of them is conservative.  They further believe that if Giuliani doesn’t win Florida it will be down to McCain and Romney  If that eventuality occurs, I’ll have to do some serious soul searching about how I will respond.  I am a conservative and I don’t know that I could vote for McCain under any circumstances.

I simply do not buy the argument from most of the talking heads on FOX News that this is the end of the road for Huckabee.  Second is not what he wanted but the fact is he’s still viable.  Florida is next and neither Huckabee nor McCain is going to win there.  Next is Super Tuesday and lot of states do not have open primaries.  I don’t believe McCain can win in the south without independents and Huckabee will win in those states.  What is more likely in my judgement is a spread of delegates following Super Tuesday that has Huckabee squarely in the pack along with others, none with enough delegates to take them over the top.

It’s going to be a while before we know who the Republican nominee is and it could end up in a brokered convention, something we haven’t seen in some time.  If that happens who knows what the outcome will be?  At that point anyone could get the nomination, even Fred Thompson.

Now Newt Gingrich is saying much the same thing.  From This Week with George Stephanopoulos:

We are at the end of the George W. Bush era.  We are at the end of the Reagan era. We’re at a point in time when we’re about to start redefining — as a number of people started talking about, starting to redefine — the nature of the Republican Party, in response to what the country needs.

Rush just didn’t know what to do with that.  He’s been a Gingrich supporter for years and Newt says something like that.  It put Rush in a spot.

Rush had this to say on his show today:

Every one of these Republicans is starting to talk about redefining the party, and this has been going on since the early days of this, not just now. If you recall, all during last year, I told you this was my big concern: that Reaganism and conservatism were going to be redefined so as to fit the mold of whoever these guys on our primary roster are.  One of the things that Newt said is "redefine the nature of the Republican Party in response to what the country needs." Something about that rubs me wrong.  Something about that sort of grates on me.  The Republican Party is supposed to sit out there and I guess (slurps) moisten its index finger, stick it in the air, find out what people want, and be that?  That’s not who we are!  Now, it may be who populists are.  In fact, it is exactly who populists are.  Even if you have no intention of following through on what you plan to do as you promise all these wonderful things to your supporters, as a populist. But this is not what the Republican Party has been.  It’s what the Democrat Party had been.

This fits right in with what’s been going on with the Republican race for the nomination.  The lines are drawn, the assumptions have all been made and everyone is hearing what they expect to hear rather than what is actually being said.

Newt was on Hannity and Colmes tonight and Sean asked him about the comment.  Newt went on the explain that the Republican Party cannot continue trying to hold on to the issues of the eighties.  He pointed out that most of the major concerns we have today didn’t exist when Reagan was in office.  Gingrich made the point that if Reagan was in office today he’d be tackling today’s issues, not the issues of the eighties.  In effect, the Reagan era is over and it’s time for a new era if Republicans want to win.

Newt was NOT denigrating the Reagan legacy or conservatism.  He made it clear that he was always a Reagan supporter.  But what Rush and others seem to want is Reagan himself.  Too bad.

No one is a bigger fan of Ronald Reagan than I am.  Reagan stood for conservatism long before it was fashionable and he is the model of conservatism.  But we aren’t facing the Soviet Union, Reagan defeated that.  We aren’t facing many of the problems we faced in the eighties.  We have a whole new set of problems and we have to face them head on as a party and decided how we’ll deal with them and articulate that to the electorate.  We can’t do that if we’re constantly bickering over Reagan.

It’s not going to happen but Rush, Laura Ingraham and the rest of the right leaning pundits need to stop living in the past and take a look at the present.  Reagan is dead.  We aren’t going to return to the eighties much as some of those pundits might wish we could.

I want conservatives in office.  But if every candidate that takes a look at the changing landscape ends up characterized as a populist we’re facing a long uphill battle.

Regular readers will recall that I was an early Thompson supporter. To this day I believe Thompson is a more conservative candidate than Huckabee is, excepting his position on the FairTax. But Fred took so long to enter the race and when he did, he was all but invisible by choice. He gave few interviews and was not to be found in the media. At the same time Mike Huckabee was making his name known and moving up.

I believe that Fred’s showing last Thursday was too little too late. He threw everything he has at Huckabee because they are going after that same voters. It wasn’t enough. Huckabee has the lead and I don’t expect he’ll lose it. In fact, I expect that after the South Carolina primary we may see Fred Thompson drop out of the race. If he doesn’t come in at least second his viability will be in serious jeopardy. If Thompson drops out, who does he endorse and where do his supporters go?

The safe money is on Thompson backing his long time friend McCain. But I suspect many of Thompson’s supporters will have a difficult time moving over with him.

There are plenty of people calling John McCain a conservative. I remember a little online political test I took that said the candidate I agreed the most with was John McCain. That might be true on rhetoric alone but it certainly isn’t true when it comes to his record. John McCain is not a conservative, he is the maverick he’s portrayed himself to be. He’s unreliable when it comes to advancing the conservative agenda. How can Thompson supporters support McCain after Thompson drops out?

If they do not support McCain, where will they go? I can’t see them going with Giuliani who is a social liberal and opponent of the second amendment. What about Romney? Perhaps. But he’s a long time RINO recently converted to conservatism when it suited his ambition. I don’t trust him and I don’t see when conservatives in general should. What does that leave? It leaves Huckabee.

The problem is, Thompson supporters have joined the Huckabee bashing bandwagon. It will be difficult for them to support a guy they’ve invested so much into destroying.

All of you who hate Huckabee need to think about what you will do if he ends up being the nominee. Just like I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about what I’ll do if any of the current slate of RINOs ends up with the nomination. This thing is pretty wide open right now. I think as a party we need to give some serious though to how we’re going to win in November, not just how our candidate can win the nomination.

Yes, evangelicals and churches mobilized in Iowa and that certainly helped Huckabee.  But the assumption that they mobilized because Huckabee is “one of them” is, I think, misleading.  The fact is Huckabee came in a strong second in the Iowa Straw Poll several months ago, not because of churches and evangelicals, but because of his strong support of the FairTax.  It just so happens that for the most part evangelicals are also strong supporters of the FairTax.  but they are not the only strong supports of the FairTax.

It may well be that Huckabee won’t win in New Hampshire.  But I think it quite likely that he will do well even if he doesn’t win.  Moving on the South Carolina puts Huckabee back in the drivers seat again because there is an incredible FairTax organization in South Carolina and the vast majority of those FairTax supporters are also Huckabee supporters.  I know this because I’m part of the South Carolina FairTax organization.

I was at the FairTax rally in Columbia, SC back in May.  It was held across the street from the Koger Center where the Republican debate was taking place the same night.  We had something like 9,000 people at that rally.  We marched around the Koger Center, silencing all other groups while we marched.  Indeed, small groups of supporters of the various candidates were in awe of the crowd we had.  Many spoke to me, completely amazed that we had such support and so many people there.

The media virtually ignored that rally.  Watching debate coverage that night it was striking to see video of numerous pockets of supporters for each candidate and no video whatsoever of the FairTax marchers.  We were ignored.

We are still being ignored by the pundits on both sides and the media.  With few exceptions the FairTax and its supporters have been given virtually no credit for Huckabee’s meteoric rise.  But the reality is it is FairTax supporters that brought Huckabee that strong second place in the Iowa Straw Poll and it is FairTax supporter who have lifted Huckabee to the national stage.  And so long as Huckabee continues to be the most articulate supporter of the FairTax, they will continue to lift him up.

I heard this verbalized yesterday on a radio talk show.  I can’t remember which show it was but the guest was saying that both Thompson and Romney has looked at the FairTax and liked it but bowed to advisors who convinced them it was a losing issue.  He claimed that both regretted listening to that advice.  I don’t know if that is true or not.  Having attended a couple of Thompson events it seems unlikely to me that Thompson ever even understood the FairTax, much less liked it.  All I know is, the FairTax is a winning presidential issue and Huckabee has tapped into it.

To be sure there are lots of other very important issues and over the next few weeks Huckabee will be thoroughly scrutinized on all of them.  He may or may not survival that scrutiny.  But so far the myriad charges against him haven’t stuck and he’s continued to rise in popularity.  Rush has said that Huckabee supporters aren’t interested in hearing anything negative or factual about Huckabee because they’ve made up their minds.  Perhaps.  But the same could be said (and I will say it) about all those “conservative” pundits who have been slamming Huckabee the last last few weeks.  Some of them have slightly moderated their tone in the last few days.  I suspect that’s because they are realizing that not only have they been unsuccessful in derailing Huckabee but they are going to have to deal with him going forward and that might be a little easier if they don’t have such an adversarial position but that’s pure speculation.

That bottom line is, the pundits and opponents of Mike Huckabee will continue to underestimate him so long as they don’t understand why he’s doing as well as he is.  The FairTax is the biggest key.  Yes, evangelicals support him and that helps.  But that wouldn’t support him if there wasn’t a lot of common ground on key issues and one of those issues if the FairTax.

I nailed Huckabee.  He won with a significant margin.  I was off on Romney and McCain.  McCain didn’t get the bounce I expected because Thompson did better than I expected.  While I would have liked to see Romney come in third, I’m not at all unhappy with the outcome.  I’m glad Thompson ended up in a tie with McCain and I’m really glad Huckabee did so well.

I don’t know that Thompson will be able to hold on past New Hampshire.  He did better than I expected today but I don’t think he did well enough.  At this point I still think Huckabee is the best bet for conservatives, despite all the claims by Rush and others that he’s not a conservative.  No, he’s not Reagan, Rush is right about that.  No one in this race is Reagan.  But I’m excited about Huckabee.

Just a note about the Democrat caucus.  That Hillary came in third is HUGE!  I’m no fan of Edwards (he’s totally vapid) but I was rooting him on tonight.  Hillary’s campaign is in no way derailed but this is a real hit and she’ll have to rethink he campaign strategy now.  It will be interesting to see what she does next.

More tomorrow.

Caucuses don’t exactly involve votes per se.  Instead caucus goers gather in a large room around their candidate.  Any candidate that doesn’t have at least 15% of the caucus goers is ruled not viable and their supporters physically move to the area of their second choice. That’s where it gets interesting and it’s what causes pundit predictions to sometimes be incredibly wrong.  Predicting who will have less than 15% isn’t too difficult but predicting where their supporters will go is not so easy.

On the Democrat side Dennis Kucinich has already told his supporters to support Obama should he not make the first cut, which is likely.  Indeed on both sides there will be a number of candidates who will not meet the 15% threshold and all their supporters will move to someone else.  That makes predictions difficult.

I don’t plan to make predictions on the Democrat side, primarily because I don’t really care.  I’m much more interested in the Republican caucus.

Mitt Romney has spent a boat load of money to buy the Iowa caucus and a couple of months ago the conventional wisdom was that he would walk away with it.  Today Romney finds himself in a dead heat with Mike Huckabee even though he’s outspent Huckabee by something like 20 to 1.  The pundits are pretty much universally saying everything depends on turnout.  Which candidates can get their voters out to the caucus will determine the outcome.  I agree with that to a point but I think there is more at play here.

The Iowa Straw Poll in August was an eye opener for many.  Romney was widely expected to win, as he did, but no one predicted Huckabee to come in second.  Since the Iowa Straw Poll is mostly about buying votes Romney clearly had the edge.  No one could compete with the money he could spend on the effort.  Huckabee, on the other hand, had virtually no money to spend, yet he came in a strong second.  There were a couple of reasons for that showing and keep in mind that Huckabee supporters pretty much had to pay their own way to the poll unlike Romney supporters.

First, Huckabee’s very outspoken support of the FairTax was probably the primary reason he showed so well.  FairTax supporters are well organized and they mostly support Huckabee because he supports the FairTax so strongly and articulately.  While there has been some acknowledgement of the roll of the FairTax by the pundits in the media, I believe they broadly underestimate how big that roll actually is.

Second, Huckabee unapologetically supports the issues so called “values voters” care about.  He is pro life, pro family, pro second amendment and against gay marriage.  He’s also an outspoken Christian and makes no bones about it.  That scares some people who think any Christian will usher in a theocracy but evangelicals by and large are behind him.

The latest polls all have Romney and Huckabee in a tie while no one else has even 15% in the polls.  So Romney and Huckabee will certainly make the first cut.  Who will be out after the first round? 

Giuliani and Paul will not make the first cut.  Predicting where their supporters will go is somewhat difficult.  Giuliani supporters will likely split between McCain (should he make the first cut) and Romney but Paul supporters are anyone’s guess.  As rabid as those folks are they could pack up and go home, not moving to any candidate.  If Thompson does not make the first cut his supporters will almost universally go to Huckabee.  Romney is viewed as a RINO and Thompson supporters are real conservatives.  They will not support the RINO.

McCain has more than 15% in only one poll but I think it likely he will make the first round.  If he does not his supporters likely will not go for Romney because Romney has now gone after McCain in some of his ads. That gives most of those supporters to Huckabee if it comes to that in the first round.

Back to the turnout question.  Remember how FairTax supporters buoyed Huckabee in the Iowa Straw Poll?  I predict the same thing will happen in the caucus.  I believe that in the first round Huckabee will have a significant lead over Romney.  That will have some impact on the second round as the supporters whose candidates don’t make the first cut decide where to move their support.

Thompson is really the wild card.  If he makes the first cut Huckabee could be hurt in the second round and it is then possible that Romney or even McCain could take the lead.  I consider than an unlikely but possible outcome.

I predict the first round goes to Huckabee by a fairly wide margin.  Romney will be second and McCain third in the first round.  All of Thompson’s supporters will go to Huckabee, Giuliani’s supporters will split between McCain and Romney and Paul’s supporters (those who stay) will go to McCain.

In the second round Huckabee’s support grows the most because he gets all of Thompson’s supporters.  Romney gains the least in the second round and McCain ends up in the middle.

The end result will be Huckabee first, McCain second and Romney third.  That will leave the Romney campaign shell shocked and scrambling to regroup for New Hampshire.  Romney will dramatically increase spending in New Hampshire and the number of negative attack ads he runs will increase dramatically as well.

These are, of course, only predictions.  They could be wrong and indeed, almost certainly will be wrong in some details.  I chose to be pretty specific about how this will go which increases the opportunities to be wrong.  But I think the analysis is pretty sound and it will be interesting on Thursday to see how it turns out and how close I come to the actually results.

Stay tuned for caucus results analysis.

It’s going to be an interesting years.  Who will win the White House?  Will the Democrats expand their margin in Congress or will the Republicans be able to capitalize on the missteps of a lack luster Democrat Congress?  These an other questions will be addressed in the weeks and months ahead.  I hope you’ll come along for the ride and maybe even participate rather than just read what I have to say.

It has always been my goal to stimulate conversation and discussion, not just get readers.  That’s why I have comments open, I want to hear what you think.  I’m open to Democrat opinions too, just don’t expect me to agree very often.  But I’m open to discussion.

As for the conservatives in the audience, we have to buckle down and get to work if we’re going to bring the Republican Party around to our way of thinking.  We have to support conservative candidates with our money and our energy.  Without that support we will have nothing to complain about when RINOs run the party and conservatives aren’t elected.  It’s up to us folks.

I’m looking forward to 2008.  I’m looking forward to following and blogging the primaries and the election.  It’s going to be a very interesting year!

I’ve been a Huckabee supporter for some time now.  I’ve heard most all the criticisms and I’ve heard Huckabee’s defense of those criticisms.  Take ethics charges in Arkansas.  Like attacks against Newt Gingrich and Tom Delay on the national level, Democrats always resort to spurious ethics charges when when they can’t defeat a Republican on the merits.  I have no problem believing this is the case in Arkansas.  In the case of the wedding registry issue, Huckabee’s explanation is completely credible and sensible.  Opponents who stick to that charge look stupid, just like Giuliani’s constant charge that Romney hired illegals when he did no such thing.  Giuliani looked stupid then and Huckabee opponents look stupid sticking with spurious and silly charges.

On the immigration question I take issue with Huckabee.  I think he is wrong about the children of illegal immigrants but I respect his position because I have anguished over the question of what to do with kids who’ve been here nearly all their lives.  They don’t know any other country and they are not responsible for the situation they are in, their parents are.  I disagree with Huckabee’s approach because it rewards and encourages illegal immigration but I understand where he’s coming from and this one issue is not a deal breaker for me.

There is one charge, leveled by Ann Coulter and others, that Huckabee wants to use the government to implement Jesus’ plans for the poor, that gives me serious pause.  If true that would be a real deal breaker for me.  I have no patience for social gospel advocates and I won’t have patience for Huckabee if I find he’s a social gospel adherent.  But so far I’ve seen no evidence that it is true.  Indeed, Huckabee has said that he’s running for President, not pastor in chief.  Yes, he will make decisions based on his worldview.  That seems to scare the pants off some people.  But the fact is, everyone running will make decisions based on their worldview, Christian or not.

I’ve been reading the criticism and looking for evidence but so far I’m not seeing it.  I’ve been quiet for a while now because, honestly, I was afraid some of this stuff might be true.  But so far all I see is accusations.  In every case Huckabee has responded and responded well.  The one time he seemed somewhat flummoxed was in a interview with Laura Ingraham.  But the reality is Ingraham was extremely combative from the start and Huckabee has little chance to finish an answer.  It was clear to anyone listening that Ingraham was gunning for Huckabee.

Coulter also got some mileage from Huckabee’s plan to bring music and the arts back to education.  She carries on like that’s just the silliest idea ever introduced.  But it seems to me that Huckabee is simply talking about a liberal arts education, something most of our founding fathers strongly supported.  There is something of a resurgence of the idea among private schools today and it’s an idea I support.  The idea is that you cannot have a well rounded education without covering arts, literature, music, foreign language, history, science and math.  Modern thinkers want to focus solely on science and math and maybe a little language thrown in for good measure.  I believe the liberal arts approach is superior and it was unbecoming of Coulter to treat it like it was silly.  I’m not sure where she got her undergrad but I suspect it might have been a liberal arts school.

Now let me be clear.  I’m a fan of Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter and many others who are taking pot shots at Huckabee.  In virtually every case it seems clear to me that they have already made up their minds for someone else.  Ingraham is a case in point.  I’ve heard her interview Mitt Romney.  She threw softball questions one after the other.  Not once did she go after him on anything.  Clearly Romney is her guy.  Now that’s fine but she isn’t being real honest about that fact.  She’s acted as if she’s unbiased regarding Republican candidates when she clearly is not.  It’s human nature to see anyone who threatens your chosen candidate as the enemy but that alone doesn’t make the criticism valid.  It requires evidence and there seems to be precious little of that.

So far the only one I’ve seen who truly seems unbiased is Rush Limbaugh.  If he’s picked a candidate I am hard pressed to tell who it might be.  The Huckabee campaign takes on El Rushbo at their peril.

I will continue to watch the situation carefully.  If there is something that might change my mind about Huckabee I want to know about it.  Yes, he’s my guy.  But I am willing to switch if he turns out not to be the real deal.  To date I’ve seen nothing to sway me.  And lest you think I’m not as willing to change as I say I am, recall that I started out supporting Fred Thompson so I’ve already switched once.  I’ll switch again if new information comes along that convinces me a I should.

For now I’m just disgusted with the constant “conservative” attacks on Huckabee.  I think it’s a mistake and it’s damaging to the party.

It’s an interesting theory and who knows, he may be right about the media.  They’re certainly liberal and it’s been obvious that they are helping Hillary at every opportunity.  If they believed that Huckabee would be easier to beat that other Republican candidates it would make sense for them to work to help him out.  But the deeper question is whether such a strategy would actually ensure a Hillary victory.

O’Reilly is of the opinion that it would.  He believes that Huckabee simply cannot win a national campaign because the doesn’t have the money or the name recognition.  Indeed, he gave 5:1 odds that asking random people on the street who Mike Huckabee is would result in an “I don’t know” response.  But it seems to me that such a strategy would work against itself.

In order for the media to assist Huckabee or any other candidate that must, of necessity, raise the name recognition of that candidate.  Indeed, anything done now to help a candidate in the primary will ultimately be a help in the general election.  But there is a deeper reason why such a strategy appears to me to be doomed to backfire.

I’ve made this point before.  When solid conservative candidates run on solid conservative platforms, they typically win.  Conservatism is a winning ideology and it’s a winning strategy.  Huckabee, so far as I’ve been able to determine, is the real deal.  Yes, he’s been attacked on various fronts for not being a real conservative but his responses have been reasoned and reasonable as well as convincing.  The man comes across as genuine and he is unflappable.

I hope O’reilly is correct in his assessment of the media’s actions.  Nothing would please me more than to have the liberal media sink themselves and their own agenda by helping to elect Mike Huckabee.

Conventional wisdom is nothing more or less than what most people think. Or at least most people within a specific group. It is certainly possible that conventional wisdom on a particular subject is the best course but I think it is unlikely. Conventional wisdom says you should limit your risk, taking only those risks that don’t cost much if you are wrong. That may lead you to a safe retirement but it won’t lead you to be a millionaire.

The conventional wisdom in Republican circles seems to be that Rudy Giuliani is the only candidate who can beat Hillary Clinton. Why is that? What makes Giuliani the one guy who can beat Hillary? It appears to be that he is so tough when it comes to foreign policy and terrorism. His strategy has been to create just the thinking that leads to the common conventional wisdom. He has worked to scare the Republican base into believing he can defeat both the terrorists and Hillary Clinton and no one else can. His strategy has certainly worked thus far but is the resulting conventional wisdom accurate?

I submit that it is not and I have several reasons for thinking so.

First, I think it doubtful that Giuliani can defeat Clinton in the first place. Everyone places their hopes on the polls but there are several problems with that, not the least of which is that the actual election isn’t for another year and polls are worthless that far out. Additionally, the polls only look at what the pollsters are interested in looking at. So, for example, there has been no poll pitting Hillary Clinton against, say, Mike Huckabee as was pointed out in a previous Republican debate.

Another reason for doubting that Giuliani can defeat Clinton is my belief that very many social conservative and evangelical Christians simply will not vote for him. Pat Robertson may have endorsed him but that isn’t going to go very far. I think James Dobson is more on the right track in terms of what evangelical Christians and social conservatives are likely to do. They will take one of two courses. They will vote for a third party candidate or they will stay home. Either course leads to a Clinton victory in ’08. We saw similar results in both of Bill Clinton’s elections where he never had a majority of the vote. Indeed, Bill Clinton never would have won without the presence of Ross Perot in the elections.

The simple fact is, Rudy Giuliani is not a conservative. Socially he is a liberal and he does not hide that fact. He has made certain concessions like saying he will nominate justices in the mold of Scalia or Roberts but there is no certainty that he won’t change his mind considering how he feels about abortion, gay marriage and other social issues. In essence he would have to betray his own beliefs to follow through on his promise and I have little faith that he will do that.

A second reason for disbelieving that Giuliani is the only candidate who can beat Clinton is that when candidates with solid conservative records run on conservative platforms, they win. Giuliani does not fit that description. He is closer to Democrats than Republicans on a host of issues. In the end, why vote for a Republican who acts like a Democrat when you can get the genuine article?

I’ve said over and over that the reason Republicans lost in ’06 was that they had abandoned conservative principles. As the minority they had long held to conservatism but as the majority they governed much like Democrats. They hardly passed on a chance to expand government. So, rather than Reagan’s goal of eliminating the federal Department of Education we got No Child Left Behind, a massive expansion of the Department of Education. Never mind the fact that there is no Constitutional authority for that department. Republicans spent like their lives depended on it. And it all cost them the majority.

Now we have a Democrat Congress that has the lowest approval rating of any Congress since ranting have been taken. As bad as the Republicans were, the Democrats are worse. That presents an enormous opportunity if only we can take advantage of it.

The conventional wisdom also says that the Democrats will expand their majorities on Congress in ’08 but I don’t see that as inevitable. If Republicans would only coalesce around a solid conservative platform and nominate a solid conservative candidate for President, they could take back control of Congress and keep the White House. That isn’t going to happen by nominating Rudy Giuliani.

It is time to throw out conventional wisdom. It is time to step out and embrace conservatism. That is the winning strategy.

The only thing I can come up with is this visceral fear that only Giuliani can beat Hillary Clinton. Certainly many feel that way but I wholeheartedly disagree with them. In fact, I believe that ONLY a solid conservative can beat Hillary Clinton. But that is beside the point here.

The fact is, Robertson has sold his soul for this endorsement. Not that Pat Robertson is all that credible but what credibility he had is gone now. I’m sure there are some people who would follow the man straight into hell but I think most evangelicals will see this as a total compromise with the devil.

I’ve been critical of James Dobson for his public stand against anyone who isn’t a total social conservative but that criticism is not because I disagree with him. My criticism is that Dobson has made a habit recently of saying things publicly that were better said in the pulpit. In truth, I have a real problem with any candidate who is not a social conservative and I doubt that I could vote for one. The very real probability is that many evangelicals will stay home come election day if Giuliani is the Republican nominee. They simply will be unable to pull the lever for him and rather than vote for someone worse they just won’t vote at all.

As implied above, Pat Robertson hasn’t has much credibility except with his faithful following for some time. He has a habit of running off at the mouth and saying some pretty ridiculous things. But this really tops the charts. I cannot fathom how a follower of Christ, someone who holds the sanctity of life so dear and fights for the traditional family, can come out and publicly endorse a man who stands in opposition to these principles.

Truth be told, I’m not sure what I will do come election day if Rudy is the Republican nominee. But I know there is not chance that would work to put him in that position. That Robertson is working to put him in that position is just inexcusable.

Blogged with Flock

The Grizzly Groundswell will have 50+ blogs one in each state plus various administrative posts within each state, by November 22, 2007. We allready are demanding quite a pressence online, however, after November 22, 2007 we will merely whisper and socialist squirrels will hear us as if we are shouting!

Please assist us in our search for the best and brightest conservative Republican bloggers out there in each state.

Looking at the impressive stable of authors already aboard the Grizzly Groundswell you would think we do not have to add anymore! However, I feel that there are other bloggers out there that would like a national platform to instantly post what is happening in their backyard and get it heard! That is what the Grizzly Groundswell offers. We are also growing and finding that with such a large network we are able to offer our membership some exciting opportunities.

Another great benefit is the E-Newsletter only shared with contributing authors. We share tips and behind the scene movements and opportunties that will help you attain your vision for your writing and your blog.

Grizzly Groundswell is open to any conservative Republican blogger who is not complacent with where they are. We have a simple formula that is proving to be a winning formula in any backyard.

Awaken + Stand Up + Step into Action = Political Landscape Change in your backyard!

Nominate yourself or your favorite blogger. If there is already a seated Governor in your state, then give them a run for their money! Outpost, outperform and you may find yourself replacing a Governor who does not take advantage of this revolutionary opportunity in blogging on the Grizzly Groundswell.

Whether you are at the top of the blogging game or that up and comer lost in the blogosphere. We want you to help and assist us reach not only this goal by Nov. 22, 2007 but supreme victory in 2008!

When you are at battle with socialist squirrels in your backyard, it helps to be surrounded by the best and the most active of blogging authors out there.

Come grow with us!

~Teddy Bear

(Added by Ron Goodwyne, guess I’m the Governor of South Carolina)

To learn more, visit the GrizzlyGroundswell

Then in August I posted about Huckabee being the big winner in Iowa.  At that point I began to fell like maybe Governor Huckabee actually had a chance.  I said then:

Huckabee is the man to watch over the next few weeks.  His ability to raise money just got a huge shot in the arm and if he can translate that into campaign cash and a solid organization he may end up as the man to beat. 

Still, I was hanging on to Thompson because I believed he was the best man to communicate a solid vision for the country.  I was, admittedly, uneasy about how long Thompson was taking to make his announcement.

Finally, on September 6, Thompson announced his candidacy, doing so on Leno and eschewing the Republican debate the same night.  That bothered me.  Then he promptly disappeared from the media.  Since then he has largely refused interviews with the major media, preferring to stick with the internet.

Meanwhile, Mike Huckabee has continued to move forward.  He has seen his position in the polls slowly move up and up.  Yesterday he took 51% at the values voters conference in Florida.  51%!  That tells you something about where conservatives really stand.

For the last several weeks I’ve been leaning more and more to Huckabee and I’ve become more and more disenchanted with Thompson.  At the conference Thompson spent a grand total of about five minutes talking to the crowd and left.  Thompson hasn’t had a major fall since his announcement but neither has he done anything at all to distinguish himself.

Tonight the Republicans will square off again in Orlando.  The theme seems to be, who is the real conservative?  Clearly Rudy has no claim to that moniker.  Romney has his own problems with so many position changes looking like changes for convenience rather than true convictions.  That’s to say nothing about the problem of his Mormonism that he refuses to directly address.  All that leaves McCain, Thompson and Huckabee.  Of the three I believe Huckabee far outshines the rest. 

McCain will never get the nomination.  He has just stabbed conservatives in the back too many times.  I could not vote for the man and I know many many others who can’t either.  Thompson, as mentioned earlier, simply isn’t doing anything to distinguish himself.  He’s hanging on but that won’t last much longer if he doesn’t do something to stand out.

Then there is Mike Huckabee.  He is a solid conservative.  He has no record of changing his position on lots of issues for the sake of expedience.  He has 10+ years of executive experience.  He is the strongest supporter of the FairTax I know of and the most articulate.  I’ve seen dozens of interviews with Huckabee and I have yet to see him stumble or get tripped up.  The man knows what he is talking about and he speaks with conviction.  The more he talks the more people turn to him.

I am now convinced that Mike Huckabee is the best hope for the Republican party.  He is honest, heartfelt, a solid conservative and likeable to boot!  I said in June, “It’s still very early and I’m not prepared to endorse anyone but Thompson at this point. But a lot could happen between now and next February. I’ll be keeping a close eye on Mike Huckabee.”  Well that’s precisely what I’ve been doing and now I am prepared to endorse Mike Huckabee for President of the United States.

Watch for the next post where I’ll give you Glenn Beck’s Huckabee interview.  It is lengthy enough to really cover some ground and give you a realy chance to examine Huckabee and see if he is a man you can support.

From the email sent to the Friends of Fred email list:

We enter this campaign in a strong position. Fred is consistently near the top in the polls, and conservatives across the country have put together the closest thing to a draft in recent presidential campaign history in an effort to bring about this day. The next few weeks will only serve to build upon those efforts, with house parties, visits to the early primary states, and a homecoming in Lawrenceburg, TN on the 15th.

To be sure, support for Thompson has been exceedingly high, particularly for a potential candidate who has not announced.  Just today, the new GOP Straw Poll (see post below) shows Thompson leading with around 7000 votes to this point.  In virtually every poll Thompson is either first or second.

Announcing via webcast could be a stroke of genius.  Thompson’s efforts so far have been largely on the internet and by announcing via webcast he is rewarding his early supporters.

By announcing via webcast, Fred is able to take his consistently mainstream conservative message directly to the voters, who are already responding to that message with a strong upwelling of grassroots support. The webcast and the following campaign tour will play to Fred’s strengths, a consistent record of conservatism, his ability to clearly spread his message, and his ability to work with and connect with Americans from all walks of life.

To find a house party in your area, see the widget in the right sidebar.  If you cannot find a house party in your area, consider hosting one yourself.

Thompson spoke for about 25 minutes and covered a lot of ground. In a speech of that length you can either cover one topic with some depth or you can skim the surface of a lot of topics. Since there was no overriding theme, Thompson chose the latter. What follows is my account of Thompson’s comments today.

Senator Thompson had quite a few quotable moments. The first was in his recounting of his visit with Former Prime Minister Thatcher and her relationship with Ronald Reagan. Referring to the accomplishments of the two Thompson said “strength doesn’t cause wars, strength prevents wars.” He then recounted how following the end of the cold war the US cut defense spending by more than 1/3, military development by 50% and allowed our intelligence operations to languish, particularly our human intelligence capabilities. He pointed out that through numerous attacks on our assets around the world we did little to nothing until 9/11 and the war in Iraq.

Thompson showed a real grasp of the situation we face in Islamic fascism. He said that our enemy sees this conflict as having already gone on for a hundred years and they are prepared to go another hundred if necessary. He said that people just don’t understand or appreciate that fact. He went on to say that in previous conflicts the country always pulled together but now partisan politics takes precedence. A big applause moment was when Thompson talked about the sons of two friends who are serving in Iraq and have re-upped. He said they had hope and optimism and he wasn’t going to give up hope so long as they held it. Thompson said we need leadership to bring us together, implying that he can provide that leadership.

In the subject of illegal immigration Thompson agreed that it was dividing our party but he expressed optimism that the party would get past it. He emphasized that the resolution had to come from consideration of what was best for the country, not what was best for either party. He said that thousands of illegal immigrants are not Mexicans and that is a grave risk to national security. Thompson said that we could not hope to protect our country until we secure our borders and he flatly said that the current immigration reform bill is not what is best for this country. He rightly pointed out that we got the same promises in 1986 that we are getting today and there is no reason to believe them now. He also pointed out that the US grants one million green cards per year now so claims that we are taking an anti-immigration stand are unfounded. In another quotable moment Thompson said “we welcome legal immigrants and this is home to all of us but we get to decide who comes to our home.” Thompson said the government can’t handle the backlog of four million legal immigrants waiting on processing now so how can they possibly handle 12-20 million more?

On the question of taxes Thompson said that low taxes benefit everyone but the tax and spend types want to divide up a static pie instead of increasing the size of the pie so everyone gets a larger piece, precisely Reagan’s position. He did not endorse the FairTax but he did say that we are bankrupting the country, the government and the economy and that waiting to fix the problem hurts everyone.

In a great moment for religious conservatives Thompson, referring to the Declaration of Independence, said that our rights come from God and not from government. He went on to say that our founding fathers knew what they were doing when they set up our federal form of government with separation of powers. The implication seemed to be that we’ve strayed far from that ideal now. While not expressly mentioning abortion or assisted suicide, Thompson emphasized the sanctity of human life.

Thompson said we need a new coalition of people coming together for the good of the country. The clear implication was that he could build that coalition. That is exactly what Ronald Reagan did. He built a coalition of people from both parties, not in government but in the electorate. Reagan won two landslide victories by convincing democrats to vote for him.

I’ve often said this country is floundering because no leader has been able to cast a vision that the people caught hold of. Bush seems to understand the threat from Islamic fascism but he has utterly failed to articulate that to the people in a way that grabs their attention. There have been a lot of comparisons between Reagan and Thompson, not the least being they are both actors. Some have pointed out that Thompson is not like Reagan in the sense that Reagan has a long history of conservative intellectual thought and writing. Thompson clearly does not have that.

There is, however, one comparison that really works and that is the ability to communicate. Reagan could cast a vision and so can Thompson. On all the issues I’ve heard him speak on Thompson has been on the right side. He certainly was today. He may not be the conservative intellectual Reagan was but he has that long missing ability to communicate in a way that is at once understandable and compelling. He has the ability to cast a vision. I believe that he can bring in a lot of Democrats and that could easily turn the tide, not just in the election but also in terms of moving this country forward as a people with a common vision for the future. Unless this country gets behind a strong leader who is willing to do what it takes, we are in for a very difficult and painful future. As Churchill said, “sometimes it isn’t enough to do your best, sometimes you have to do what is required.” We, as a country, must be willing to do what is required if we expect our future to look anything like our past. It is my belief that of all the Republican candidates, Fred Dalton Thompson is far and away the best man to cast the vision for this country.

As an ending note let me relate my brief exchange with Thompson today. There was a large crowd of people who wanted to meet Thompson and shake his hand and I was in the middle of it. When I finally got the chance I extended my hand and Thompson took it. He has a real man’s handshake. His large hand wrapped around mine with a firm grip the way a man is supposed to shake hands, not bone crushing but you know you’re shaking hands. I told him that a lot of people were really excited at the prospect of him running and I was one of them. He smiled and thanked me. Then I told him that all those people, including myself, were going to be really disappointed if he decided against running. He grinned real big and said, “so will I.”

————–
NOTE: I recorded Thompson’s speech on my cell phone. The audio isn’t the best in the world and there is considerable background noise but it you can hear what Thompson had to say. The format is a peculiar cell phone format and I can’t find a way to convert it to mp3. I’m thinking about uploading it anyway since Real Player will play it but I’d prefer to convert it to mp3 so everyone can use it. If you know a good way to convert it, please let me know. Alternatively, if you have the ability to convert it I’ll be happy to send it to you for conversion if you’ll send the converted file back. Just let me know.

UPDATE:  Thanks to Orlando the file is now in mp3 format.  To listen to it click here.

Technorati : Fred Thompson

We’ve been down this road before and all the evidence says the government isn’t serious about controlling the border or doing anything about illegals already here except to give them a pass. Of course, that just creates more incentive for more illegals to cross the boarder the government has shown no interest in securing. So why on earth should we trust them when they tell us that “under the bill” this and that will happen.

Chertoff, et. al. know this full well. Lindsey Graham knows this. All of them know this. We’ve said it ad nauseum! They simply choose to ignore what we say and go on calling us bigots and talking about what the bill will do. The fact is, current law calls for a fence that isn’t getting built. Current law calls for border enforcement. There is no need for another law to do these things. Yet Bush, Chertoff and the rest have no interest in enforcing current law. So WHY SHOULD WE TRUST THEM to enforce a new law? There is simply no reason to trust them.

A common definition for insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result. The Bush administration and its lackeys in Congress apparently assume the electorate is insane. We should trust them to do the same thing they always done and expect them to actually enforce the law this time! I don’t think so.

I like the idea I heard on the Laura Ingraham show today. Lets just start calling them former, as in former Senator Lindsey Graham and former Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff. I’ve already started working to unseat Lindsey Graham and there is a groundswell against him in South Carolina.

So if you are tempted to buy this line the “under the bill” they will secure the border and there will be a fence and there are triggers, don’t you believe it. They have to earn our trust. If your friend lies to you, you might give them another chance. But if they lie to you repeatedly, it takes a long, sustained effort of earning trust before you will be willing to trust them again. The same is true of our government. Let’s all assume the state motto of Oklahoma: Show Me! The only way they can show me is to start enforcing the law now and sustain that effort for an extended period of time. Then and only then, come back and maybe we’ll talk. But until they do that, there is absolutely no reason to trust them.

  Technorati : Amnesty, Border Security, Illegal Aliens, Immigration Reform, Lying Politicians, Politics
Del.icio.us : Amnesty, Border Security, Illegal Aliens, Immigration Reform, Lying Politicians, Politics
Ice Rocket : Amnesty, Border Security, Illegal Aliens, Immigration Reform, Lying Politicians, Politics
Flickr : Amnesty, Border Security, Illegal Aliens, Immigration Reform, Lying Politicians, Politics
Zooomr : Amnesty, Border Security, Illegal Aliens, Immigration Reform, Lying Politicians, Politics
Buzznet : Amnesty, Border Security, Illegal Aliens, Immigration Reform, Lying Politicians, Politics

The campaign stop was sponsored by South Carolina FairTax. The FairTax organization does not endorse candidates but FairTax.org has an interest in having Governor Huckabee speak because he has been the most vocal supporter of the FairTax among the Republican presidential candidates. This stop was no exception.

The Governor has clearly done his homework when it comes to the FairTax. He spoke at length about why he supports it, citing things like the end of the underground economy, the elimination of the IRS and all payroll taxes, the transparency of the proposed system and boost it would give to the US economy. He also pointed out that rules that now prevent churches and other non-profit organizations from endorsing candidates and supporting certain issues would be ended. These organizations would be an equal footing with all other organizations.

While the event was organized to talk about the FairTax, Governor Huckabee spoke on a number of other issues and fielded a number of questions, handling them deftly. When ask about the war on terror, the Governor was quick to correct the questioner. He said we are not fighting a war on terror, terror is a tactic. Rather, he said we are fighting a war against radical Islamic fascism. Huckabee said this is a theological war and our enemy believes they are called by God to convert or kill us which means there is no room for negotiating. He said it was naive to believe we can just leave them alone and they’ll leave us alone.

When asked about the problem of illegal immigration Huckabee said any solution had to start with border enforcement. He made the point that it was unrealistic to ask the American people to obey the laws when the government isn’t willing to enforce the law when it comes to the border. Regarding the current immigration reform legislation in Congress the Governor said he’d really like to get the deal illegal immigrants would be offered under the bill, allowing them to pay $2000 and be forgiven for back taxes.

One person asked what the Governor would do about education. He began by saying that as a former governor he was very aware that education was a state issue and went on to talk about raising standards, introducing competition and bringing back the concept of a liberal arts education that includes music and arts as well as math and science because it better teaches kids to think spatially and gives them more outlets for their creative energies.

I followed that question with another. I pointed out that he said education was a state issue and that, while Ronald Reagan wanted to eliminate the Department of Education, George Bush has increased its size exponentially. I asked what roll he saw for the federal government in education. He responded that the federal government’s roll should be one of a clearing hose for ideas, not one of requiring states to do anything. He said that the federal government should encourage states to innovate and then get out of their way.

When asked what he would do about AIDS and cancer the governor responded that the best thing to do was reform the tax system so people had more disposable income to contribute to causes they support. He pointed out that many people would love to donate today but can’t because it takes all they make to get by. If the tax code was more fair and people were paying less tax they’d have more to give. He said the same held true for other problems like poverty.

If you read this blog or even if you just got here for the first time you know I support Fred Thompson. I have a number of reasons for doing so, many that I’ve already written about on this blog. But I have to say, Governor Huckabee is impressing me more and more each day. He is gaining in the polls but I fear that he does not have a real shot at the nomination. When primary time rolls around here in South Carolina I will have to vote for the the candidate that I believe is the best choice from among those who can actually win. Should Huckabee be up there in that range when February ’08 comes, he might have my vote.

It’s still very early and I’m not prepared to endorse anyone but Thompson at this point. But a lot could happen between now and next February. I’ll be keeping a close eye on Mike Huckabee.