I saw on Bob Vander Plaats’ Twitter feed that Mike Huckabee spoke today at a South Carolina rally organized by Americans for Fair Taxation.

Of the many bad economic policy ideas Republicans have floated in recent years, the so-called “fair tax” has to be one of the worst. However, Huckabee’s embrace of the “fair tax” was a key factor in his surge of support among Iowa Republicans during the summer of 2007. It was one of the few issues that distinguished Huckabee from a crowded field of social conservatives.

If Huckabee does run for president again in 2012, it looks as if he’ll be running on the same economic platform. Will the “fair tax” become widely popular among Republicans outside Iowa by then? Your guess is as good as mine.

This thread is for any comments about Huckabee or tax policy. I would love to see some polling data on the Iowans who caucused for Huckabee last year. Are they committed to sticking with him if he runs again, or would they keep their minds open for Sarah Palin or perhaps some Republican who’s not well-known today? My impression from talking with a few Huckabee fans is that they still like him but would give serious consideration to the alternatives.

UPDATE: Iowa’s own Congressman Steve “10 Worst” King spoke at the same Fair Tax rally on Wednesday.

Skip this post if you think it’s too early to start talking about the 2012 presidential campaign just because Barack Obama hasn’t been inaugurated yet.

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, the winner of the 2008 Iowa caucuses, was back in the state this week in more ways than one. On Thursday he held book signings that attracted some 600 people in Cedar Rapids and an even larger crowd in a Des Moines suburb. According to the Des Moines Register, he “brushed off talk of a 2012 run” but

brought to Iowa a prescription for the national Republican Party, which he said has wandered from its founding principles.

“There is no such thing as fiscal conservativism without social conservativism,” Huckabee said. “We really should be governing by a moral code that we live by, which can be summed up in the phrase: Do unto others as you’d have them do unto you.”

Governing by that principle would lead to a more humane society, with lower crime and poverty rates, creating less demand on government spending, he said.

Huckabee was accompanied on Thursday by Bob Vander Plaats, who chaired his Iowa campaign for president. Vander Plaats has sought the Republican nomination for Iowa governor twice and is expected to run again in 2010. He recently came out swinging against calls for the Iowa GOP to move to the middle following its latest election losses. The Republican caucuses in the Iowa House and the Iowa Senate elected new leadership this month, and the state party will choose a new chairman in January. Vander Plaats is likely to be involved in a bruising battle against those who want the new chairman to reach out more to moderates.

Many Iowans who didn’t come to Huckabee’s book signings heard from him anyway this week, as he became the first politician to robocall Iowa voters since the November election. The calls ask a few questions in order to identify voters who oppose abortion rights, then ask them to donate to the National Right to Life Council. According to Iowa Independent, the call universe included some Democrats and no-party voters as well as registered Republicans. Raising money for an anti-abortion group both keeps Huckabee in front of voters and scores points with advocates who could be foot-soldiers during the next caucus campaign.

Meanwhile, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal made two stops in Iowa yesterday. Speaking in Cedar Rapids,

Jindal said America’s culture is one of the things that makes it great, but warned that its music, art and constant streams of media and communication have often moved in the wrong direction.

“There are things we can do as private citizens working together to strengthen our society,” he said. “Our focus does not need to be on fixing the (Republican) party,” he said. “Our focus needs to be on how to fix America.”

I’m really glad to hear he’s not worried about fixing the party that has record-high disapproval ratings, according to Gallup.

Later in the day, Jindal headlined a fundraiser in West Des Moines for the Iowa Family Policy Center. He said he wasn’t there to talk politics (as if what follows isn’t a politically advantageous message for that audience):

“It all starts with family and builds outward from there,” said the first-term Jindal, who was making his first visit to Iowa. “As a parent, I’m acutely aware of the overall coarsening of our culture in many ways.”

The governor said technology such as television and the Internet are conduits for corrupting children, which he also believes is an issue agreed upon across party lines.

“As governor, I can’t censor anything or take away anyone’s freedom of speech – nor do I want to if I could,” he said, “but I can still control what my kids watch, what they hear and what they read.”

The problem is that parents who want to control what their kids read often try to do so by limiting what other people’s kids can read. A couple near Des Moines

are fighting to restrict access to the children’s book “And Tango Makes Three” at East Elementary School in Ankeny. The book is the story of two male penguins who raise a chick together.

The Ankeny parents want it either removed or moved to the parents-only section, arguing that it promotes homosexuality and same-sex couples as normal and that children are too young to understand the subject.

Gay rights are sure to be an issue in the next Republican caucus campaign, especially if the Iowa Supreme Court rules in favor of marriage equality next year. The court will soon hear oral arguments in a gay marriage case.

For now, though, it’s enough for Jindal to speak generally about “family” and “culture” and raise his name recognition among the religious conservatives who have often crowned the winner in the Iowa caucuses.

A leading voice of Republican social conservatives in Iowa makes a surprising analogy in an op-ed piece from Tuesday’s Des Moines Register:

Jesus Christ, whom many Republicans claim to follow, summoned his followers to be either hot or cold toward Him, because a “lukewarm” commitment makes Him want to vomit. I believe this accurately reflects the mood of voters in the past several elections where Republicans have witnessed consecutive defeats.

We have followed the misguided advice of “experts” to abandon our principles and move to the middle so we can supposedly win. In essence, we have become “lukewarm” on life, on marriage, on the Second Amendment, on limited government, on balanced budgets, on lower taxes, on parental rights in educating and raising children, on faith, on family and on freedom. The net result is that voters have spit us out of their mouths. […]

The “elite” politicos and Iowa’s dwindling Republican establishment are now convening committees and strategy sessions to advise their “flock” to abandon the party’s principles and move even further to the middle if they hope to win again. The voter sees and tastes the “lukewarm” and compromising attempts to gain positions and power. The result is no trust, and the voter, like Christ, wants to throw up.

If Republicans are to win again, they must authentically embrace their core principles and effectively communicate a compelling message of bold-color conservatism that inspires faith, family and freedom.

That is no fringe politician talking. It’s Bob Vander Plaats, a businessman from northwest Iowa who ran for the 2002 gubernatorial nomination, was the Republican nominee for lieutenant governor in 2006, and chaired Mike Huckabee’s presidential campaign in Iowa.

If you click the link and read the whole piece by Vander Plaats, you won’t find any opinion poll data backing up his assertions about why Iowa voters have been rejecting Republicans.

National polling shows that the electorate as a whole thinks Republicans lost the 2006 and 2008 elections because they were too conservative. At the same time, Republicans are more likely to reach the same conclusions as Vander Plaats: their party is losing because its candidates have not been conservative enough.

I’ll be honest: I’d be happy to see the Republican Party of Iowa embrace Vander Plaats’ faith-based political strategy. I suspect that’s a path toward further losses for the GOP in 2010.

Quite a few GOP legislative candidates who put social issues front and center in their campaigns lost last Tuesday.

Vander Plaats does not name any specific candidates whose moderation allegedly made voters want to throw up. One who drew a lot of fire from the social conservative crowd was Mariannette Miller-Meeks, Republican candidate for the second Congressional district. She was a strong candidate, in my opinion, and it would be ridiculous to argue that she lost for not being conservative enough. This district has a partisan index of D+7. No Republican in the whole country represents a Congressional district with that much of a Democratic lean. Mike Castle of Delaware is the only one who comes close, and he is not a religious conservative firebrand.

The Vander Plaats piece is further evidence of the deep split in the Republican Party of Iowa. It won’t be easy to heal under any circumstances, but especially not if social conservatives insist on driving their party off a cliff.

Keeping in mind Mark Blumenthal’s cautionary note about exit polls, I am trying not to get too excited about these early exit poll numbers that point to a massive landslide win for Barack Obama in Iowa and elsewhere.

What are you doing tonight? Are you going to an election night party or watching the returns come in at home? I am making one of my favorite dishes for dinner, which I haven’t cooked in many months.

I’ll update periodically tonight as results come in.

Note: David Yepsen thinks McCain should have picked Mike Huckabee for vice president. I think that would have been a less-bad choice than Sarah Palin, but McCain still would have faced an enormous gender gap and problem with suburban moderates.

I still think the Republicans would have done better to nominate Mitt Romney, and that Romney must be kicking himself for not knocking out McCain earlier this year.

UPDATE: At around 6:30 pm I got a robocall from Barack Obama, reminding me that I still have a few hours to vote in this historic election, and asking me to go out and vote. A different voice then reminded me that polls are open until 9 pm and gave me a toll-free number that I could call to find my polling place.

Best. GOTV. ever.

UPDATE 2: Obama is only down a few points in Indiana, and several Democratic strongholds (like Gary and Indianapolis) have not reported. Also, exit polls suggest Obama is only losing white voters in Indiana by about 3 percent, which would be groundbreaking if true.

UPDATE 3: Doors are closing for McCain. Pennsylvania has been called for Obama, and he still looks like he has a chance to win Indiana and North Carolina. Ohio also seems to be turning blue.

In the Senate races, we have picked up seats in New Hampshire, Virginia and North Carolina. We probably are going to lose Kentucky. Looks like I was wrong about Georgia being the closest U.S. Senate race–Republican Saxby Chambliss seems to be leading there.

My husband got tired of the talking heads and switched over to the BBC America channel. It brought back too many traumatic memories for me–I stayed up all night in England watching the 2000 election returns on the BBC. It was around 3 am when they announced Florida was no longer in the Gore column, but was “too close to call.”

UPDATE 4: That’s all she wrote. Fox News just called Ohio for Obama. There is no mathematical way for McCain to get 270 electoral votes.

To put some icing on the cake, Obama leads in Florida with half the votes counted. McCain clings to narrow leads in Indiana and Virginia, with some heavily Democratic areas not counted yet.

Also, we picked up a fourth U.S. Senate seat (in New Mexico). Minnesota has been called for Obama, but that Senate race is too close to call.

UPDATE 5: No one is calling Florida yet, but things sure look good for Obama if you compare his share of the vote in the counties that are in to what John Kerry received four years ago.

We picked up at least one House seat in Florida and lost FL-16, but good riddance to him as far as I’m concerned. Let the record reflect that even though I am a yellow dog Democrat, I would not have voted for that creep Tim Mahoney in FL-16.

Virginia and North Carolina both appear within reach, but still too close to call.

CBS is showing an incredible celebratory scene at Howard University (a black college) in Washington.

UPDATE 6: I was putting my son to sleep and missed McCain’s concession speech. Mr. desmoinesdem said it was gracious.

Florida, Colorado and Virginia have been called for Obama. Only North Carolina, Indiana, Missouri and Montana haven’t been called yet, as far as I can tell.

UPDATE 7: Nice victory speech by Obama. He’s not going to rub it in the Republicans’ faces. He will reach out to them. I predict more than a token Republican or two will be in his cabinet–perhaps even Colin Powell.

North Carolina has been called for Obama.

I feel bad that Obama’s grandmother did not live to see this moment. However, he did get back to see her a couple of weeks ago, and she did cast an absentee ballot before she died. I’m sure she must have known that he was going to win.

Apparently Obama has offered Rahm Emanuel the job of White House chief of staff. That’s got to be a tempting offer, but if Emanuel stays in the House of Representatives he might become speaker someday.

I won’t be watching in prime time, but I plan to watch the repeat of Sarah Palin’s speech on C-SPAN later. I expect her to bring the house down in St. Paul. Those delegates are her kind of Republican.

Chatter away about what you’ve seen and heard today. I will update later.

UPDATE: I hope John McCain runs his new Obama/Palin comparison ad in every swing state:

MSNBC’s First Read has already fact-checked this ad:

It’s important to note that there are a few misleading assertions in the ad. For one, the “Journal” that’s cited is the conservative and partisan Wall Street Journal editorial page. Two, to call Obama the Senate’s most liberal senator is dubious. (The charge comes from the National Journal ranking Obama as having the most liberal Senate voting record of 2007, but he was nowhere near the top in 2005 and 2006; it’s also worth noting that Obama missed many Senate votes in 2007, so that ranking is a bit skewed.) And three, the charge that Obama “gave big oil billions in subsidies and giveaways” is misleading. (According to nonpartisan fact-checkers, the 2005 energy bill the McCain camp is referring to actual resulted in a net tax INCREASE on oil companies.)

Speaking of fact checks, First Read notes that Mike Huckabee was wrong to assert in his RNC speech that Sarah Palin received more votes running for mayor of Wasilla than Joe Biden received running for president. First Read says nearly 80,000 Americans voted for Biden for president.

I suspect that estimate is low. Probably somewhere between 5 and 10 percent of Iowa Democrats stood up for Biden at their precinct caucuses, although he only ended up with 1 percent of the delegates because of the 15 percent viability threshold. Also, Biden was not on the ballot in Michigan, but presumably some of those “uncommitted” voters preferred him.

The Democratic National Committee launched a fun website called JustMoreoftheSame.com. Check it out.

SECOND UPDATE: Democratic bloggers seem divided on whether Palin gave a great speech (to the audience she was trying to reach) or whether she was boring.

Josh Marshall had this to say about Rudy:

You’ll notice that Rudy Giuliani apparently ran too long and they had to drop the Palin mini-movie that was supposed to introduce her speech. Normally people get fired for goofs like that. They didn’t want Rudy’s blood and iron speech the day after Gustav so they bumped it until tonight. Big mistake. He positively dripped with a kind of curdled anger, the origin of which is difficult to grasp. But he actually seemed to get angrier and angrier as the speech progressed — off chopping his hands around, baring his teeth. I know the people in the hall loved it. But I think a lot of people will see it as whacked. Rancid. Curdled. Palin’s speech ended up being much more partisan than I expected. But that was added to by the fact that she had to start her speech while the auditorium was still awash in the teeth-gnashing froth ginned up by Rudy’s speech.

THIRD UPDATE: I caught most of the repeat of Rudy’s speech. I cannot imagine that helped McCain with anyone but the most hard-core Republicans. Talk about mean-spirited. All those loud “boos” from the audience made the crowd seem mean as well. And it was surreal to see Hizzoner from New York make fun of Obama for being too cosmopolitan. I agree with RF–if millions of Americans caught that speech while tuning in to see Palin, Obama will benefit.

Also, it was bizarre to have the camera cutting to Cindy McCain holding baby Trig during Rudy’s speech. Most young infants don’t like being passed around and held by total strangers.

FOURTH UPDATE: Mr. desmoinesdem and I watched the repeat of Palin. She did a lot better than Rudy, obviously. I’m sure she generated a lot of enthusiasm among the GOP base. We have no idea how that speech sounded to a typical undecided voter. Some of her culture war language and criticism of Obama sounded a little petty to me, but I’m obviously not the target audience. She lied again about opposing the Bridge to Nowhere, but will she get called on that? The visuals at the end of her holding baby Trig with the rest of her family on stage were great.

I think Obama and Biden should ignore her and focus their fire on McCain.

Rumor has it that John McCain will officially announce his running mate tomorrow in Ohio. The Republicans will likely leak the news this evening so that Barack Obama’s acceptance speech at Mile High Stadium’s Invesco Field won’t dominate all the media commentary.

Who’s it gonna be?

I still think “Biden crimps McCain’s VP choice.”

My best guess is that McCain will pick Mitt Romney. The downside is that the ticket can be ridiculed as “Rich and Richer,” but the upside is that Romney is seasoned enough to go head-to-head with Biden in a debate. I can’t say the same for other possible choices such as Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal or Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty.

Also, I think I saw one poll suggesting Romney would help McCain in Florida, where recent polls show Obama and McCain within the margin of error.

Some people in the McCain campaign are supposedly pushing for Joe Lieberman to be the running mate. Although he still caucuses with Senate Democrats, he has been campaigning for McCain and using Republican talking points against Obama.

I can’t imagine McCain would dare to pick Lieberman. The beltway media would love the bipartisan-looking ticket, but the Republican base would go ballistic if McCain picked someone pro-choice. Although I don’t like Lieberman, his voting record is solidly Democratic.

The religious right doesn’t even want former Pennsylvania Governor and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge on the ticket, because he is pro-choice. At least Ridge is a lifelong Republican.

Open Left user leshrac55 pointed me toward this Huffington Post article about how Karl Rove has asked Lieberman to withdraw his name as a possible running mate, but Lieberman declined to do so.

(UPDATE: More rumors that McCain  really wants to pick Lieberman.)

I’ve seen no sign that McCain has ever considered Mike Huckabee for VP, but after watching Huckabee on The Colbert Report last night, I’m more convinced than ever that we haven’t heard the last from him. He’ll be running for president in 2012 or 2016 for sure. I disagree with many of his views, but I give Huckabee a lot of credit for praising Michelle Obama’s speech and pointing out the absurdity of conservative pundit spin about Hillary Clinton’s speech.

Also, I don’t recall hearing any Republican besides Huckabee express pride that this country has nominated a black man for president. On Colbert’s show, he said that while he won’t vote for Obama and wouldn’t like to see him become president, he remembers growing up with racism in the deep South, and he’s glad Obama’s race didn’t prevent him from winning the nomination.

I have heard some speculation that McCain will pick a woman, most likely Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison now that Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is mired in scandal.

What do you think?

There’s a lot of chatter about John McCain picking a running mate very soon to redirect the media’s attention from Barack Obama’s foreign trip.

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin’s star has fallen because of revelations that she used the levers of state power to try to punish a former brother-in-law. Why do elected officials think they can get away with stuff like this? I suppose the answer is that many do get away with it, but it’s still bizarre that she would abuse the power of her office with so much on the line for her.

If McCain wants to pick a woman, Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison seems like the most logical choice.

Earlier this year there was some buzz about former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina as a possible VP choice for McCain, but that must be out of the question now. It was Fiorina’s comment about insurance companies covering Viagra but not birth control pills that led to a embarrassing exchange between a reporter and McCain on the same subject. Planned Parenthood Action Fund is using part of that footage in a television ad aimed at women in six states and the Washington, DC area:

If McCain wants a governor, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana or Charlie Crist of Florida seem like the leading options. (UPDATE: Jindal took himself out of the running today.) For reasons I don’t understand, Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota doesn’t seem to be mentioned often anymore.

I find it interesting that I haven’t ever seen any suggestion that Mike Huckabee is being considered. He was in Des Moines ten days ago for the Iowa GOP state convention and acted like a team player, urging support for McCain in his speech to Republican delegates. It would seem wise for McCain to at least pretend that he is taking Huckabee seriously, although maybe that would just give Huck’s supporters false hopes.

Some pundits are betting on Mitt Romney because of the money his people can raise. Also, his own presidential run makes him more of a seasoned campaigner and known quantity than some of the governors being mentioned.

Not much news on Obama’s search for a running mate has emerged lately. It seems prudent for him to wait to see what McCain does and how the public and media react before making a decision.

Bill Richardson made some good comments about McCain’s “whining” about not getting an op-ed piece published in the New York Times.

I still find it weird that there’s no sign Wes Clark or Joe Biden were even asked to submit information to the committee that is vetting Obama’s options.

I would be shocked if Obama were seriously considering Hillary Clinton at this point. I still think she wouldn’t be a bad choice for him, but given his small lead over McCain in national tracking polls and some of the key states he lost to Hillary Clinton in the primaries, Obama probably believes he doesn’t need her on the ticket. It’s obvious he would prefer not to have to deal with the Clintons.

Can you imagine how frustrated Mitt Romney must be right now?

I submit to you that if Romney’s opposition research team had discovered that John McCain didn’t pay property taxes on one of his seven homes for more than four years, or that McCain didn’t know the price of gasoline and didn’t think that it was important for him to know it, Romney would be the Republican presidential nominee.

He didn’t lose to McCain in Florida and California by much, and Mike Huckabee didn’t lose to McCain in South Carolina by much either. With most GOP primaries being winner-take-all, McCain would probably have been out of the running if primary voters had known about his tax problems.

I so wanted Romney to win the nomination. I think either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton would have beaten him in a crushing landslide. Whatever the pundits thought about his telegenic nature, he came across as incredibly phony to me. A lot of evangelical Christians would have stayed home or voted for third-party candidates rather than vote for him because his change of heart on abortion didn’t seem authentic.

I’m surprised his well-funded campaign didn’t figure out that McCain defaulted on California property taxes.  

The conservative pundits who favored Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani or Fred Thompson for president are fully on board with John McCain, but he still has a big problem with other elements of the conservative base.

Exhibit A: the results from the GOP primary in Pennsylvania last week. More than two months after it became clear that McCain would be the GOP nominee, he gained just under 73 percent of the vote from Pennsylvania Republicans. Ron Paul got almost 16 percent (more than 128,000 votes), and Mike Huckabee got about 11 percent (more than 91,000 votes).

Think about that. More than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania went to the trouble of voting for someone other than McCain last Tuesday.

McCain did the worst in conservative counties where Republicans need to run up big margins to have any hope of winning statewide in Pennsylvania:

Mr. McCain’s worst showing was in Juniata County, near the center of the state. He received only about 59 percent of the vote, while Mr. Paul took nearly 28 percent. In 2004, President Bush won Juniata with 72 percent of the vote.

Mr. Bush had his biggest win that year in southern Fulton County, with 76 percent of the vote. Mr. McCain picked up 71 percent there, but Mr. Huckabee had 21 percent, his highest percentage in the state.

The conservative Washington Times has more bad news for McCain:

The McCain campaign has said it is on the same timeline for uniting the Republican Party as then-Gov. George W. Bush in 2000. In that year, Mr. Bush won 73 percent of the Republican vote in Pennsylvania’s primary, held April 4. His biggest challenger was McCain himself, who won 23 percent, despite having dropped out of the campaign weeks earlier.

But McCain was a far more imposing figure in 2000 than Paul and Huckabee were in 2008, and McCain has also had more time before Pennsylvania to consolidate his lead than Bush had in 2000. To continue to post less-than-dominant showings will only prolong talk that McCain has more work to do within his own party.

And to truly match Bush’s 2000 performance may be out of the question for McCain. Out of 18.5 million votes cast in the primaries so far he has won 43.2 percent. By contrast, Bush finished 2000 with 62 percent of the Republican primary vote.

Then I learned from this diary by sarahlane that Ron Paul says he doesn’t plan to campaign for McCain, and Paul supporters outnumbered McCain supporters at the Nevada Republican Party’s state convention last weekend.

Finally, the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch has filed a complaint against McCain with the Federal Elections Commission. If you’re too young to remember Judicial Watch, this group repeatedly attacked Bill Clinton’s administration in the 1990s.

Click the link to read the MyDD post by Jonathan Singer. Judicial Watch’s FEC complaint relates to a possibly illegal in-kind contribution from a foreign national to McCain’s campaign.

As I’ve mentioned before, prominent bloggers have filed a separate FEC complaint relating to McCain’s failure to abide by the spending limits imposed on candidates who agree to take public matching funds during the presidential primaries.

Oh, my. Watch this ad Mike Huckabee is currently running in Michigan (hat tip to noneed4thneed).

Key line:

I believe most Americans want their next President to remind them of they guy they work with, not the guy who laid them off.

Michigan is must-win for Mitt Romney, whose father used to be governor of the state. That line should be devastating for him.

Huckabee has long been despised by the Club for Growth set. He wisely decided that as a presidential candidate, he would do better to advocate for middle-class interests rather than pandering to the business wing of the GOP. Noneed4thneed put up this amazing clip of Huckabee on Hardball a few months ago. It’s worth watching. I still can’t believe a Republican presidential candidate is willing to say his party should stop being “a wholly-owned subsidiary of Wall Street and the corporations.”

If you missed this a few weeks ago, take Politico’s “populist pop quiz” and try to guess which quotations are from Huckabee and which are from John Edwards.

I do worry about the prospect of running against Huckabee. He is a strong communicator, and he could pull Reagan Democrats his way.

On the other hand, a lot of moderate Republicans would probably vote Democrat if he were the nominee. Also, it shouldn’t be hard for our candidate to make the public understand what a truly awful idea the “fair tax” is.

Well, well, well. The conservative establishment loves when evangelicals vote Republican, but apparently they don’t love it when evangelicals plan to vote for one of their own.

Blogger Jeff Fuller, who supports Mitt Romney, put up this incredibly long list of “conservative/GOP icons” who have criticized Mike Huckabee lately. (hat tip to Jerome Armstrong)

Will Huckabee be able to withstand so much incoming fire?

By the way, a homeschooler who supports Huckabee tells me that Ron Paul supporters are circulating the hit piece I referenced a few days ago, which claims Huckabee is no friend to homeschoolers.

Mike Huckabee’s rapid rise in the polls, both national as well as early-state, may have come a bit too soon. Romney has been running negative ads against him, and other information that does not cast Huckabee in a flattering light is trickling into the media discourse.

Mike Allen is reporting on the Politico blog that Huckabee is still earning an undisclosed amount of money from speaking fees while campaigning for president. It’s nothing like the kind of cash Rudy Giuliani pulls in, but could this story damage Huckabee’s image?

Meanwhile, below the radar, a hit piece claiming Huckabee is “no friend of homeschoolers” is apparently making the rounds on conservative homeschoolers’ blogs.

I’m betting Huckabee can ride this stuff out, at least in Iowa. But probably he would have been better served by peaking a few weeks later. What do you think?

Merry Christmas to all of the Bleeding Heartland readers who celebrate the holiday!

And for those of you who are Jewish like me, enjoy the day off and maybe pick up some ethnic food.

Speaking of which, it turns out that Mike Huckabee’s family has a tradition of going out for Chinese food on Christmas Eve–who’d have thunk it?

Link is here:

http://www.politico.com/news/s…

They say that a great political ad gets the message across even if you watch it with the sound turned down. Check out the bookshelf that looks like a white cross in the background behind Huckabee as he wishes us all a merry Christmas:

(hat tip to Don at Cyclone Conservatives)

I thought with this year winding down, I'd make some predictions for the year ahead before the caucus craziness got any more out-of-hand. These are just my gut feeling on things, so don't take it too seriously.

1. The Iowa Caucus will show less than 5% difference between the top three Democrat candidates.   

    Everything I know tells me that this is going to be an incredibly close race. For one, I think John Edwards is being under-represented in the polls, due to his strength in the rural counties. Therefore, the caucus can go to any of the top three at this point. I predict the top three candidates will garner between 75-80% of the total, with no more than 5% difference between first and third. 

2. Mike Huckabee will decisively win the Iowa Caucus   

    Everything suggests that nothing can stop the Huck truck at this point. All these past, uh, we'll call them “opinions”, haven't stuck to him in a way that will turn off significant numbers of Iowa caucusgoers. He'll win, and win big.

3. Ron Paul will run as a third-party candidate.

    Ron Paul will have a strong showing in Iowa, New Hampshire, and nationwide. Not strong enough to win any individual state, let alone the nomination, but it will show that there is a big support base for him. I can't say whether he'll sign on with an established third party or start his own, but he will definitely continue the race.

4. Democrats will have solid gains in the House and Senate.

    This one's a gimme. I'm going to say we pick up 4 in the Senate and 6 in the House. Not an Earth-shaking realignment, but solid gains nonetheless.

5. Mike Bloomberg will not run for President.

    Through some backroom dealings, Mike Bloomberg will find himself dissuaded of any notion to run for President in 2008. As a result of this, I wouldn't be surprised to see him pop up in some shape or form down the line in the form of a cabinet nomination or ambassadorship, no matter which party wins.

The Des Moines Register ran an interesting piece today about the network of conservative Christian home-schoolers who are going to volunteer countless hours for Huckabee in the coming weeks: Home-schoolers propel Huckabee

I have secular progressive friends who are home-schoolers, but they seem divided among several candidates, and I don’t think they are contributing significantly to any Democratic campaign the way conservatives are to Huckabee.

I spend a little time on non-political blogs related to mothering/parenting (not posting as “desmoinesdem”). I noticed support for Huckabee on a few of those blogs back in the spring and summer. For instance, see this Christian home-schooler’s blog Making Home. It’s full of Bible interpretation and marriage tips for Christian wives and mothers, with a constant link to a pro-Huckabee site on the right side of the screen.

By the way, you may recall that Making Home is the blog where I was banned from commenting after only a few months. I had to laugh–I’ve hardly ever been troll-rated in several years at Daily Kos and MyDD.

It is still a tight race on the Democratic side between Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama, while on the Republican side Mike Huckabee has surged past Mitt Romney to take a commanding lead in Iowa according to the latest Newsweek Iowa Caucus polling released this afternoon.

Here are the Democratic results among likely caucus-goers, with all Democrats polled in parentheses (Republicans are below the fold):

Barack Obama 35% (29%)

Hillary Clinton 29% (30%)

John Edwards 18% (21%)

Bill Richardson 9% (11%)

Joe Biden 4% (2%)

Dennis Kucinich * (1%)

Chris Dodd * (*)

Other candidate 0% (0%)

Undecided 5% (6%)

Only 395 were identified as likely caucus-goers, meaning that the margin of error among those likely caucus-goers is +/-6%.  If you take the MOE for all 673 polled, it is still +/-5%.  Clearly, Obama comes across as the front-runner from the looks of the polls, with Edwards still hanging out.  I’d say that the polling doesn’t accurately reflect Edwards’ stance all that much and we all know that his 2004 infrastructure is still largely in place giving him quite the advantage in that arena.

A couple of things to take from the results.  First of all, it looks like contrary to popular belief Barack Obama may be doing better with those who are already more likely to attend their precinct caucus.  Thus, expanding the universe of potential caucus-goers for Obama might actually be more detrimental.  Same goes for Joe Biden.  However, when you include all of those Democrats polled Clinton, Edwards, and Richardson all gain.  To me that means: a) Obama has more committed supporters ready to say they’re going to caucus, or b) Obama’s support in the so-called “expansion universe” of potential caucus-goers isn’t as strong as the conventional wisdom says.  These are both assumptions on my part and there is always room for other interpretation, but that’s what I’m seeing here.

The second specific point about the poll was that they polled second choices as well, which Bleeding Heartland reader RF noted earlier this week in a comment.  These totals are going to add to more than 100%, but here are the net first/second choice support totals for the candidates, with likely caucus-goers as the first number and all Democrats polled in parentheses:

Barack Obama 55% (50%)

Hillary Clinton 50% (51)

John Edwards 45% (44%)

Bill Richardson 16% (17%)

Joe Biden 11% (8%)

Chris Dodd 2% (1%)

Dennis Kucinich * (1%)

Other candidate * (*)

Undecided 5% (6%)

Again, to me this confirms that the race in Iowa is still a strong three-way race between Clinton, Edwards, and Obama.  The gap in first/second choice support is only 10% among likely caucus-goers (and 7% among the rest of Democrats) while there is a 17% gap among likely’s in first choice and 9% among all Democrats.  Things are still tightly wound among Iowa Democrats.

You can see the full poll results here in PDF form courtesy of Newsweek.  Their story on the poll is here.

Continuing my series of putting odds to things, I thought I'd look at the Republician presidential race. It only seems fair to speculate on the enemy's position while we work on our own…

Again, the scenario I envision is one in which one of the current top three candidates wins the nomination: Giuliani, Romney, or Huckabee. A further stipulation is that whoever wins will not pick any of the other members of the Big Three. So no Rudy/Romney tickets, folks. I had considered Huckabee a top VP candidate, but I'm taking him out of the running since he's sharpening his attacks and becoming a serious contender.

3-1 Fred Thompson The consummate good 'ol boy, Fred is the perfect southern comfort for Guliani or Romney's Yankee personalities. Plus, while Thompson's been slinging a little mud, he hasn't seemed to make any serious enemies yet. His only caveat is that Huckabee doesn't need another down-home southerner on his ticket. Goes best with: Giuliani, Romney

5-1 Charlie Crist Three words. Florida. Florida. Florida. This guy might represent the single biggest “known unknown” in politics today. If he is Veeped, Florida becomes much, much, much harder for a Democrat to win. Yet, the guy is a total enigma–and refuses to tip his hat to any one candidate. Goes best with: Guliani, Romney, Huckabee

7-1 Tim Pawlenty He's the popular Governor of Minnesota and a handsome, young Republican face. He may even deliver Minnesota and put Iowa and Wisconsin in play for the Republicans. However, he has little name recognition as it stands now, and the I-35 collapse happened on his watch–a potential target. Goes best with: Giuliani, Romeny, Huckabee

7-1 Duncan Hunter Strong on immigration, tough on defense. From the sunny state of Cully-for-neea, Hunter would lend credibility to a candidate lacking on these issues. Not to name any names, *cough* Romney *cough*. Plus, “Hunter” would look really good on those signs. Still, he's going nowhere fast in his own race. Goes best with: Giuliani, Romney, Huckabee

10-1 John Boehner He's a fresh face from a swing state. Also, he's been unfailingly loyal to the administration, and Republicans reward loyalty above all else. However, he got a little bit burned on the Foley and Abramoff scandals. Goes best with: Giuliani, Romney

10-1 John McCain War hero. Experienced. Moderate. McCain certainly deserves some recognition from the party after all these years. But his “radical” immigration stance and his “weak” anti-torture stance might turn off key components of the base. Not to mention that he would be the oldest VP ever elected. Goes best with: Huckabee

20-1 John Roberts He's the squeaky clean, likeable and popular Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Going from the Court to the White House is a stretch, but it's not impossible. He just might be the out-of-the-box candidate the party needs. Of course, it is somewhat of a suicide choice. If the ticket would win, they could appoint another moderate republican to the court. If they lose, they lose the White House, the Congress, and the Supreme Court in one year. A big gamble for sure. Goes best with: Giuliani, Romney, Huckabee

1,000,000-1 Ron Paul Ron Paul would never agree to be any of these guys' VP. But if I include him, I can tag this diary “Ron Paul” and maybe someone will read it for a change.

I just got a robocall paid for by “Common Sense Issues,” whatever that is. It was a brief survey with questions intended to generate interest in Mike Huckabee. The voice said the phone number at the end of the call too fast for me to catch it. The voice referred me to this website, “Trust Huckabee”:

http://www.trusthuckabee.com

These were the questions, as closely as I can remember them. I may have missed some–I didn’t have a pen and paper handy–but I sat down at the computer within a minute of the call ending, so my memory is fresh.

Do you plan to participate in the Republican caucus on January 3?

Do you plan to participate in the Democratic caucus on January 3?

On the issue of abortion, do you consider yourself pro-life?

Do you believe that a marriage should be between one man and one woman?

[I can’t remember the wording, but it was something about Bill Clinton praising Mike Huckabee saying everyone likes him, followed by a question about whether that makes me want to learn more about Mike Huckabee.]

Does the fact that Mike Huckabee raised his state’s education rating from 49th to [can’t remember, some number in the 20s] make you interested in learning more about Mike Huckabee?

Does the fact that for the last 19 years there has been either a Bush or a Clinton in the White House concern you? [I think that was the question–it may have been: does the possibility of having either a Bush or a Clinton in the White House for 27 years concern you?]

Those are all the questions I can remember. The voice was talking very fast at the end, encouraging me to go to www.trusthuckabee.com, saying the call was paid for by Common Sense Issues and giving a phone number with a 719 area code. (I couldn’t catch the whole number, and I don’t have caller ID.)

I don’t know if I would have gotten more questions if I had answered some of the robocall questions differently (e.g. if I had said yes, I identify as pro-life). Probably the questions would have been the same no matter what I said, though.

I am not an expert on campaign finance law. I noticed this disclaimer on the Trust Huckabee website:

Trust Huckabee is a grassroots independent organization committed to educating voters to support Governor Mike Huckabee for the Republican Nomination for President of the United States. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.

Since the robocall did not explicitly ask me to caucus for Huckabee, I assume there is no potential FEC problem. But I also saw this on the Trust Huckabee website:

Governor Huckabee can win the Iowa Caucuses if you commit yourself to attending your Precinct Caucus and become a Precinct Captain. It is all about numbers and organization. We have the numbers, we have the names, we need to build the organization.

Join Now!

Can an independent group recruit precinct captains for Huckabee’s presidential campaign? Do FEC disclosure requirements come into play here? Any election lawyers in the house?

UPDATE: Daily Kos user “omegajew” got the same call and reminded me that there was an anti-gay marriage question in there, so I added that to the list above. I can’t remember the exact wording, but what I wrote is a decent paraphrase.

We've long known that Sam Brownback was not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but his possible endorsement of Rudy Giuliani would be one of the dumbest things I can imagine him doing.

Haven't seen anything on this yet at Cyclone Conservatives or The Real Sporer blog, but the gang at TPM has been all over the story:

Brownback said a few days ago that he has become “much more comfortable” with Rudy after getting assurances from Giuliani that he would appoint only “strict constructionist” judges:

http://tpmelectionce…

Brownback's former political director in Iowa says Sam may endorse Rudy as the candidate with the best chance to beat Hillary:

http://tpmelectionce…

The Family Research Council is very upset and says conservatives will desert the GOP if Rudy is the nominee:

http://tpmelectionce…

Endorsing Giuliani would be a really dumb move by Brownback. He campaigned as the guy with consistently pro-life views, and had support from many social conservatives, especially Catholics. To turn around and back Rudy is a slap in the face to them.

Presumably Brownback is angling for a position in Rudy's cabinet, or even the VP slot, by toying with an early endorsement. But let's get real. Are GOP primary voters going to nominate Rudy after seeing the ads his rivals will run against him? I know Fox News is in the tank for Rudy (he and Roger Ailes go way back), but they won't be able to save him from the ads showing Rudy calling himself the “liberal” mayor of New York, ads showing Rudy in drag, ads showing Rudy talk about being pro-choice and supporting state funding for abortion.

Not to mention the fact that Bernard Kerik is about to go on trial on federal charges–this is the guy Rudy pushed Bush to appoint as Homeland Security secretary. Great judgment there!

And who will be the first of Rudy's opponents to run this ad? When Rudy was appointed to the Iraq Study Group (also known as the Baker-Hamilton commission), he never bothered to show up for a single meeting. He was too busy giving $100,000 speeches to cash in on his 9/11 celebrity.

Romney, McCain and Thompson are not just going to hand this nomination to Rudy. They will fight him for it. 

And even if Rudy could get the nomination, I think he is far from the GOP's best candidate against Hillary. As I have written, Mike Huckabee is the one we need to be worried about–especially if Hillary is our nominee.

There are two obvious plays for Brownback. The safest one is not to endorse at all. The risky one would be to endorse Huckabee. He's a longshot who lacks money and faces the wrath of the Club for Growth. But at least endorsing him would show some principle and would upset social conservatives less than endorsing Rudy.

We'll see what Brownback is made of. 

I've long agreed with Kos that Mike Huckabee is the guy in the Republican field I'd least like to see us face in the general. Probably thanks to his experience as a pastor, he connects well with people both in person and on television. He doesn't have the baggage of the Republicans in Congress (voting in lockstep with Bush on Iraq and everything else). He has that inspiring personal story about overcoming obesity, a non-partisan issue that is salient for millions of Americans. He has executive experience. Particularly against Hillary, I think Huckabee spells trouble for us.

That said, I am not sure whether Huckabee's surprisingly strong showing in the Iowa GOP straw poll is good or bad for Democrats.

As you probably know, Huckabee finished second with 2,587 votes, or about 18 percent of the total cast in Ames. I think most of us would agree with Don at Cyclone Conservatives, who called Huckabee the big winner of the day.

His campaign spent about $150,000 on the event, including about 1,850 tickets they purchased for supporters. The group Americans for Fair Taxation claimed credit for Huckabee's strong showing; they spent about as much as the Huckabee campaign on the straw poll and bused about 1,500 people to the event (including about 500 who could vote).

Asked by Iowa Independent what helped Huckabee in Ames, his campaign manager Chip Saltsman said, “We talked a lot about the fair tax.”

In the comments section below that Iowa Independent story, Polk County Republican Party chairman Ted Sporer agreed:

Huckabee's committment to the Fair Tax is one of the reasons he is surging in our primaries because it is a specific tangible policy that addresses a specific policy itch in the Republican shoe, a dislike of hte convoluted tax code.

This is a mainstream R issue and Huckabee has found a simple and attractive way to address the issue and to stand for something tangible. 

Words matter.

Huckabee only edged out Sam Brownback (who, like Mitt Romney opposes the fair tax proposal) by about 400 votes. Take away those Iowans bused in by Americans for Fair Taxation and you'd have a very different story coming out of Ames.

What interests me most about Huckabee's showing is that he did it despite attack ads that the Club for Growth has been running against him on Iowa television stations. Presumably, they were trying to take him out of the running before the straw poll, and they clearly failed miserably.

Political insiders and junkies have known for a long time that the Club for Growth hates Huckabee, but their very public spanking of him (comparing his record as a tax-raising governor to Bill Clinton) seems to have prompted Huckabee to ratchet up his rhetoric against the business wing of the GOP.

Check out this clip from Hardball last week (hat tip to noneed4thneed).

I've watched it several times, and I still can't believe that a Republican went on tv accusing others of letting the GOP become “a wholly-owned subsidiary of Wall Street and the corporations” that have let workers make money for their companies and then end up in the poorhouse. 

Huckabee says it's unacceptable for CEOs to make 500 times the salary of their workers and get huge bonuses while they drive their companies into bankruptcy. He talks about coming from a working class family and how he remembers his dad struggling.

I mean, does he sound like he's channeling John Edwards, or what? No wonder the Club for Growth hates this guy.

Now, I repeat that I would not want to face Huckabee in the general. He would excite the GOP religious base and not come across as too objectionable to independents. He is a social conservative, but he comes across as less scary than, say, Brownback.

But when I think about Huckabee making the top tier, getting more mainstream media coverage while portraying the GOP as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Wall Street and big business, I smile.

Having a Republican reinforce this stereotype will reach many voters who would tune out a Democrat making similar allegations.

You know how the liberal blogosphere goes nuts whenever a prominent Democrat lends support to a right-wing frame about Democrats? Like, when someone like Barack Obama says that all too often Democrats have seemed hostile to mentioning religion in public?

Well, think how mad the other Republicans will be if Huckabee keeps carrying the “GOP in bed with big business” frame to the mass public. What has he got to lose? The Club for Growth is attacking him anyway. There are a decent number of working class or struggling middle class Republicans who will probably like his populist message. 

I've always felt that part of the Republicans' success is that they don't campaign against each other by repeating negative stereotypes about the party. You don't hear them saying, “I'm not like all those other Republicans who just carry water for big business and screw the little guy.”

Huckabee just may be about to prove me wrong.

And if the Club for Growth and other candidates do crush his candidacy, it will only demonstrate the fact that business interests really do get their way with today's GOP.

The big risk for Democrats, of course, is that if Huckabee catches fire and manages to win the nomination, we'll have a much harder time making an “economic fairness” case against him.  

What do the rest of you think?