Bring It On! Election 2008

The Republican Party remains unconvinced by their front running presidential candidates. This weekend religious conservatives are holding a Values Voter Summit in Washington DC…hoping to identify a candidate they can support. Despite the many pundits who believe Rudi Giuliani is headed towards the Republican Party’s nomination, I have my suspicions that we will see Mike Huckabee emerge as a viable alternative. Here’s the basis of my speculation.

1. Giuliani will not be able to undo the damage done to his prospects by the strident opposition of evangelical leaders like James Dobson. While polling indicates he has support from Christian conservatives, the same polling suggests that support is soft and therefore vulnerable.

2. Romney may be willing to say whatever evangelicals want to hear but when its all said and done, he remains a Mormon and that’s a hurdle far too many evangelicals will not be able to overcome.

3. Thompson created high expectations by delaying his announcement to run and his performance since entering the race has been disappointing. His opposition to a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage put an exclamation mark on the disappointment.

4. McCain may have the best track record on social issues but his history with evangelicals has been confrontational and I suspect many GOP voters simply don’t think he can win the general election. The fact that he supported the President on immigration and is so closely aligned with the President on the war in Iraq doesn’t help his cause with independent voters.

5. The anticipated withdrawal of Sam Brownback eliminates one of Huckabee’s primary rivals for the evangelical vote…as well as the votes of conservative Catholics. The fact that Brownback believes the GOP nominee must be “a pro-life candidate” suggests the Kansas Senator will not support Giuliani.

So how does Huckabee enter the top tier and become a legitimate contender? Partly by who he is…inclusive of his Christian credentials…and partly be default especially if he can succeed in becoming the protest candidate in the Iowa primary. The challenge Huckabee faces is formidable. He has his detractors amongst traditional conservatives and they include the influential Richard Viguerie. My own belief is that Viguerie favors establishing a third party nominee and is therefore doing his best to disqualify the existing GOP candidates.

Notwithstanding the opposition Huckabee faces from the evangelical elite, his down home approach appeals to the average church goer in the GOP…individuals who will ultimately decide the winner of the Iowa primary. Huckabee may also be the best speaker in the field and his conciliatory tone plays well with those evangelicals who fear another abrasive candidate like George Bush may turn off moderate conservatives and independents who have grown weary of the unyielding gridlock. The fact that Huckabee holds true to the GOP social agenda but seeks to enact it with civility and a seemingly sincere style is also appealing.

If one looks at the criticisms of Huckabee from the likes of Viguerie; they may represent differences on issues that will play well with middle class Republicans…voters who many believe have supported the GOP even though doing so may have not been in their own best interest. The fact that the GOP has had success in painting prior Democratic candidates as elitists may have actually opened the eyes of these mainstream Republicans who now feel they may have been used by their own GOP elite.

What evangelicals are beginning to realize is that elitism exists throughout the political system and the promises they received from the GOP on social issues may have been nothing more than the means to guarantee their votes. Viguerie’s criticisms of Huckabee may actually represent the other concerns that impact values voters…interests which are beginning to resonate and may influence their future votes…votes that may be cast for men like Mike Huckabee who support their values but do more than provide lip service. A few of Viguerie’s objections to Huckabee follow.

Not only did he increase Arkansas’s minimum wage from $5.15 to $6.25 per hour, but he even encouraged the U.S. Congress to do the same thing nationally.

He supported President George W. Bush’s 2003 massive expansion of Medicare by adding a prescription-drug benefit.

He called the No Child Left Behind Act, which increased federal education spending by 48 percent and expanded big-government control of local schools, “the greatest education reform effort of the federal government in my lifetime.”

The GOP elite seems to believe they can take values voters for granted with little more than stating the right things with regards to social issues. However, these voters may be ready to embrace a candidate who not only shares their religious values but will support programs that provide them with other important economic considerations. Truth be told, many values voters who have repeatedly supported the GOP received little benefit from the Bush administration’s policies (think tax cuts). A candidate like Mike Huckabee may offer a much more palatable formula.

A number of stars have to align for Huckabee to emerge as a viable contender…but he can look to the path taken to the presidency by another former Arkansas Governor. The fact that Bill Clinton, frequently regarded as one of the best political minds in recent history, cites Huckabee as the second tier GOP candidate to watch suggests that those stars may be more malleable than we may realize.

Cross-posted at Thought Theater

Pundits have been urging Mitt Romney to pull a John Kennedy - to take the issue of his religious affiliation head-on. Second only to Giuliani in fundraising, and in the lead in the GOP polls in New Hampshire and Iowa, Romney seems to have just two main negatives to overcome; his “flip-flops” on social issues and his Mormonism, and they may be related.

Former Bush advisor Dan Bartlett, in a moment of brutal candor in front of the US Chamber of Commerce, recently said, “The Mormon issue is a real problem in the South, it’s a real problem in other parts of the country… People are not going to step out and say, ‘I have a problem with Romney because he’s Mormon.’ What they’re going to say is he’s a flip-flopper.” He has two good points. One is that what people tell pollers often differs from what they do at the polls, and Romney is, in fact, a flip-flopping Mormon.

A Salt Lake Tribune editorial yesterday had this advice for Romney:

“Mitt Romney appears to have decided that to run successfully for president of the United States, he must run away from the issue of his Mormonism. He’s wrong about that. …

JFK did it in a celebrated speech to Southern Baptist leaders in Houston. Mitt Romney should make a similar statement. …

JFK accomplished that by emphasizing his belief in an America where separation of church and state is absolute, …”

(emphasis mine)

Unlike when JFK made that famous speech in 1960 to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, today most religious, southern, conservative voters are Republicans, and conservatives do not like or wish to abide by Jefferson’s “Wall of Separation,” like most Americans today. Back in 1960 Kennedy was lauded for his stance. Here in 2007, as the The Carpetbagger Report put it the other day, “If Romney were to publicly argue that “the separation of church and state is absolute,” he would be booed aggressively by conservative audiences that want more intermingling between religion and government, not less.” This is going to be tricky for Romney.

There are more contrasts to face as well. For starters, there are and have always been a lot more Catholics (about 25%) than Mormons (around 1 1/2%) in America. As the Salt Lake Tribune noted, “…polling about Americans’ religious beliefs and ideas shows that only about half of Americans have a favorable view of Mormonism, but about the same percentage know little or nothing about the faith,” but, “Those same polls show that Americans who actually know Mormons have a higher opinion of the faith than those who don’t.” But how many Americans can get to know only 1 1/2% of their fellow Americans, mostly concentrated in Utah?

The Salt Lake Tribune editorial went on… “Some evangelicals do not consider members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to be Christians.”

Some? A September Baptist Press poll showed that 52% of Evangelicals belief that Mormonism is not a Christian faith, and evangelicals make up 30% of the GOP.

“…most American voters are fair-minded,” said the Tribune,”…We think that’s the ideal (the separation of church and state) most Americans still embrace, and would support in the voting booth.” This is simply naive.

Speaking as a liberal, secular, atheist, I have no horse in the GOP race. But let me offer this little piece of friendly advice to Mitt Romney: Ignore the Salt Lake Tribune. The best thing for Romney to do is to simply avoid speaking about his faith, avoid questions about it, avoid the high-minded clarions from the pundits, and just plain avoid the entire issue. America may be no more ready for a Mormon president than an allegedly liberal woman or an African American named “Obama.” Hillary knows this, and though she can’t hide her femininity, she can present herself as the moderate she really is. Obama is stuck. He can hide neither his race nor his name. Romney has it easier. If he can stifle the issue of his faith, and the GOP continues to lose support from the evangelical community, he could well win the nomination. And if Hillary is his opponent, that same evangelical base may well come out in the nationals, just to vote against Clinton.

Romney, keep the faith (to yourself).

JMJ

If there were ever to be a way to demonstrate the unedited and unadulterated mind set of the GOP elite, Larry Kudlow succeeds in presenting it in an article he titles, Put Some Steak On The Plate. Kudlow, while offering his take on yesterdays GOP debate, is kind enough to also insert his not so subtle thesis for a Republican victory in 2008 and therefore the means to insure that he and his cronies have the idyllic “steak” placed squarely upon their plates.

Last night’s GOP debate featured strong, pro-growth, supply-side policies from the four major candidates — Rudy, Romney, McCain, and Thompson. […]

This is all good. But let me remind folks that yesterday I suggested that Republicans were put on this planet to cut spending and taxes. And the proof of the pudding is in the eating. In other words, we need specifics. In other words, where’s the beef?

OK, I don’t begrudge Kudlow his ideology…he’s entitled to support whichever economic strategy he prefers. Further, I probably agree with the notion of prudent spending and reasonable taxation. Unfortunately, once Kudlow spells out the details by which he would pursue his stated objectives, our differences become more evident and his self-serving and less than palatable bias begins to emerge.

The Republican party needs to re-brand itself as the fiscal-disciplinarian party. GOP candidates must get specific about which departments and program clusters they’re going to curtail. The sooner the better. The burden is on their backs to reestablish credibility.

And while the Democrats are making hay with middle-class anxieties over taxes, health care, tuition, etc., Republicans need to launch an aggressive middle-class tax offensive.

For example, we don’t need six income-tax brackets. Here’s a thought: Take the 33 percent bracket that starts at $188,450 and get rid of it. Ditto for the 28 percent bracket at $123,700 and the 25 percent bracket at $61,300. Get rid of them. Collapse it all down into one simple 15 percent tax bracket. Then figure out what kind of spending cuts are necessary to finance it.

Let’s look at Kudlow’s two fundamental objectives. First, the revision of the tax structure advances a disproportionate boon to those making the most money (33 percent to 15 percent)…a goal consistent with his supply-side, pro-growth agenda…albeit one which is premised upon the belief that giving money back to the wealthy will facilitate reinvestment into the economy to better “float the boat”. While that is true to a point, it would simultaneously consolidates larger amounts of wealth into the hands of fewer and fewer people…a move which further shrinks the middle class by pushing a small percentage of individuals upward and a much larger number downward.

Second, the reduction of spending immediately calls entitlements into question despite the fact that Kudlow states his own reservation with the cutting of Social Security benefits…a reservation I contend isn’t motivated by a concern for those who may be hurt but rather a measured calculation that the same can be achieved with far less repercussions than an open endorsement of such a plan. His motives and his modus operandi are revealed when he contrasts his “recipe” with that of the Democrats. Here’s how his strategy works. I contend the formula is little more than the classic carrot on a stick approach whereby the tax cuts must first be offered as the enticement (the means to procure votes) which then delivers the authority to enact the desired spending cuts.

As the bad news is disseminated (we have to pay for these tax cuts), the notion of self-interest leads a majority of voters to oppose cutting essential services while endorsing the reduction of money spent on programs perceived as “government handouts”. In other words, the underlying premise is that hard working individuals (defined as those who make enough money to receive the tax cuts) should be rewarded and those who don’t carry their own weight (defined as those receiving government assistance) should be penalized.

The end result is more of the same. In order to succeed, both spouses are compelled to work harder in order to make ends meet. Those on the top rung (the powerful) reinforce the merits of their message by offering the reward (a tax cut)…a reward they frame as needing to be extracted from those at the lowest rung on the ladder. As such, the focus is removed from those who benefited the most from the tax cuts (themselves) and they succeed in being portraying as the champions of the hard working middle class while vilifying those who have the least.

The ire of those caught in the hamster wheel has been masterfully directed downward. Thus the dangling vegetable is obediently chased in hopes it will lead to the quintessential prize…steak. Consequently, one either embraces the equation or one tumbles further down the ladder in shame…deserving of little more than reproach…and cake.

Cross-posted at Thought Theater