Will the Next Ronald Reagan Please Stand Up?

Last night, Gov. Huckabee conceded the race for the Republican nomination to John McCain. However, in one line, he summed up his reason for pressing on for as long as he did. The Kansas City Star reports:

Quoting Royals great George Brett, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee bowed out of the Republican presidential race Tuesday night.

"We kept the faith," Huckabee said from Irving, Texas, "and that for me has been the most important goal of all."

Huckabee said he hustled every day of his campaign the same way Brett did during his years as a Royal.

Of Brett, Huckabee recalled Brett's statement that he wanted to end his career not with a home run, but by hitting a routine ground ball to second base and then "running hard to first so everybody knows that’s how the game is supposed to be played."

Huckabee said that's what he tried to do himself in his presidential bid.

Reached in Arizona where the Royals are in spring training, Brett said he was flattered by Huckabee's reference to him.

"I didn't know Huckabee had even heard of me," Brett said.

In the final analysis, the former Governor demonstrated just how the game is supposed to be played.

First off the bat, Huckabee did more to take special interests out of politics than did McCain-Feingold. How, pray tell? He proved that one doesn't need a lot of money to go far in politics. On a shoestring budget, Gov. Huckabee beat Rudy Guiliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson---men who raised and spent between the three of them well over $100 million.

(Truth be told, this is what scared the special interests groups the most. A man who can run a campaign without them will run the country without them.)

Secondly, Gov. Huckabee ran the cleanest campaign of any candidate in the race. Yes, he did go negative for a little bit in Iowa, and some of his debate comments were pointed. But he never got as nasty as say Obama and Hillary--or for that matter, some of his opponents.

Finally, he knew how to have fun. Politics should be about getting out in the crowd and engaging the dialogue. The Governor enjoys this. And why? Because he truly cares for the people he wants to represent.

Richard Nixon once said that what separates the men from the boys in politics is that boys want to be great, while men want to do great things.

Gov. Huckabee demonstrated his greatness.

One who is only concerned about his own glory will stop fighting when the chips are down. But one who is concerned about a larger vision will keep fighting even when defeat is inevitable.

Other candidates claimed to don the mantle of Ronald Reagan. However, only Mike Huckabee demonstrated the courage that Reagan showed.

Ronald Reagan fought against the establishment in 1976; when the chips were down, he kept fighting, even though he knew that defeat was certain. When people told him to quit--to go along to get along--he ignored their pleas. And why? Because he was fighting for something larger than himself.

Mike Huckabee is, too.

Just like they did with Ronald Reagan in 1976, the Republican establishment has rejected an eloquent candidate with broadbased appeal and fresh ideas. ... And just like they did in 1980, I predict that the establishment will one day embrace this governor when he leads the party to victory.

Gov. Reagan... um, I mean, Huckabee.... your next to bat.

The Club for Growth Overplays Its Hand

Brad Warthen makes an interesting point about John McCain and the Club for Growth:

[T]he Club's advice to the man who is getting nominated without it is that he simply must do its bidding in the matter of choosing a running mate ... To which I say, how come? He got past the hurdle that theoretically requires your favor without you. Your views don't amount to diddly among the independents he has to win now.

Mr. Warthen goes on to say that Mike Huckabee would be an excellent choice for Sen. McCain--the Club for Growth's protestations notwithstanding.

Although I agree with Sen. McCain's assessment that it would be "inappropriate and unrealistic" to dismiss Gov. Huckabee's campaign for President by entertaining discussions about prospective running mates, I find it amusing that the Club for Growth would dare to exert influence over Sen. McCain that it obviously does not have.

The Club for Growth spent millions of dollars to destroy the campaign of Mike Huckabee--probably more money than Gov. Huckabee spent himself. Despite this, Mike Huckabee exceeded expectations on Super Tuesday, and by doing so, he decimated the campaign of Mitt Romney--the Club for Growth's primary benefactor. (It should be noted that seven of Gov. Romney's top donors gave $585,000 to the Club for Growth.) Moreover, the Club for Growth viciously attacked Sen. McCain as well, accusing him of stealing a page out of Ted Kennedy's class warfare playbook.

As a result of Romney's departure, the two leading candidates for the Republican nomination are now men who owe the Club for Growth absolutely nothing. Yet for some reason the Club for Growth thinks it can boss at least one of them around.

The Club for Growth has demonstrated that it is irrelevant. It talks a big talk, but it can't walk the walk. MoveOn.org has about as much influence over the Republican Party. As such, the Club for Growth should be ignored.

Romney: Huckabee Would "Make a Fine President"

Not too long ago, Mitt Romney said:

[W]e need to make sure that we have a strong person who can take the baton from President Bush, and Gov. Huckabee is certainly one of those individuals. He’d make a fine president.

http://www.swtimes.com/articles/2007/12/11/week_in_review/news/sunday/news04.txt

A Question for Talk Radio

To hate John McCain, or to love Mitt Romney? That is the question for talk radio.

For the past several days, Rush Limbaugh has led the charge against John McCain, maligning the senator for his moderate-to-liberal views on issues ranging from tax policy to immigration. In hopes of thwarting the senator's nomination, Mr. Limbaugh (and others) have pushed and prodded for conservatives to come out in droves for Mitt Romney.

Last night, Mitt Romney lost BIG-TIME (to borrow a term from Dick Cheney) in key battle ground states. Romney got clobbered in California and Missouri--delegate rich states in which he was expected to be competitive. Then, to add insult to injury, he placed third in Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee--states where the supposed non-factor Mike Huckabee won.

Basically, it was a terrible night for Mitt Romney. At the end of the day, McCain gained about 600 delegates; Romney and Huckabee more-or-less split the rest.

Romney's performance raises an interesting dilemma for talk-radio. Limbaugh and Hannity know full well that either Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee must leave the race in order for John McCain to be defeated. Given that Huckabee had a strong showing last night in the conservative South, he is not going to leave the race. Conversely, Mitt Romney now has zero momentum.

Which brings me back to my original question.... If talk radio hates John McCain more than it loves Mitt Romney, then talk radio needs to rethink Mike Huckabee--otherwise Rush Limbaugh's most hated Republican senator will become the party's nominee for President.

STOP WHINING, MITT!!!

Mitt Romney's official reaction to Mike Huckabee's victory in the West Virginia Convention:

Boston, MA – Today, Romney for President Campaign Manager Beth Myers issued the following statement regarding the outcome of West Virginia's Republican Party convention:

"Unfortunately, this is what Senator McCain's inside Washington ways look like: he cut a backroom deal with the tax-and-spend candidate he thought could best stop Governor Romney's campaign of conservative change.

"Governor Romney had enough respect for the Republican voters of West Virginia to make an appeal to them about the future of the party based on issues. This is why he led on today's first ballot. Sadly, Senator McCain cut a Washington backroom deal in a way that once again underscores his legacy of working against Republicans who are interested in championing conservative policies and rebuilding the party."

Oh, why don't you take your own advice, Mitt, and stop whining? You said it yourself: the first rule in politics is "No whining."

You lost! Deal with it! Be a man and suck it up.

UPDATE: Look at this press release a bit closer. Notice that it does not even mention Huckabee by name. That's how little Mitt Romney respects Mike Huckabee. What arrogance!

Wisdom from Rush Limbaugh

Rush Limbaugh's daily newsletter for February 4, 2008 says:

For too long, Republican elites have said to conservatives: "Sacrifice your principles for party unity. Compromise." A lot of us are fed up with this. If you elites in the GOP, punditry and elsewhere are going to move this party to the left, you're going to take the hit for what happens.

If you think about it, this is exactly why social conservatives support Mike Huckabee. We are fed up with people like Rush Limbaugh telling us that we need to sacrifice our values for the sake of party unity--specifically for the sake of supporting Mitt Romney.

You would think that Mitt Romney is the second-coming of Ronald Reagan. We have been told to vote for Mitt because he stands for everything we all believe in. Yet when one listens to Mitt's own words, we know that this is not true.



I remember when in October 1992 Rush Limbaugh actually endorsed Bill Clinton in the first half-hour of his show... and then spent the next 2 and 1/2 hours denying that he had ever said it. Rush did this to illustrate a point: Your words mean things. Your record means something. You cannot flip-flop simply for the sake of political convenience. Character matters. Telling the truth matters.

Back in 1992, we were supposed to reject Clinton simply because he was a known liar--because he would say anything to anyone at anytime to get a vote. Yet for some reason, this standard doesn't apply with Mitt Romney.

Is it because Mitt Romney is rich? Is it because he is handsome and prim and proper? Is this some kind of pragmatism run amok? Or is it because we now define conservatism in purely dollar quantities?

A very wise man once said that "morality is not defined by individual choice." He knew that there are absolutes in life. One absolute is that you don't kill unborn children. Another absolute is that God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

For most of his political career, Mitt Romney demonstrated his belief that these tenets of morality are, in fact, defined by individual choice. Yet, for some reason, Rush Limbaugh---the man who coined the aforesaid phrase, and the man who so adeptly demonstrated that character means something---now supports Mitt Romney.

Why?

It seems to me that Mike Huckabee best reflects the virtues that Limbaugh once extolled in candidates for President. Yet, for some reason, he supports Romney.

What ever happened to the Rush Limbaugh who performed "caller abortions"?

Tricky Mitt

Mitt Romney engages in a dirty trick. Film at 11.



Now compare this video to the latest RCP average:

McCain 42.5
Romney 24.5
Huckabee 17.9

Romney is down by 18. Huckabee is behind Romney by only 6.5.

Even though Romney is closer to Huckabee than he is to McCain, he still has the gall to say that this is now a "two-person race."

That's a stretch. (Of course, we all know how Mitt likes to stretch the truth.)

The Price of the Presidency

RealClearPolitics reports that Gov. Mitt Romney has won 59 delegates to the convention. In order to win the nomination, Gov. Romney needs to win at least 1,191 delegates. Therefore, he still needs to win another 1,132 delegates.

OpenSecrets.org reports that as of December 31, 2007, Gov. Romney has spent $86,068,239 on his quest for the Republican presidential nomination. Accordingly, Gov. Romney has spent $1,458,784 for each delegate he has won thus far (or $86,068,239 /59). Therefore, at his present rate of spending, Gov. Romney will need to spend $1,651,343,171 (or $1,458,784 x 1,132) in order to win the nomination.

That's right... at his current rate of spending, Mitt will need to spend $1.6 billion to win the nomination! (And we haven't even gotten to the general election yet.)

Now let's compare this to Mike Huckabee's campaign. From the same sources listed above, we can find that as of December 31, 2007, Gov. Huckabee has spent only $7,090,087. Dividing this number by the 40 delegates he has already won, his dollar-per-delegate cost is only $177,252. Thus, with all other things being equal, he will need $204,017,052 to win the remaining 1,151 delegates.

Admittedly, Mike Huckabee has seen some difficulty in raising funds. However, it wouldn't be unusual for a presidential candidate to spend more than $200 million in a presidential race. Just look at the last election cycle: John Kerry spent more than $309 million in his bid for the White House, while President Bush spent more than $345 million. So from the perspective of recent history, Gov. Huckabee's rate of spending seems normal, leading me to conclude that he is a formidable campaigner.

The same, however, cannot be said for Mitt Romney. Despite the money he has spent--and the free media he is getting from likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity--Gov. Romney still cannot catch up to Sen. McCain... nor can he pull away from Mike Huckabee (who trails Mitt by only one point in the recent Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll--well within the margin of error).

This leads me to only one conclusion: Either (a) Mitt Romney is a poor campaigner who needs his millions to stay afloat, or (b) he is a good campaigner who is spending money like a drunken sailor, thus undermining his claim of being a "fiscal conservative." Either way, he shouldn't be the Republican nominee.

In the final analysis, a candidate with Mike Huckabee's personality and thriftiness would do quite well with Mitt Romney's money. (Yet another reason why campaign finance reform stinks.)

Hypocrisy from the Conservative Elites

For most of the last fifteen years, I have been an avid listener of Rush Limbaugh and other conservative talk show hosts. During this time, I have listened to countless thousands of conversations between Rush and callers to his show.

On several occasions, I have heard Rush talk with disillusioned Republican voters who have felt neglected by the party establishment. Usually, these people were social conservatives. In most cases, these callers would openly contemplate staying home on election day; in other cases, they would call for the creation of a third-party. (These conversations were especially prevalent during the term of Bush 41 and the first term of Bill Clinton.)

When faced with such open dissent, Rush played the role of the pragmatist. He would say words to the effect of, "If you agree with the Republican nominee on some, if not most, of the important issues, then why would you ensure the election of a Democrat who opposes all of these issues by staying home or by bolting from the party?" To Rush, this seemed like foolishness.

My how times have changed! Today, John McCain and Mike Huckabee--two men for whom Rush has expressed open disgust--have garnered the support of most Republican voters. As a result, Rush has openly stated that he may not support the Republican nominee for President. (His fellow-traveller Ann Coulter has even stated that she would vote for Hillary over McCain.)

I find this to be hilarious. When social conservatives in the 1990's dared to question the Republican Party's direction, conservative pundits like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter preached the gospel of party unity through pragmatism. But now that their oxen are being gored, they want to take their marbles and go home.

Crybabies!

Huckabee Is No Jimmy Carter

Since the rise of the Huckaboom, pundits and candidates alike have alleged that Mike Huckabee, if elected President, would behave like another southern Governor-turned-President, Jimmy Carter.

Last night, Mike Huckabee dispelled that notion.

The London Times reports:

Asked whether the American commanders on the scene were right in not attacking the Iranian boats, Mr Huckabee said he backed their decisions, before warning Iran: "Be prepared, first, to put your sights on the American vessel. And then be prepared that the next thing you see will be the gates of Hell, because that is exactly what you will see after that."

I don't seem to recall Jimmy Carter using this kind of language during the 444-day Iranian Hostage Crisis.

Do you?

Mitt Romney is Toast

I recently published this comment on another site. I figured that it was pretty good, so I would re-post it here (with minor corrections in spelling--oops):

How can a man say that he is a "fiscal conservative" when he spends 1,500% more money than his nearest competitor and still loses?

If Romney were half the candidate that Messrs. Hewett, Sekulow, et al. claim that he is, Romney should have blown Mike Huckabee away.

Beyond this, the evangelical vote is powerful---especially in the south. Mitt Romney is not going to win in South Carolina, or Mississippi, or Tennessee. Why? Mitt has essentially said that Iowa is an outlier because evangelicals came out in droves the other night. Well, evangelicals are going to come out in droves in these states, and it will be ugly for Mitt.

They are not going to vote for a guy who claims to don the very mantle of Reaganism that he so vociferously rejected in the early nineties.

97.35% Chance That Huckabee Will Win Iowa

The latest polls listed on the RealClearPolitics website list the following numbers:

American Res. Group (12/31 - 01/02) Huckabee 29%, Romney 24% (600 Likely Voters)
Zogby Tracking (12/30 - 01/02) Huckabee 31%, Romney 25% (914 Likely Voters)
InsiderAdvantage (01/01 - 01/01) Huckabee 30%, Romney 24% (430 Likely Voters)
Strategic Vision (12/28 - 12/30) Huckabee 28, Romney 30% (600 Likely Voters)
Des Moines Register (12/27 - 12/30) Huckabee 32%, Romney 26% (800 Likely Voters)
CNN (12/26 - 12/30) Huckabee 28%, Romney 31% (373 Likely Voters)

The weighted average for these polls is Huckabee 29.99%, Romney 26.35%, with the aggregate sample size equalling 3,717 voters.

Let's calculate the margin of error for Mike Huckabee. This equals 1.96 X Square Root (29.99% x 70.01% / 3,717), or 1.47%. (The standard deviation is 0.0075). As such, Mike's range is 28.52% to 31.46%.

Let's calculate the margin of error for Mitt Romney. This equals 1.96 X Square Root [26.35% x 73.65% / 3,717], or 1.42%. (The standard deviation is 0.0072). As such, Mitt's range is 24.93% to 27.76%.

Notice that Mitt's high range (27.76%) is LOWER than Mike's low range (28.52%). Mike is leading outside of the margin of error with only seven hours to caucus.

What is the probability of Mike's true average exceeding Mitt's true average?

STEP 1: The probability of Mike's true average exceeding Mitt's high range number is based upon the normal distribution. The cumulative normal distribution will take Mitt's high range (we will call it "x"), Mike's sample average (we will call it "u"), and Mike's standard deviation (call it "sd").

The probablity of Mike's true average exceeding Mitt's high range is equal to 1-cumulative normal distribution with the aforesaid values for x, u, and sd. From the EXCEL spreadsheet function, this value equals 1- NORMDIST (0.2776, 0.2999, 0.0075, TRUE), or .998527.

STEP 2: Since the augmented poll has a confidence interval of 95% (hence the Z-value of 1.96), there is a 2.5% chance that Romney's true average exceeds his high range. Put in terms favorable to Mike, there is a 97.5% chance that Mitt's true average will be less than his high range value.

STEP 3: The probability of Mike winning is .998527 x .975, or .9735

FINAL ANSWER --- MIKE HUCKABEE HAS A 97.35% CHANCE OF WINNING.

Combined Polling Analysis

According to RealClearPolitics, there have been three polls conducted in the last forty-eight hours in Iowa---the Des Moines Register, CNN, and Zogby's tracking poll. Here are the specific results from each poll:

Des Moines Register -- 32% Huckabee, 26% Romney (800 LV surveyed)
CNN -- 28% Huckabee, 31% Romney (373 LV surveyed)
Zogby -- 29% Huckabee, 25% Romney (928 LV surveyed)

Now if you were to combine all three polls into one poll, you would find that out of 2101 persons surveyed, 712 respondents supported Huckabee, while 656 supported Romney. Thus, in effect, 33.88% Huckabee, 31.22% Romney.

Given the size of this augmented, combined poll, the margin of error would be about 2% points. Here is how we come up with the margin of error. Take Mike Huckabee's number (33.88%) and multiply it by (1-33.88%). You get 0.2240. Then divide this number by 2101. You get 0.000106. Take the square root of this number, and you get the standard deviation of .0103. Multiply the standard deviation by 1.96. Voila! A roughly 2% margin of error. (Actually, 2.024% for Huckabee and 1.981% for Romney.)

Accordingly, the actual range extends from 31.86% to 35.91% for Huckabee and from 29.24% to 33.20% for Romney.

Notices that Romney's high-end number (33.20%) is less than Mike' average (33.88%).

If we wish to estimate the probability of Mike's true population average being greater than Romney's high end number, we can use the normal distribution to find this answer. Using the Excel Spreadsheets NORMDIST function, I have estimated that there is a 74.6% chance that Mike's numbers will exceed Mitt's if the election were held today.

MINOR CORRECTION: I failed to factor into the equation the fact that there is a 2.5% that Romney's high end number is greater than 33.20%. Therefore, Mike's chances of winning have been reduced slightly to 72.73% (or 97.50% times 33.20%)