Back in Action

April 30, 2008

I have mourned the exit of Governor Mike Huckabee from presidential politics for nearly two months now. While I wouldn’t say I have moved on, as I am still following Huckabee closely, waiting for any hints at future run for office; I have decided that it is time to start working towards getting/keeping conservatives in Washington.

I personally have decided to support John McCain for President, unless a worthy third party candidate arises. My decision is based on a few main points: he does not aspire to universal health care, he wants to keep the Bush tax cuts permanent (if the democrats let these expire they will effectively be raising taxes on everyone in America, not just the rich), he believes in a very strong military and will support the military, he is a strong proponent of cutting government spending.

Whether or not he will hold to those views if elected remains to be seen, but right now he is a far better option than either of Democrats. He is far from my first choice for office, but he can do the job better than the current competition.

I have also recently been contacted by the Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe campaign. They asked me if I wanted to blog for him, I agreed. I have had the privilege of meeting and eating lunch with Sen. Inhofe and I believe that the man has his head on straight. He is a good representative of Oklahoma’s conservative values, so I hope that by blogging against liberals and for conservatives, I will be a small help to his campaign.

So, the battle for the votes of those living on Main Street America continues. The question is, will Americans support big government liberals and Republicans who spend like “John Edwards in a beauty salon?” (Mike Huckabee) Or will we elect people with true conservative values (which does not necessarily mean they are Republican)?


The Wrong Diagnosis

February 1, 2008

When he first threw his hat in the ring a year ago, they declared the campaign stillborn. The pundits ignored him because they knew he’d drop out before summer.

Summer came and went, and he was still campaigning hard, gaining support, and earning endorsements. But his campaign was still “dead on arrival” and wouldn’t amount to anything.

Then he started spiking in the polls and “out of nowhere,” won Iowa by a hefty margin. They all said “The Huckaboom is just temporary.”

Now he’s polling at first or second in most major states, he has a healthy number of delegates, and several major competitors have dropped from the race. He’s still in, and they are claiming he’s out.

The media is declaring our candidate’s campaign dead without checking for a pulse. His political obituary is, yet again, all over the news and talk radio. Don’t buy it.

It’s a lot tougher to knock out an Arkansan than that. He’s still alive and kicking. Don’t let the media determine your vote. Demand a second opinion!

Demand Huckabee ’08!


Standing Athwart Huckabee, Yelling Stop

January 23, 2008

By George Neumayr
Published 1/9/2008

Against an immutable standard of conservatism, Mike Huckabee is hardly impeccable. I find some of what he says silly and unpersuasive (for example, his support for Global Warming theory). But the explosion of snide remarks directed at him from many in the conservative movement strikes me as churlish and baldly hypocritical. How is it that the bar of conservative entry for a presidential nominee lowers for the Romneys and McCains, then rises for the Huckabees?

Okay, he is a heterodox Republican on some issues. So what? Who isn’t amongst the leading contenders in this primary race? A few years back I recall these anti-Huckabee purists lecturing California conservatives on the need to support Arnold Schwarzenegger over Tom McClintock. Now that McCain has won in New Hampshire, we will soon see this very flexible definition of GOP conservatism resurface and be told that electability trumps all.

Much of the contempt for Huckabee is confusing, alternating between descriptions of him as a socialist pansy and social reactionary. Which is it? Is he too liberal for the GOP or too conservative?

I suspect that the essential problem for some in the conservative movement (as it was for establishment conservatives pitted against Pat Buchanan in his race with Bob Dole in 1996) isn’t that Huckabee takes this or that heterodox position on issues of economics/trade/foreign policy; it is that he’s a transparent Christian conservative. That they just can’t abide, even as some of these pundits tell conservatives to ignore religion with respect to Mormonism.

Romney attended Planned Parenthood events, used to support state financing of abortion and elements of the homosexual agenda; McCain has derided in the past the Religious Right and taken any number of fashionable liberal stances. But all of this can be quickly excused. Woe to the Christian Republican, however, who talks about the culture war, or — brace yourself — rejects Darwinism.

Whatever one thinks of that highly technical debate, that the Wall Street Journal and GOP consultants like Mike Murphy set up adherence to Darwinism as a litmus test for an “acceptable” Republican nominee exposes the degree to which political correctness has crept into the conservative movement. I don’t blame rank-and-file conservatives for increasingly ignoring the snobbish sniffings of the George Wills.

Who cares what they think? How conservative are they? What new liberal social innovation won’t they soft-pedal? A “conservatism” that involves a lot of pretentious throat-clearing and maybe the recitation of a classical tag or two before coming to some PC conclusion (that feminism is a net-gain for society, that Darwin had it right, that gay civil unions aren’t such a big deal, take your pick) isn’t worth much.

Run for the hills, Huckabee talked about Christ during Christmas! Well, good for him. One of the reasons for our flailing in the global war against the jihadists is that we have become de-Christianized cowards. Does America need not one but two wholly secularized parties?

HUCKABEE IS A Christian socialist, some say. Really? If he is a Christian socialist, he is surely the first one to call for the abolition of the Internal Revenue Service. Again, it is not at all clear why rank-and-file conservatives are supposed to nod vigorously whenever a McCain or Romney supporter calls Huckabee an “economic liberal.” At least he talks about eliminating income taxes and capital gains taxes. Do they?

Romney’s support for semi-socialized health care in Massachusetts (which is almost indistinguishable from Obama’s scheme for the entire nation) is scarier to me than anything Huckabee uncorked in Arkansas. And then there is John McCain’s opposition to Bush’s tax cuts. Does that make him an unacceptable economic liberal?

But Huckabee doesn’t talk about Wall Street enough, some warn. Good; Wall Street already sups at the government trough. If he cuts off corporate welfare, I would be happy. It is about time somebody talks about getting the ravenous, regulatory Leviathan state off the backs of small businessmen, gun owners, and homeschooling families, rather than waste time on Wall Street talking to fat cats who vote for the Dems anyways.

But won’t Huckabee shatter the conservative coalition? That would be a little more persuasive if those saying this hadn’t shattered it themselves. The relative success of Ron Paul and Huckabee is not a cause of the coalition’s collapse but a reflection of it. An excessively Wilsonian foreign policy has divided defense conservatives; years of big spending has divided economic conservatives; and a tepid, stalling social conservatism has alienated moral ones.

Perhaps Huckabee can’t rebuild this coalition. But he isn’t likely to weaken it any more than have his critics, and he may even bring some long-disenchanted middle Americans into it.

George Neumayr is editor of Catholic World Report and press critic for California Political Review.

Note from Laura: This guy doesn’t even agree with Huckabee, and it’s perhaps the most fair and honest analysis of his campaign that I’ve seen. If this doesn’t energize you again, I don’t know what will!


Merry Christmas

December 25, 2007

We at Main Street America hope that you and your family have a wonderful Christmas.

The blog posts will resume with more regularity after Christmas. Thanks for reading and stay safe this Christmas.


Change what? — Cal Thomas

November 26, 2007

This is a couple of weeks old, but Cal Thomas hits one out of the ballpark with this column. I grow weary of polls being tossed around, saying that 75% of Americans believe the country is going in the wrong direction, yet never seem to address what the public wants to do to “change that wrong direction.” Thomas takes this poll on, blaming politicians for some of the problems, yet he also points the blame back at the 75% unhappy Americans.

The bolded paragraph below illustrates yet another reason why Mike Huckabee is surging in the polls. He is not following the Washington game, at all.

The country is frustrated. Democrats say Americans want change from Bush administration policies. That much of the country was also frustrated when Democrats were in charge apparently has escaped them.

A new Washington Post-ABC News Poll finds that nearly three-quarters of those surveyed believe the country is on the wrong track. They are deeply pessimistic about the future and dissatisfied with Washington’s corrosive political environment.

The public believes most politicians are out for themselves and not the people. They also think most politicians say and do the bidding of their respective polarizing groups and rarely say what they mean, or mean what they say.

Politicians are not the sole cause of cynicism. For too long, too many of us have asked (or allowed) government to act as a sugar daddy, dispensing ever-greater amounts of goodies, paid for with taxpayer money. When government reaches its limits — as it has now — we become angry, frustrated and, yes, cynical.

When the stock market increases by a smaller percentage than its increase last year we complain of “hard times” and worry about an approaching recession. Our grandparents never dreamed of the prosperity we enjoy today. Even the poorest among us is richer than much of the world’s poor, and the poor in America at least have the opportunity to climb out of poverty, when this opportunity is virtually nonexistent in much of the rest of the world.

Our problem is we have more of what we don’t need and less of what we do need. More things and poor relationships translate into more for self and less for others. It would appear that self-storage facilities are one of the fastest growing businesses in America. I see them everywhere multiplying like overpriced coffee shops. Why do we need so many storage units? It’s because we lack room in our larger houses for all the stuff we don’t need, bought on credit with money many of us didn’t have. It is because the marketers have sold us on the value of things, while culture has diminished the value of human relationships.

When money, pleasure and stuff don’t satisfy, we can’t blame these inanimate objects, so we blame politicians. But it isn’t entirely their fault. They were only trying to give us what we said we wanted.

Our ancestors understood sacrifice and adversity. In them it produced character and virtue. Today, the mere thought of such things breeds resentment in us. We see pleasure and things as rights. To suggest “hard times” or sacrifice is viewed as a violation of such rights. Our superficial natures quickly and inevitably give way to cynicism and pessimism.

If one is looking for a new direction, as the Post-ABC Poll suggests, one must first have a destination in mind and a strategy to get there. Where do these disaffected cynics and pessimists wish to go? Back to the ’90s, Democrats would say. Really? That was a time of false hope; a time when the defense budget was slashed and the “peace dividend” embraced. It was during the ’90s that the Taliban and their terrorist buddies used our negligence to map out 9/11 … and who knows what else?

Change can be a good thing. A changed life is good, if the old one was bad. Change back from a dollar is rare, but nice. But in order to change the direction of our country we need leaders who will boldly take us in a better direction, ones who will fight this war until we win it.

While the political GPS system is calculating the route, it would be nice for some of the presidential candidates to start talking about what kind of character we need to have when we arrive, lest we continue our present practice of filling even more storage units while our hearts and souls remain largely empty, except for the poisons known as cynicism and pessimism.


Why is Mike surging?

November 15, 2007

My good friend Caleb has written a great post about why Mike is succeeding.

Some have watched in awe, some with doubt, and others with fear as Mike Huckabee’s campaign has taken off over these last few months. His success has left many people asking why a little known candidate with no money has been able to move into second place in Iowa.

Read the rest at his blog.

I responded on his blog, but I will post my comment here, too.

Amen, my friend, Amen. Mike is rising simply because he is the antithesis to normal political behavior. He’s unscripted, passionate, honest, genuine, talks about solutions, not problems with other candidate positions. He doesn’t attack. He talks about America’s problems and suggests ways to solve them. He isn’t afraid to criticize his own party. He’s almost outside the Republican party, in some ways. Almost.

He definitely and obviously represents and is trying to address the average American’s concerns. Not Wall Street. Not the special interest groups. He tells us that politicians are saying the economy is good, but when you talk to the hairdresser, the cabdriver, the hotel cleaning crew, life IS NOT good. And that resonates with voters who have felt neglected, rejected, seduced and then cast off in the past many many eleections.

Once my classes are done in a couple of weeks, I plan on doing some research and writing a lot more. My posts may not be a lot at first, but keep checking back. This will hopefully start to take off early in December. Meanwhile, check out the official Mike Huckabee campaign site and the Grassroots Huckabee website for a lot more information on Mike!


Welcome and Introduction

November 13, 2007

The above post originally was a letter in response to a comment on a discussion board on Facebook. Unfortunately, the thread was deleted before I could respond and then the person I tried responding to didn’t allow messages to be sent. What to do?

Well, I figured the next best step was to finally start that blog I’d been thinking about starting, to write about my support for Mike Huckabee’s candidacy for President. So here it is. “Blogging from Main Street America.”

I tried to come up with something catchy, but the creative juices weren’t there. After trying to come up with something about Populism and Kansas (since Mike is considered somewhat of a populist candidate, I’m from Kansas, and the Populist movement was the strongest in Kansas in the 1890s), I decided on the title, “Blogging from Main Street America.”

It doesn’t include Mike’s name, but I wanted something that transcended the campaign, a little bit. Because even if Mike doesn’t get the nomination (which isn’t going to happen if his supporters have anything to say about it), I want to continue the discussion that I see being started by his campaign. What is that discussion? You’ll have to check back and see!

Visit often, leave comments (nice ones, please — I’ll take debate — if it’s civil), add me to your RSS Feed reader, and tell others about the site. Thanks for visiting!

I Like Mike in ’08!