December 3, 2008
Blogging the Right Thing: Let’s Get Vertical
How could an Evangelical Christian Pro-Lifer hope to get elected President? This question dogs supporters of Mike Huckabee more than anything else.
He explains his view in Chapter 9 of Do the Right Thing, “Let’s Get Vertical.” Huckabee’s argument is that while people who are party activists care about where a candidate’s positions land on a Horizontal (Left-Right) scale, most voters are more concerned about problems being solved and the country or state moving Vertically (up instead of down.)
The theory is perhaps the greatest answer to how a conservative politician or any politician succeeds. People will let a party have its way if the Economy is going well, the budget is being properly managed, education is improving, etc. It’s quite similar to what a newly minted Democratic Governor Howard Dean told Vermont Democrats in the early 1990s.
The one big myth that’s developed is the that of “The Centrist Idealogue.” You know the person who votes for the candidate who seems closest to the center. The model seemed out of touch with reality given wins by people on both extremes of the spectrum. Huckabee’s vertical theory holds more water and explanatory power towards politics than strict ideological view of voting.
Huckabee tells of several everyday people who came up to express support for him, even though they were Democrats or Independents such as a Taxi Driver in Des Moines, a skycap in O’Hare, and the flight attendants on a Los Angeles to Boston flight.
Huckabee does talk about Fred Thompson’s campaign and cites it as an example of a campaign that was focused on being most horizontal of the GOP campaigns. Thompson went after Huckabee as a liberal for receiving the endorsements of “Union of Mechanists and Aerospace Workers” as well as the “Painters Union” which Thompson used to go after Huckabee as a liberal.
Huckabee wrote, “What Fred failed to grasp (among the many things Fred failed to grasp about running for president) was that the endorsements did not reflect the unions’ total agreement with all my politics or policies. In fact, both unions had to deal with some heartburn about some of the positions I took that stood in direct conflict with their own official union positions. But I was the only GOP candidate who actually went and listened to them and gave them straight answers to their questions.”
Huckabee is clear that vertical politics means that conservative credentials don’t matter but “ideological purity without the capacity to deliver a more effective and efficient way of governing was no longer justifiable.”
He writes of life on the road and flying commerical during most of the ‘07-’08 Presidential Campaign, which while helping him connect with ordinary Americans who were suffering through a “Flinstones” Air Traffic Control system in the midst of a “Jetsons” Aerospace era. The downside for Huckabee is that he had to spend much more time in flight than other candidates who had charters, as direct trips from Little Rock to Iowa, New Hampshire, or South Carolina were simply not available and required multiple connections.
The book also includes a look inside the making of the Huckabee-Chuck Norris ad which also produced a memorable blooper reel:
http://race42008.com/2008/12/03/blogging-the-right-thing-lets-get-vertical/trackback/
December 3rd, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Absurd. It was Huckabee who openly ridiculed not a member, but an entire wing of the GOP. No other candidate did that.
Huckabee openly ridiculed libertarians and economic cosnervatives. His antipode, Giuliani, respected the SoCons.
December 3rd, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Let me just click right now on that Amazon.com link to go buy myself a copy of this absurd trash. Maybe Adam will get his cut of the profits for driving the traffic to Amazon.
December 3rd, 2008 at 1:34 pm
this was a great site during the primaries and general election. but blogging huckabees book chapter by chapter should be very embarassing for the people that attach their name to this site.
December 3rd, 2008 at 1:41 pm
So let me get this straight. The person who lost and lost badly is now lecturing the GOP on election strategy?
Question, if his strategy was so hot, how did he lose? Whose fault is it that he lost? Does he ever accept any responsibility in that?
December 3rd, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Three more chapters…
December 3rd, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Adam, thanks for the excerpts. I get my advance copy here, prior to my Christmas present.
People hear what they want to hear. What they missed from this is that no matter who you are, you can not governor ideologically, as you will hit road blocks. Governoring is just not cut and dry. People make comments of the way Gov. Huckabee governor as if governoring is black and white.
Above all people want results, and they deserve it. The people of Arkansas got conservative results, but yet they want to bicker about the means in which Huckabee obtained them.
December 3rd, 2008 at 1:55 pm
I don’t know why I’m taking the time to respond, but “The person who lost and lost badly…” The guy won several states on a shoestring budget.
December 3rd, 2008 at 1:55 pm
#6 People hear what they want to hear. Does that exclude you and Adam Graham and the whole Huck’s Army? Nah. My thoughts are they as guilty of it as anyone else.
December 3rd, 2008 at 1:56 pm
#7 Shoestring budget because he didn’t have a formidable base.
December 3rd, 2008 at 1:57 pm
How can Huck (or Romney) win? Join forces with the other. I think Romney/Huck or Huck/Romney could be quite a dynamic duo; in many ways they compliment, even complete, each other. I think they need to mend fences, commit to working together, and start making appearances together in the near future. Like it or not, those two guys are joined at the hip politically, neither one will win without the other.
December 3rd, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Shoestring budget because his base is middle class and has all their money tied up in their homes (mortgage payments) and gives most of their extra money (if they have any) to charity/church.
December 3rd, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Money doesn’t mean as much as you’d like to think.
Ron Paul won the fourth quarter for fundraising, but hell if he could put that to use. He had a low ceiling, but lots of enthusiastic nuts were under it.
Romney had bottomless pockets, but look how far that got him. How many primaries did he win, three? All of them his home turf? (UT, MA, and MI.) The rest were caucuses, which you can buy. Ron Paul came in second in Nevada.
December 3rd, 2008 at 2:12 pm
#12,
Romney also bought name recognition which he won’t have to do a 2nd time around, should he decide to take the plunge.
December 3rd, 2008 at 2:31 pm
#12 He was also the only person who competed in both IA and NH. McCain and Huck were non-competative in 1 of the 2. He lost sure, but not by much. It’s not relevant for 2008, but anyone who thinks they can waltz past Romney in 2012 (assuming he runs) is insane. Especially if Palin and Huck split up Iowa, he could easily win there and NH should not be hard.
December 3rd, 2008 at 2:35 pm
mac, not to knock you or anything, but that’s about the most ridiculous suggestion I’ve ever heard. Romney doesn’t need Huck – at all. In fact, aligning with Huck would sink him like a stone. And Huckabee hates Romney with a passion — it seems to be the air he breaths.
It’s nice that you want them to mend fences and all, but Romney moved on from Huck long ago, and Huck is incapable of mending fences. He’s still too busy whining and snarking.
December 3rd, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Romney was also fighting the media who were clearly pushing for easy pickin’s for their preferred candidate, Obama during the Republican primary. That is why Huckabee and McCain both basically got a pass from them, while everything negative they could find on Rudy, Romney, and Fred was dug up and exposed. Of course, once he won the nomination, it was open season on McCain, as it would have been on Huckabee, but we all knew that going in. Well, some of us did.
December 3rd, 2008 at 2:37 pm
I sincerely hope both Palin and Huck run. Knowing them, their egos will force them.
It can only help the other candidates – especially Romney.
December 3rd, 2008 at 2:38 pm
16# Yeah, and now the MSM is trying to make Palin the face of the party. They would love nothing more.
December 3rd, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Mac – that may have worked out for them if they had some kind of alliance this year, they may have been a winning ticket. However, there is simply too much bad blood between their supporters for it to work. It doesn’t help matters that Huckabee takes every opportunity to bash Romney even after the race is over. Romney supporters, in turn, bash Huckabee, but Romney himself has left him alone since the race ended.
December 3rd, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Thank you Adam for blogging about the book-so that the Huck haters can get a real read on the book. It never ceases to amaze me the amount of hatred for Huckabee on this site. Obviously you either love him or you hate him. But y’all should really get over the hatred as Huckabee has some really good points to make.
Democrats view the republicans as the party of the rich-Huckabee has been a successful governor in a poor state. He knows their needs, how to help, and how to speak to them. Why not learn from it so that the GOP can get back those blue dog democrats.
African Americans view the democrats as their party. But Huckabee was very successful working with AA in Arkansas. He got 48% of the AA vote. He reached out, asked about their needs, and met many of them. Why not learn from him so that the GOP can gain some AA votes in the future.
Finally, the Hispanic and AA voters just proved in CA that they are traditional, religious, moral voters-they wanted to keep traditional marriage in CA, AZ, and FL. Huckabee spoke to those issues as a governor and as a presidential candidate. While y’all mock him for being religious and speaking scripture, he tried to reach out to value voters so they would stay within the GOP. He was successful in promoting values close to value voter’s hearts, why not learn from him and use those tactics to expand the GOP?
Yes, I supported Huckabee in 2008. If Palin is a successful governor and expands her foreign policy credentials, she will be the value voter’s candidate in 2012. Huckabee knows this and will continue to support those issues and he will step aside for Palin, as she will represent what is important to him as well. He has already said that he may not be the leader, but he would like to support ideas that expands the party and gives the GOP a future of success.
December 3rd, 2008 at 2:48 pm
20 – Huckabee was not going to win over AA voters running against the historic first AA nominee. Sorry, wasn’t going to happen.
December 3rd, 2008 at 2:53 pm
#20
And Huckabee’s oversized ego and envy would not allow him to simply “step aside” for Palin in 2012. If Huckabee were really less concerned about himself and more concerned about the good of “—–,” then he wouldn’t have written a book expressing so many pointless criticisms of other conservatives, republicans, Christian right leaders, etc. He also wouldn’t have expressed envy of Palin. But he has done all of these things and he is not in it for the good of anything but himself.
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:28 pm
I’m probably wasting my time but….
#4 and #8:
If Huckabee lost “so badly” why did he end up with more delegates than both Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani and going from zero name recognition to being known everywhere. He also went from receiving 60 online donations a month, at the start of his campaign, to hundreds of thousands a month towards the end. Its just naive to think that Huckabee was a “big” loser in 2008, he was the biggest winner in my opinion (McCain lost that position when he lost the general election)
One reason why Obama did so well is that he played on vertical politics with his so-called “middle class tax cut”. Most people don’t care if its from a Democrat or Republican, if they’re going to lower taxes they’ll support them. This is why Reagan did so well in his re-election, even in the liberal northeast.
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:31 pm
#20 The fact that Huckabee attacked nearly every GOP candidate and non-endorsing evangelical in his book for the sake of making a few hundred thousand bucks for himself tells me who and what he stands for. It never ceases to amaze me you dont understand why in the world people dont like Huckabee. You REALLY dont have any idea do you? Could it not be his attacks?
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:42 pm
I saw the title of this post and for some reason had this picture of olivia newton john flash through my head
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:46 pm
now on to serious conversation-
Ben #23
your whole Huckabee had more delegates comment really has been discarded prior. the long and short of it is that he stayed in until the end so he got more delegates in a two man race- specious argument.
I think Huckabee, Palin and Romney were the big winners from 2008. Huck and Romney earned their chips, Palin got hers by being the VP pick.
Where I think Huck is going wrong is by hitting out against people who were roadblocks for him- be that Gary Bauer, Mitt Romney or whoever.
If Huck is serious about wanting a role in the GOP now and in 2012 he should be mending bridges not burning them beyond recognition
December 3rd, 2008 at 4:07 pm
What does Huckabee’s bitterness say about him?
December 3rd, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Huckleberry is one of the most self-serving politicians we’ve seen in a long time. His rhetoric and his policies are divisive – he cannot unite the republican party – he has become a media whore – creating controversy for the sake of attracting attention.
December 3rd, 2008 at 4:13 pm
It is fun to ask someone the question, “Who came in second in the GOP in 2008″? If they answer “Romney”, chances are very good that they were supported one or more of nearly all the other candidates save Huckabee. Even a number of Huckabee supporters will answer, Romney”. Now if, on the other hand, they answer with a straight face, “Huckabee”, you can be pretty much be assured that they are one of his hard-core supporters. They are about the only people who actually believe it.
December 3rd, 2008 at 4:17 pm
marK – your statement is true for me. I was a Romney supporter but would have happily voted for Fred or Rudy, in no particular order.
December 3rd, 2008 at 4:19 pm
I pushed the submit too soon. Anyway, Huck was the worst possible choice for me, much worse than McCain. I would NEVER vote for Huck under any circumstances.
December 3rd, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Every single chapter of this book reveals more and more about Huckabee’s pettiness and bitterness. He focuses nothing on the good of the party and everything on the good of hismelf, which makes this chapter all that more ironic and hypocritical.
Huckabee, you little man, you.
December 3rd, 2008 at 4:40 pm
#21:
No, but he would of won over more than McCain or anybody else who was in the primaries.
December 3rd, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Can someone enlighten me on specifics regarding Gov. Huckabee’s bitterness and self-centeredness rather than throwing around accusations. Just courious.
December 3rd, 2008 at 4:56 pm
#34,
December 3rd, 2008 at 4:59 pm
#35
ROFL
December 3rd, 2008 at 5:04 pm
How does a religious conservative win?
Well, it’s not that hard — Bush did it eight years ago. Bush did it again four years ago. Bush was — and remains — authentic.
When even the religious wing of the GOP cannot figure out when Huckabee is being authentic compared to when Huckabee is being a politician, the problem is all Huckabee. No one else to blame.
Republicans like fighters, and we don’t mind when a pastor goes on the attack — but don’t do it passive-aggressively.
Admit your record. There are probably arguments to be made why taxes needed to be raised in Arkansas — but at least admit it! Don’t act like a hard-core economic conservative when you’re not one.
Or at least “flip-flop” on an issue — admit your wrong. You’re allowed one flip-flop per issue (provided you’re “flopping” on the correct side). Evangelicals eventually came around to Romney, who talked like a liberal 5-10 years ago — we forgive (you know, grace and all), but it needs to be authentic.
I like Huckabee, but the guy needs to grow up before he is worthy of being president.
December 3rd, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Huckabee is essentially making the case FOR Romney’s governance in Mass.
December 3rd, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Let me be clearer — I am a James Dobson fan. A social, religious conservative. The pro-life issue is one of the most important issues to me.
But I would have much, much more preferred Rudy Giuliani (good on judges, authentic — maybe authenticly a jerk to his wives, but nonetheless authentic, a functional almost pro-life president) to Huckabee. And I know I’m not alone there.
When Huckabee loses my evangelical vote to a three-time married pro-abortion Catholic, well, the guy’s got problems.
December 3rd, 2008 at 5:13 pm
#39:”When Huckabee loses my evangelical vote to a three-time married pro-abortion Catholic, well, the guy’s got problems.”
LOL
December 3rd, 2008 at 5:17 pm
I’d love to continue this conversation later this evening and in depth but I have got to go to church.
I will say this before I have to go. What I have been told about Gov. Huckabee’s record in Arkansas is that the per capita tax burden remain the same when he left Arkansas as when began as governor and which was at the bottom compared to the other states. In light of what he was faced with court mandated expenditures on education and a deteriated road system, thats pretty darn good. As a civil engineer, I can tell you that road improvements are not cheap to fix. Also his success with education was not shabby either, so at least the expenditures were not wasted.
December 3rd, 2008 at 5:17 pm
We have this quote as one of our rotating quotes. It’s from a Politico.com article, and it applies to Huckabee:
“Just because you’re an elected official doesn’t mean people are going to spend money on you,” one literary agent said. “Out of 535 members, no more than 10 of them should be writing books.” ~ Politico.com article
December 3rd, 2008 at 5:30 pm
#41 — Then I think the argument can be made that Huckabee — not his supporters — should have done a better job at explaining why government spending was needed in Arkansas. I concede that I do not know the details of the court-mandated education spending — but that sounds a whole lot like an unconstitutional declaration that Huckabee should have had the courage to defy.
On economic issues, he should have added to the debate, as opposed to turning off a gigantic chunk of Republicans (economic and social conservatives who support Club for Growth) with the “Club for Greed” comment.
And could any Huckabee supporter please explain his endorsement of Don Young? While we agree that endorsements don’t matter a great deal, usually — but between Huckabee and Ron Paul endorsing Don Young, that probably can account for his narrow win over Sean Parnell.
Success on education? Has anybody figured out yet whether Huckabee supports school choice? Are you really arguing for Huckabee by talking about how great monopolized government-run schools are due to more (and more, and more) spending?
December 3rd, 2008 at 5:36 pm
I heard that I was being talked about.
Yes, I am very thankful for the endorsements of Gov. Huckabee and Congressman Paul.
The dozens of Alaskan voters living on small islands who will receive tens of millions of dollars from taxpayers in Arkansas and Texas, these people are also thankful.
I agree with Huckabee about how “idealogical purity” is over-rated. Republican first, conservative second! Down with Club for Growth!
December 3rd, 2008 at 5:41 pm
#34
The bitterness part is too easy. Here is evidence 1 of 23,417. If you want the other 23,416 just ask I will post them all.
http://www.theamericanmind.com/2008/11/17/huckabee-still-blaming-fred-thompson/
In a conference call promoting his new book Mike Huckabee continued blaming Fred Thompson for sinking his Presidential run
He reiterated the notion that if Fred Thompson weren’t in South Carolina, that he would have won the state — and probably the nomination.)
December 3rd, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Obviously if you do not know the answers to those tax and education questions, you turned a deaf ear during the primaries. Huckabee did discuss why he raised taxes-to fix the roads, schools, health care. Yes, he supported vouchers. But he also said it depended on the school district, as he said some rural districts did not make sense to have vouchers as there were not any other local choices to go to.
As for the name Huckpac, what’s the big deal? Whether you were a Huck supporter of not, if you wanted to look up his pac on the web, isn’t it easier to find by his name Huckpac, than trying to figure out what Romney named his pac. I don’t think it was about ego, but rather making it easier for people to access his pac.
December 3rd, 2008 at 5:54 pm
#45-Stating a fact. Yes, it was Thompson that stopped Huckabee in South Carolina. Sour grapes? Maybe, but the point of that paragraph in the book, was just letting people not totally engaged in politics know how he lost. And yes, Thompson campaigned hard in SC and spent time and money negatively campaigning against Huckabee. Alls fair in politics-Huckabee is just stating how he lost. Just like Romney would be stating that he lost IA because of Huckabee, NH because of McCain, and FL because of McCain.
December 3rd, 2008 at 6:13 pm
#47
I call it bitterness, you call it sour grapes. I have no argument with your response, those terms mean the same thing to me.
December 3rd, 2008 at 6:15 pm
#39:”When Huckabee loses my evangelical vote to a three-time married pro-abortion Catholic, well, the guy’s got problems”
Wow! Sounds like you made a very principled orientated decision. They we’re other pro-life candidates…. or does that matter anymore???
December 3rd, 2008 at 6:42 pm
The point is that Huckabee WAS THE WORST POSSIBLE OPTION IN 2008.
I felt the very same way as #39.
December 3rd, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Regarding Dobson, the fact that he waited till the very last minute to endorse Huckabee says a lot. It’s like a brides father who waits for the ring exchange before he finally gives his blessing for you to marry his daughter. At that point it’s a bit late and obvious he never liked you in the first place.
December 3rd, 2008 at 6:55 pm
#51 Lol. That is about what happened.
December 3rd, 2008 at 7:09 pm
#47: “Just like Romney would be stating that he lost IA because of Huckabee, NH because of McCain, and FL because of McCain.”
But Tex, the point is Romney ISN’T stating that. He assigns no blame. He makes no accusations. He realizes that circular firing squads don’t help anyone. He’s trying to let bygones be bygones, to heal the party, to move on.
Unlike somebody else we could mention.
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Well, solutions are not un-ideological in nature, though it’s generally better to have them than not. I do think people are looking for solutions most of all, but if they stray too far from their ideological principles, I doubt they are likely to embrace them.
I do think it is a decent argument that a candidate that may not be ideologically pure but offers workable and attractive solutions might be more desirable than a more down-the-line candidate, though I don’t agree with his thesis that people don’t tend to vote for more centrist candidates. On the national level, at least, presidential candidates have at least tried to appear centrist.
December 4th, 2008 at 12:16 am
#54
Considering Huckabee challenging financial circumstances in Arkansas, if Huckabee ended his 10 year tenure with only a 1% average increase per year in tax burden, less than inflation, you would have to save that pretty darn good conservative results and that is exactly what Huckabee did. Did he raise some taxes, he sure did but he also offset raises with cuts, again thats conservative. But people say scream, HE RAISED TAXES, and glass over that he cut other taxes, then couple that with what he accomplished and you have to take notice. Thats good governorance and in tough times is a sign of good leadership and is something this country needs. He was chairman of the NGA for good reason.
Here’s something to chew on:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/442.html
Huckabee
Year Tax as % of Economy % increase
1996 10.10% N/A
1997 10.10% 0.00%
1998 10.20% 0.99%
1999 10.20% 0.00%
2000 10.50% 2.94%
2001 10.50% 0.00%
2002 10.30% -1.90%
2003 10.00% -2.91%
2004 10.50% 5.00%
2005 11.20% 6.67%
2006 11.10% -0.89%
Average Increase/Year
0.99%
#51:
Dobson is really relucant to endorse anyone most elections, he is a non-profit.
#46 and #47:
Thank You.
#43:
Don Young, I don’t know why, other than he is a personal friend of a long time. I can not say I support everything my friends say and do.
School Choice: Huckabee is against federally manadated vouchers but believes states should determine what is best in thier individual state. In Arkansas, the voucher would not cover the total cost at most private schools and therefore would raise costs to those that payed. Thats not conservative results. Federal vouchers also come with federal regulations which worried some private schools so they were generally against the idea too. Huckabee suportted tax credits instead vouchers, win-win for students and schools. Thats an out-of-the-box conservative approach.
And yes I would hope Huckabee would do a better job at defending his record if there is a next time around.
December 4th, 2008 at 2:25 am
#55:
And it must be pointed out that the Fair Tax has a school choice element in it. Education expenses are not taxed.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:35 am
#56
Once you get the foot in the door on the “Fair Tax” or any other tax, it’ll be tweaked, tweaked, tweaked some more and eventually will look just like what we’ve got today, with the difference being that today we have a pretty good idea of what does and doesn’t fly in the courts. Change out the tax code wholesale and EVERYTHING will be tested in court.
I don’t mind the Fair Tax per se, it’s just that so many of its proponents think it’s a Godsend (wink, wink) when in fact it’s just another way to fund the Government services we all need (and some we probably don’t need). Do I really care if it’s coming out of my left pocket or my right pocket? My Bank of America account or my Citibank account?
Ugh… best not get all the way up on that soapbox… it’s still early.
December 4th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
#57:
You are missing the boat ogrepete, the FairTax is about leveling the playing field, no more pressive tax. Its about bringing BACK the $13,000,000,000 that has left to go overseas. To put that in perspective, we are currenty worried about the $2.5 trill that left the stock market this year. Its about empowering you to be able to spend ALL of your money as you see fit.
It will be tweaked and tweaked, but we have exhausted all we can do with the current system in my opinion, with respect to its effect on the tax payers. Do you realize that 47.5% of Americans currently don’t pay taxes? I love a tax cut, it stimulates the economy, but how many more tax cuts will it be before that figure is over 50% and and the tax cut places you (if you pay taxes) and me in a minority of people called “TAX PAYERS”. It may be shrouded during Obama’s administration and called the “Middle Class Tax Cut.” I believe that why he really has embraced the issue during the campaign.
Food for thought.
December 4th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
One more thing. If tax payers become the minority, your vote (though important in a constitutional agrument) will be rendered less powerfull.
December 5th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
“It’s like a brides father who waits for the ring exchange before he finally gives his blessing for you to marry his daughter.”
Actually, since Dobson declined to endorse Huckabee until after Super Tuesday, it was more like the father waiting until after the reception.