Obama considers himself to be a spiritual person and though I don't at all understand how he can have some of his positions, I don't make it a point to question anyone else's faith. In fact, if I were Obama, I can imagine what I'd be praying right now. I'd be praying for my opposition to listen to the suggestions of the pundits who have been influencing the Republican process up to this point in time. Here's a snippet of what I can imagine Obama is praying:

Grant me this year the serenity to have my message of "change" accepted. Grant not my opponents the courage to change from bad tactics to good ones - or the wisdom to know the difference.

I pray that many of those who oppose me will waste the next four months making fun of my middle name and taking personal shots at my wife. This way I shall be spared from having to give answers for my positions on late-term abortion, domestic oil drilling, and tax increases. In this I take comfort.

May my opponents become so blinded in their dislike of me that they do nothing but verbally attack me - from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same. Let them play rhyming games with my last name. Talk about my former church. Spread unproven rumors. Voice various insults. May they become so focused on attacking me the person that they both lose favor with the public and also forget to challenge me on the issues. Lest the manifold problems with some of my positions be laid bare before all.

I pray that the other side will forsake their first love - the Evangelicals. May they forget them who helped their party to win five of the last seven elections. May they assume that these voters will vote for them no matter what. And if they should ignore this great multitude, may enough of them stay home that I might prevail. Or even, if possible, I pray, may my refusal to ignore these same voters convince some of them to vote for me instead.

May the desires of the other side to win new territory grow so strong that they should forget to protect their own. May their dreams of turning Michigan red be so great that they forget about keeping Georgia and Mississippi from going blue.

I also request that they assume that all black voters will vote for me. May they act on this false belief so that they refuse to even ask for their votes. And may this not only become a self-fulfilling prophecy, but may the perception it causes also alienate many white voters as well.

May they give heed to the advice of the conservative media establishment, whose abode is in states that I shall win handily. May they follow all of their advice in how they choose to engage me, how they choose to campaign and how they choose to complete the other ticket.

And I give many thanks for those in the other side's establishment and media. Their actions have filled my heart with gladness. They have spared me from facing an opponent who could easily beat me in a debate, who is less than six years older than me but has four times the experience, and who is every bit as charismatic as me but carries less baggage. Yes, they sheltered me from someone who could have given me a serious run for my money in every demographic category. They treated him with spite and even now hurl insults at him. I pray that they are successful in keeping him off the ticket as he makes the other side look pleasing to the eyes of the voters who will decide this election. (Amen!)

May they become so eager to please their media pundits that they pair my honorable opponent with someone with no more experience in government than I. Or someone unknown. Or someone who shall not win in the south. Or a "safe" pick - someone who is beloved by their media and establishment. I pray that my opponent shall pick a partner who will be highly favored by the National Review, the Washington establishment and others who spend less time with their voters than even I do.

And, lastly, I pray that the voters - all voters - trust not in their own research but in what the media suggests. Let them trust what the liberal media says about me and what the conservative media says about how to defeat me. If this happens, I will be blessed in the city and blessed in the country.

Amen!

It has to be at least a little funny that so many among the conservative elite who instruct conservative voters in the knowledge of who is and isn't acceptable to conservatives live and work in places that never vote for Republicans. Main Street ... pay attention. Wall Street is giving you instructions. They're trying to protect you from those elitists on the left.

I've finally figured out how the official spokespeople for all things conservative have so much information about the liberals that they like to deride. They have a lot of insightful information to share with us about the liberal media, "limousine liberals" and the liberal elite. But it turns out that they got this inside information on the inner workings of Blue State America in a way that's a lot less insidious than many people would imagine. They don't do any wiretaps. They don't steal files. They don't use spies or other devious infiltration techniques to spy on the liberals.

They just go to their windows. And look across the street. You see, the conservative media - the ones who tell those of us in the red states who is conservative and who is not - live across the street from the liberals. That is when they don't live next door. They probably ride in the same limos.

I can't get over how out of touch some conservative media outlets are with conservative voters. Especially the National Review, which has gone out of its way to bash Huckabee with every opportunity (by the way, did we mention that he's totally unacceptable?) and to plug people like Romney (did you know he's a true conservative? Trust us, conservatives would be thrilled!) All I will waste any effort saying at this point is that if John McCain listens to people like this, the Republicans will lose badly in places that they haven't lost in twenty years. Like the south. Game over.

And if that happens, Mr. Lowry and company will have no one but themselves to thank for the nice new 55% Federal Income Tax Rates they'll be paying.

When I was growing up, my dad drove a taxi cab in the District of Columbia as a second job in order to make more money to support our family. It was a dangerous job. In fact, one night, a passenger hopped into his cab and pointed a gun into his back. He instructed my dad to drive to a remote area. My father is a brave man and decided that if he was going to get shot, he was going to get shot in the open. And so he drove to the front of a police precinct, pulled up to an officer, and told him that he was being robbed. The man was arrested.

Isn't my family lucky that the D.C. gun laws were in place to protect my dad?

I am not a gun lover. I don't even like guns. But I defend the Constitutional Right of individual citizens to own guns. And though I understand and agree with some of the points made by both sides in the gun debate, my mind keeps hopping back to one key question.

The question is, for the average person who is depraved enough to use a gun to commit a violent crime against another human being, does that person care that they're committing one more felony by having the gun? Does the fact that the gun is illegal in any way make them less likely to get one? Has anyone ever said "I would shoot that person if only it were legal for me to get a gun?"

Unlike issues like abortion, taxes, etc., I will admit that I have not studied the data on gun laws. I really don't know the empirical evidence of how effective they are. But living near the D.C. area both now and in my growing up years, all during which handguns were illegal, I will tell you that I don't understand how this attempt to prohibit handgun ownership helped at all. Not only did the law violate the Constitution but it also seemed to be very ineffective. As the crack cocaine epidemic, combined with the decay of the family, waged war on the city during the 1980's, the crime rate went way out of control. The law seemed to do nothing to resolve the underlying problems for the crime. Certainly, anyone who wanted a gun could get a gun whether they were legal or not. Except of course for people who choose to obey the law.

If at 3 AM, someone tries to break into my home and harm my family, I won't be calling any politician. The government won't have time to help me before the criminal gets to me. And so I want the right to use a firearm to protect my family. And I wouldn't deny that right to any other law-abiding citizen no matter where they live.

Another horrible story of idiotic behavior is in the news today. An American Eagle flight crew kicked a woman and her scared toddler off a a flight. The details from ABC 11:

An American Eagle flight taxiing to a Raleigh-Durham Airport runway was turned around Monday, but not because of a terrorist threat.

The crew was kicking an autistic Cary toddler and his mother off the plane.

The story gets worse the more you read it. According to the story, an indignant flight attendant was yelling at the toddler while tightening his seat belt more and more. The co-pilot came back to give the mom who was trying to calm her child down a stern warning. Then they turned the plane around and announced to all the passengers that the reason was because of a woman and her uncontrollable child. Then they apologized to the family, only to recant the apology by having its corporate spokespeople say that they did the right thing.

For those who aren't clued in about Autism, it is a very real disorder. Brain scans of autistic kids and those without the disorder are markedly different, as are, in many cases, scans of the intestinal system. A lot of these kids are anxiety prone. They sometimes physically feel sick - as in nauseated - because of fungal problems in their gut. And they often have problems communicating - either in terms of their receptive language or their expressive language or both. For some of these kids, the way that they communicate best is by the old fashioned way - crying. And even if this hasn't touched your family yet, this is a true epedimic. In 1989, about 1 and 10,000 kids were diagnosed with Autism. Today, about 1 in 150 children are diagnosed on the Autistic spectrum. Someone may suggest that this is simply the result of better detection. To which I respond, "show me the 1 in 150 adults who are autistic." Because if the problem hasn't gotten worse over the years, the ratios of kids with Autism and adults with Autism should be about the same.

Anyway, unless the company issues a prompt apology and announces a plan to train its staff to deal with situations like this, I will never take American Airlines again. Not when I travel with my family. Not when I take a business trip. Goodbye.

If this is how they treat vulnerable passengers who are trying to comply with the rules, they might find soon that they're the ones who are crying - when their ticket sales fall further.

From 1789 through 2004, there have been 55 Presidential Elections In nine of those Elections, the person who won was not able to complete his term. Eight died in office and one was forced to resign. There have also been numerous close calls - Presidents who nearly died in office, were nearly forced to resign or who could have been deemed medically unable to perform their duties. More than any other attribute, the Vice President must be a person who is capable of running the country at a moment's notice if needed.

Many of us who have a vested interest in either party's Veepstakes can probably imagine some key scenes in the next administration in which our favorite choice for Vice President exhibits heavy influence with the boss. We can envision the Cabinet meeting in which all of the President's appointees and aides are sitting around a huge, long table, with our favorite choice for Vice President sitting at the President's right side. The Cabinet Secretaries and aides are looking perplexed. The Senior Aides are wringing their hands. The President has his head held down, not knowing the best course of action to take. And then our Veep heroically leans over to whisper in the President's ear in a calm and confident voice:

"Mr. President. Sir ... I officially recommend that you ... fix the economy!"

The President smiles and nods in agreement - what a great idea! The whole room looks relieved. Our Vice President is always there to save the day when the next Administration might otherwise go astray. We think of his/her main role as being the voice that whispers good advice into the President's ear. But for all the talk about balancing the ticket, satisfying different constituencies and the working relationship between the two top Executives, we tend to forget the most crucial role of a Vice President. The job of being ready to become President at a moment's notice.

Russian Roulette

From the time George Washington was elected in 1789 through the Election of 2004, there have been 55 Presidential Elections. In that same time period, there have been eight Presidents who died in office and one who resigned in office. This means that out of the 55 times that a person has been elected to serve a term as President of the United States, there have been nine times that the winner was unable to finish his elected term. Another way of looking at this is that historically speaking, there is an 83.63% chance that the person who is elected President finishes the term to which they were elected. Pretty good odds.

Except when you look at it this way. The odds of surviving the first round of Russian Roulette are 83.33%. The odds are almost exactly the same.

And in addition to our nine Presidents who either died in office or resigned, we've had many other close calls among the Presidents who have served out their terms. President Clinton was impeached and came relatively close to being removed from office. President Reagan very nearly died when he was shot in 1981. President Eisenhower suffered a heart attack during his first term and a mild stroke during his second term. In 1943, President Roosevelt was onboard a Navy warship on his way to attend a summit when his vessel was nearly sunk - by another Navy vessel that accidentally fired a torpedo at it. President Harding might have been impeached had he not died in office of a heart attack first. President Wilson suffered a massive stroke toward the end of his second term and was completely incapacitated for months. And President Andrew Johnson came within a single vote of being removed from Office - at a time that the nation had no Vice President.

And then there was the amazing situation in the wake of the Election of 1972 in which both the President (Nixon) and his Vice President (Agnew) were forced from office before their terms were complete. Both were out of office just a little more than a year and a half after they swept the country and won 49 out of 50 states.

Let me emphasize this very firmly: no matter who wins the Presidency, I will be praying every single day that the person not only remains healthy and stays out of trouble but that the person does a fantastic job leading our country. Our nation badly needs for whoever wins this November to be successful in the job they do for this country. But history should teach us that one of most important decisions a President makes is the decision of who will run the country in the unlikely but possible event that he or she can't serve the whole term.

Quality #1 - Having The Proven Ability To Run A Government

So, when a running mate is being considered, that person really needs to be subjected to some of the same fundamental questions that the Presidential candidate is subjected to. Can he/she lead the country? Do they have the experience, the judgment and the temperament? After all, this person could become the President at any point in time.

As I've pointed out before, historically speaking, Presidents who had been Governors beforehand are more successful than Presidents who had not been. Comparing the Wall Street Journal's 2005 survey (which asked a bipartisan group of historians to rate the Presidents) with the previous political offices held by Presidents before taking office, our Presidents who were previously Governors had an average rating of 3.201 ("above average") while the other Presidents who hadn't been averaged at 2.87 ("average"). There is clear evidence that running a state government as Chief Executive is often good preparation for running the country.

Of the nine Vice Presidents who became President when their boss either died or resigned, only two - Theodore Roosevelt and Harry Truman - were rated above average by historians (both are considered "near great"). Only two others - Calvin Coolidge and Lyndon Johnson - were considered average. The other five are considered to have been below-average or outright failures.

These four Vice Presidents who ascended to the Presidency and who are thought of well by Presidential Historians were all people who were used to having roles in which they either were the person in charge or had unique leadership roles. Roosevelt and Coolidge had both been successful and popular state governors. Truman and Johnson were both prominent Senators; Truman was a powerful Committee Chairman and Johnson was the Senate Majority Leader who had long been a leader among his peers.

A common attribute among the most successful Vice Presidents is that they had been successful in holding positions that required them to be the leader (and not just one of many) at lower levels of government before they got the Veep job.

Quality #2 - Having Integrity

Of course, it does no good to choose somebody who is capable of assuming the top job if needed if they have character flaws that could prevent them from keeping it.

President Bill Clinton came to the White House with more years of experience running a government than any President in U.S. History. He actually lowered the Federal Budget deficit every single year of his Presidency until there was no deficit. And then he increased the surplus every year after that. But because of poor choices he made in his personal integrity, he came within seventeen Senate votes of being removed from office.

In October 1973, the month of the Arab Oil Embargo and the Yom Kippur War, the United States could have ended in a position in which the Speaker of the House would have had to become President in an emergency succession crisis. Earlier that month, Vice President Spiro Agnew, who was chosen as a running mate for Nixon for reasons that did seem to take character into account, was forced to resign. He pled no contest to charges of tax evasion and money laundering. President Nixon himself was to resign almost exactly ten months later. Had Nixon's tapes been discovered a few months earlier, Nixon might have been forced to resign, making Agnew President. And then Agnew would have had to resign. It would have created an unprecedented leadership crisis for this country at a moment when we could have least afforded to be without a leader.

And so, among the many criteria that should be used to select a running mate, personal character really needs to be one of them.

Other Factors

As much as people talk about the importance of foreign policy credentials during this time that our nation is at war, I am reminded of the fact that this nation won World War I and came within a month of winning World War II while two men who had never served one day in uniform (Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt respectively) were Commander-In-Chief. Foreign Policy experience is incredibly important. But a better historical predictor of Presidential success is in having a track record of running a government as Chief Executive.

On the Republican side, Mike Huckabee has more experience running a government than any of the 2008 Presidential Candidates of either party. In addition, his ten and a half year tenure is longer than that of any current Republican Governor. Many voters of both parties have become endeared to Huckabee because of his personal integrity and fairness, as evidenced by his calls for his party to debate the issues and not embark on destructive personal politics. If McCain chooses Huckabee he will provide himself the best partner and America the benefit of having a capable successor who would be capable of assuming the high office in the unlikely event that he is required to.

Backup

The odds are overwhelming that whoever wins the next election will complete his term, remaining both healthy and out of trouble. But in the event that for some reason this doesn't happen, it is in the best interest of America for the Presidential Candidates to choose as a running mate someone who has the demonstrated capability of running a government at some level. The Vice Presidency is similar to a spare tire on a car. It's something that has very little purpose while the main tire is functioning. Some see its purpose as little more than decorative, as they are on some SUVs. However, in the event that the tire does need to be replaced, the presence of a working spare tire that can withstand the pressures of the road is invaluable. And when you know that the tires have a 17% chance of needing to be replaced, it is foolish to not make sure that the spare has been tested and won't need to be immediately replaced itself.

Back in the eighties, there was a great movie about a kid who traveled back in history in a time machine made out of a De Lorean. He was able to go back and meet his parents in their younger years and straighten out a number of issues that would have affected his family in a negative way had he not gone back and intervened. Good flick. I'm sure you've seen it.

With all the talk about rolling back the Bush Tax Cuts - the ones that basically every Democrat says helped mainly "the rich," I started to do a little thinking. How would the future life of the average American family be affected if they were suddenly, with today's costs and obligations, thrust back eight years and made to live under the tax rates of 2000 - the rates that were in place before Bush cut them?

As the oddball scientist who likes to do some tinkering in my spare time, I imagined what it would be like to have a time machine that could transport a typical American family - we'll call them the Smiths - back eight years to experience what life would be like for some non-rich people who need to pay today's expenses without the Bush tax cuts. Let's pretend that they're loaded into the time machine with the destination set on 2000. They take with them their 2008 salary and their 2008 bills but need to pay their Federal Taxes with the 2000 tax code - the last tax code before Bush cut them "for the rich." This way, we can get an understanding of how the Bush Tax Cuts affected regular, non-rich people. And hey, maybe by going back in time to learn the truth about the tax cuts, we can get some information that can help our family avoid hard times in the future. Let's rev up the engine.

(Eh. I don't think they make De Loreans anymore. I wanted to build the imaginary time machine with a Lambourghini. But the gas is pretty expensive these days. Mind if we use a Prius?)

Before the Smiths go back to the tax rates of 2000, let's talk about their life today. The census bureau says that in 2005, the average income for a four person family was $67,019. In today's world, assuming that they take have two kids, take the standard deduction, and pay an average state tax rate of 5.71% (using the Wikipedia numbers), they pay $5,626 a year in Federal Taxes, $4,155 in Social Security taxes, $972 in Medicare taxes, and $3,827 in state taxes. After taxes, they've got $52,439 left over every year. And using the 2005 figures from the Census bureau on the average household expenditures, the Smiths spend $32,444 of that in essential living expenses. Of course, these average figures assumed annual gasoline expenses of only $1,610 and annual utility bills of $2,697 (hmmm ... I think they might be a little higher now). But with the 2008 tax rates, our family has some leftover money to pay some of the difference in inflated gas and utility bills, to save some cash for their kids' education and for retirement, and to buy clothes, go on vacation and grab the occasional pizza.

But, once they ride back to 2000 and find themselves facing the tax rates of that era, they find that making the same money, they would pay $10,161 in Federal Taxes. That's a $4,535.00  dollar increase. Even though they're not rich, they clearly were reaping a pretty nice benefit from the Bush Tax Cuts - the taxes that were waiting for them in 2000 were 81% higher than the ones they left in 2008. In this strange world, they now only have $47,904 left over after taxes - instead of today's $52,439. They still have at least $32,444 in essential living expenses, plus a need for a considerably higher amount of gas and utilities. But now they have less cushion than they had in 2008 to pay for these increased costs. It very well may be that something else has to give - maybe the savings for education or retirement. Maybe the clothes. Maybe the vacation or other entertainment.

Hey - wait a minute, buddy. I've always heard that the Bush Tax Cuts were just for the rich!

My response: (knock knock knock). C'mon. Think, McFly!

Although many politicians verbally slam the Bush Tax Cuts, the facts are that these cuts were not just "for the rich." They benefited taxpayers of different income levels. And if they were repealed, the increase in tax rates would affect taxpayers of different income levels.

If the Bush tax cuts are reversed, it will hurt families who are not rich and who will have one more big fat bill that they can't choose to not pay - the Federal Tax Bill that would in some cases be nearly twice what it is today. They might have to choose to not pay other bills instead, which will in turn hurt all the businesses that depend on disposable income (places which often employ other non-rich people who depend on the business to survive so that they can have jobs). I am not an economist and cannot speak to what exactly will happen on Wall Street if taxes are raised. But the prospect of a tax increase - through the rollback of tax cuts - will hurt the economy here on Main Street.

In case you're wondering, you don't need to worry about how much the family would be able to tuck into the savings account each year if taxes are raised. Savings accounts? Where we're going, we don't need ... savings accounts.

In 1968, President Richard Nixon picked his running mate during his party's convention. He chose the former Governor of Maryland Spiro Agnew. Nixon chose him over objections that he wasn't that well known and that he was chosen over at least seventeen other candidates. Nixon picked him because of some things that were pretty superficial. He was from a state considered part of the south at a time Nixon was employing his infamous "southern strategy." But he wasn't from so far into the south that he would turn off northern voters. He was also an immigrant and that was considered a bonus.

But there was no indication that his character was a part of the consideration.

Nixon/Agnew went on to beat Humphrey, narrowly, in 1968. Then four years later, they won 49 out of 50 states in beating George McGovern. They made a good team in terms of politics and clearly were successful in winning votes.

But there was a problem.

In 1973, at the same time that the Watergate investigation was ramping up, Federal Investigators began checking into bribery allegations against Agnew. In July, the existence of the Nixon Watergate tapes became public knowledge. And on October of that year, Agnew was forced to resign the Vice Presidency. Gerald Ford was sworn in to replace him in December. Nixon of course resigned in August, 1974, and Ford then became President.

The team that won 49 out of 50 states in one of the most lopsided elections in U.S. History were both gone - less than nineteen months after their second inauguration. Because of character issues. They both won an election in one of the most dramatic landslides in American History. But because they won in a dishonorable way and because Agnew broke the law, they were both forced to resign in disgrace. They didn't even make it to the half way point in the term that they won by such an incredible margin. And because by inauguration day, they were both facing scrutiny over Nixon's Watergate and over Agnew's bribery and tax evasion, they probably never enjoyed a single day of that term. What good is it to win an election in a way that makes you unable to actually lead once you get the job?

But can you imagine what would have happened if the Watergate tapes had been discovered one year before, in 1972, right after the burglary? And if the resignation of Nixon had happened one year before?

This is how it could have played out. Nixon would have resigned in August, 1973. Agnew would have become President. And then in October, 1973, Agnew would have also had to resign or face impeachment. It could have been possible for two consecutive Presidents of the United States to have been forced from office - in a time span of two months. They were both guilty of crimes. It was only a matter of merciful timing that kept this scenario from happening.

Can you imagine what would have happened to our country if two consecutive Presidents had been removed from office because of corruption in a matter of a few months? It would have totally destroyed the very office of the Presidency. It's possible that the new Vice President wouldn't even have been confirmed in time and then the Speaker of the House would have become President. During the midst of the Cold War.

And this is why, for both positions, as well as for everything else, character counts. And when picking a Vice President, character is a much more important characteristic than any of the things that might help you get elected. Because the most important role of a Vice President is to be able to assume the Presidency if the President cannot complete his/her term. It doesn't matter how much you win if character issues keep you from being able to keep the job. Because, as the old saying goes, your gifts can take you to a place where your character isn't strong enough to keep you.

Mike Huckabee, as usual, nailed it. The GOP shouldn't try to run against Obama by calling him names or turning him into some type of boogeyman. It needs to argue and campaign on the issues and ideas. And it needs a message - it needs to tell people why to vote for John McCain and not just reasons not to vote for Barack Obama.

I have a number of serious disagreements with some of Barack Obama's policies. However, I'm not against or out to get Obama. I don't even dislike him - I just strongly disagree with him on some issues. And that's the attitude that would benefit the GOP. Point out the differences. Don't try to turn it into a bloodbath. People are tired of that approach - from both directions (and the anger-fest has truly gone in both directions).

But just spending every waking second of the day finding a new name to call Obama works against the GOP in a number of ways. It is a sure way to lose to Barack Obama. The best shot McCain has is to solidify his message, get a great running mate who has a passionate following and sound ideas (Huckabee) and to run the campaign by talking about how his ideas compare to Obama's ideas. Class is what people want, not more red meat for the pit bulls of both sides to fight over while the rest of us lose respect for both sides - and especially for the side that seems to spend more time getting personal. You can actually win an election on issues.

Remember ... most of the country is sick and tired of partisan warfare. You can listen to those on either side of the political divide who are out for blood ... but you will find yourself completely out of alignment with what the people want. We've had enough warfare in the past two decades and our nation is already divided enough. Let's have a discussion of ideas. If you really want to hurt your opponent, make them explain and try to defend a crummy idea. It's much more effective than name calling.

Being obsessed with trashing your opponent only works when the opponent plays along by either not fighting back (Kerry) or by playing along with the caricature he's been painted to be (Goldwater). It didn't work for the Republicans when they were obsessed with trashing Clinton in 1996. It didn't work for the Democrats when they were obsessed with Bush in 2004. It hurt both Hillary and Obama during the Democratic Primaries. And it won't work for either side this fall - it will completely backfire. Get a message. Articulate your policies. Draw out your differences with your opponent. And act with class. Don't listen to the brawlers on both the left and the right. No one who listens to their advice wins elections. Unless, of course, the opponent helps them out a lot.

"The Wrong Way"  Pretty tacky. Childish. More appropriate for a contest for Freshman Class President than the Presidency of the United States. This type of stuff makes me have a poor opinion of the intellect of those who say it.A bit idiotic, isn't it? Why not just tell "mama" jokes and throw spitballs instead? This will backfire in a huge way and won't do much to persuade those who haven't already made up their mind.

"The Right Way" For those who are confused about what Huckabee was talking about, here is an example of a campaign that doesn't get into crass personal insults but compares issues. None of it is being "soft" on Obama but instead leads voters to think about differences in issues - which won't happen if they just use low-ball politics. This is more what you'd expect from someone who is mentally mature enough to be President. Try to motivate voters to vote for you because they like your ideas better than the other guy's - not because you've tried to make them hate the other guy/gal.

What a dumb move

Most people thought that it wasn't a very smart move for a politician who wanted to have a place in the White House to make.

Mike Huckabee was expected to continue talking directly to the specific group of Republican voters who he'd spent the last few months courting. He was expected to do what was considered the responsible thing and to keep his focus on the campaign at hand and not do something that some thought bordered on indulgence. Huckabee's move was something that was in contradiction to political common sense - at least many of the highly paid Republican Party political consultants thought so. Why couldn't he just continue to do what all the other contenders were doing? But Huckabee marched to his own beat and traveled to the end of the country to take his seat in the television studio. Even the travel time was costing him opportunities to mingle with the important people. His competitors laughed at how foolish a decision he had just made.

And then he did it. And the whole country got to see Mike Huckabee spend time joking around with Jay Leno and playing with his band while explaining his political positions in terms that all the people could understand and relate to. The next day, Huckabee won the Iowa Caucuses by more than nine points, beating a man who wildly outspent him and who, unlike Huck, did all the things a sensible politician in 2008 was supposed to do.

And that episode should have been a lesson for those who like to laugh at Mike Huckabee. The lesson that nobody laughs at him for very long. Because in addition to being a very experienced government Chief Executive, Mike Huckabee is also a different type of politician. And like many of our most successful American Presidents, he knows how to use the mass media to talk directly to the people. But unlike most modern politicians, he does it without paying a dime. Pretty dumb, huh?

The Unexpected

When the news broke last week that Mike Huckabee had signed a contract to be a regular contributor on Fox News, neither Huckabee's supporters or critics knew exactly what to make of it. Was this a sign that he had given up on hopes of being McCain's Vice President or that he knew he wouldn't be picked? Or was this, as some critics charged, proof that Huckabee was working a personal agenda and wasn't interested in advancing the conservative cause? Everybody seemed to agree that this was the last thing anyone expected a potential Veep-in-waiting to do. Those guys are supposed to spend their days sitting by the phone and saying nothing outside of the scripted endorsements planned for the carefully staged campaign events that the smart campaign people put together. That is, after all, what the public has been conditioned to expect from the typical politician.

Whether you like or dislike Mike Huckabee, there is one thing you will learn about him if you haven't already. He's not the typical politician. He doesn't often do the expected. In fact, he often does the exact opposite of what you'd think a politician would do. He even surprises his supporters sometimes.

You may be thinking that this trait is a liability. After all, it surely must be better to be buttoned down and traditional. More formal and serious. Not going off script or coming up with new ideas that the super-smart campaign aides didn't think of first? Well, not in 2008. You see, the public is sick to death of traditional politicians. That old thing about not answering yes or no questions and not thinking on your feet to respond to situations that weren't perfectly scripted - that's so twenty years ago. In fact, the public is so sick of politicians who do what politicians are expected to do that they're leaning toward voting for a candidate who has relatively little experience. That sound that you hear is the people storming outside the gates. The public wants a different type of politician. And they want someone who will communicate to them in a way that most politicians don't.

The Great Communicators

Many of the most popular and effective Presidents in American History have been those whose administrations were most gifted in speaking directly to the people through the media.

Franklin Delano Rooesevelt was Governor of New York before he became the nation's thirty second President. And as Governor, he stayed in touch with his constituents through the most potent mass media instrument of the day - the radio. He went on the air at least once a month and spoke with the public in their own homes and in a way they could relate to. Using his great communication skills, FDR was able to outmaneuver the state legislature, which opposed him, by appealing directly to the public and using the people to pressure legislators to get his agenda passed. When he came to the Oval Office, the media-savvy Roosevelt continued his usage of the media, talking to the entire nation this time in what came to be known as the "fireside chats." This usage of the media to communicate directly with the public endeared Roosevelt to much of the public and kept the nation informed during a string of crisis periods.

Technology continued to advance and, as it did, the more popular Presidencies seemed to be the ones whose administrations had expertise in using it effectively. The Election of 1952 featured the first televised Presidential advertisement ever. General Eisenhower, the Republican candidate, was filmed talking to a group of voters giving short answers to their concerns about every day issues, such as the cost of groceries. Later that same year, Eisenhower's running mate, Richard Nixon, was able to save his own career and spare the Republican ticket from total disarray with the famous "Checkers" speech - in which he spoke directly to the public about his personal finances. Someone even quipped that because of the emphasis on television, one day professional actors would run for President.

Eight years later came the first televised Presidential debates. President Kennedy emerged the winner of the election in part because he understood how to utilize the power of the mass media. Although most radio listeners thought that Nixon won the first debate, the eighty million Americans who watched the televised debate thought that Kennedy, who looked more relaxed and at ease, won and presented himself better.

The President who most effectively used the mass media to talk to the American people was President Ronald Reagan, who of course had a long career as a professional actor and was comfortable in front of the camera. He also had a significant amount of experience as a state Governor. And that experience along with his great communication skills, his friendly nature and his incredible sense of humor, earned him the nickname "The Great Communicator." One of the many keys to his popularity was that he knew how to speak to millions of Americans but yet come off as if he were sitting across the table in a one on one conversation with each of them. And he refused to be boxed in by the stuffiness of those who wanted to tell him what a President should and shouldn't say. Some of his most memorable moments - most notably "tear down this wall" - came about because Reagan himself was willing to communicate in ways and in terms not expected for an American President.

The guy in your living room

Back to Huckabee. Long before he entered the world of politics, Mike Huckabee had gained plenty of experience in using the mass media to get his message out to as many people as possible. At age 14, Huckabee got his first job - reading news and weather on a local radio station. In both of the churches that he Pastored in the 1980's and early 90's, he started 24-hour television stations. And during the last year as a fledgling Presidential candidate, Huckabee became a household name through brilliant usage of the mass media. He frequently appeared on every available mass media outlet - while getting more votes for less money than any other major candidate. And along with that publicity came public attention to the causes Huckabee espoused - the Fair Tax and the Human Life Amendment to name a couple. No matter what message Huckabee has tried to deliver - whether it's the message of the Gospel or of tax reform - Huckabee knows how to efficiently communicate it to as many people at a time as possible.

And back to Fox. Whatever his role is at the network, this is an opportunity for Huckabee to bring more attention to his causes, his party, as well any future candidacy. He also has the advantage of getting to spend time in the living rooms of potential voters but to do so at a time when he's not actively asking for votes. People are used to being wary of politicians. But not only is Huckabee unlike most politicians, but, he will be serving in a role that allows him to have a conversational relationship with the largest group of cable news viewers. Which is of course an audience that generally tends to never sit out an election. And on top of all these benefits, he is being compensated for it. We all realized that Huckabee was skilled at getting free media coverage. But it turns out he was smart enough to figure out how to actually get paid for it.

Regardless of what Mike Huckabee does in the future - regardless of whether he emerges as John McCain's 2008 running mate or runs for office himself in the future, this step - getting into the living rooms of the people who would be most likely to vote for his party - helps him, his party and his causes immensely. And it will help Fox, whose ratings have sagged a bit as of late. This is one of those situations in which everybody involved wins. And those who are laughing at it probably won't laugh for very long. Rumor has it that Chuck Norris is hanging out in the green room.

Once upon a time, there was a farmer named Sam. Sam owned and operated a huge farm. The farm was so vast and rich with stock and other resources that it was the third largest farm in the world. Sam's huge farm had dairy cows, poultry, sheep, and lots of vegetation. He could grow his own food and even knit his own clothes. He had not only enough resources to take care of everyone who lived on his land but was able to trade what was left to the supermarket chain that had a store not far away.

Sam had a very large extended family. Being a fair man, Sam tried to incorporate everyone's opinions in the way that he operated the farm. Over the course of time, some members of Sam's family began to have strong objections to the way he ran the family business.

Some thought that Sam had no business milking the cows. They thought that to continue doing so was disruptive to the serenity that the cows enjoyed while grazing on the land. They also thought that the automatic milking machines were too noisy and that the system caused too much waste to be spread on the pasture. Even though Sam's family liked to drink milk, Sam honored the request and stopped milking. He decided they could afford to buy milk for the family from the supermarket.

As soon as this decision was reached, some others in the family told Sam that they didn't like the idea of continuing to farm chicken. They feared that the drainage wasn't adequate and that it was difficult to protect the chicken from predators. They didn't like the mess they created and feared the possibility of catastrophe that could happen with birds - such as the outbreak of the Avian flu that they heard about. Although Sam's family loved eggs and could supply their own needs and the needs of others with the poultry farming, Sam again relented. They allowed the chicken population to die down and did not continue to grow more. Instead, they ate more cheese instead. And to get the cheese - like other milk products, they now needed to buy more from the supermarket down the road.

Sam's family had a lot of specific concerns that, while valid in some ways, limited his ability to use the resources on his farm. Some didn't like the idea of picking too many vegetables (the cattle needed them). Others didn't like the idea of shearing the sheep for clothing (didn't like the usage of the shearing board). And even though they had many opportunities to start farming different types of stock and livestock, they refused because they were able to get by with what they were doing at the moment.

Eventually, Sam was no longer able to sell anything to the supermarket chain but needed to buy a lot from them instead. And what's worse is that, instead of scaling back on what they ate and wore, Sam's family just bought more and more, eating and buying as much as they wanted because the prices weren't bad.

The managers of the supermarket chain, not being able to buy from Sam, needed to get their supplies from other farms that were a lot further away. Those farms charged a markup and increased their prices as they realized the supermarket chain kept buying more and more. And to make as much money as possible, the supermarket chain also added a markup of their own. Eventually, the dairy products that once were pretty cheap at the store started to become unaffordable for Sam. Sam's family couldn't eat or wear as much as they were accustomed to. And they quickly became furious at the supermarket chain.

They accused the chains of being greedy and getting rich off of their misery. They blamed everybody that they could think of. And while the supermarket chain and the faraway farms certainly were guilty of some element of greed, Sam's family refused to understand that they weren't doing everything they could do to help themselves. It was all somebody else's fault.

Sam's family found itself in danger of going hungry and not having enough to wear. But they still were hoping that eventually, the greedy supermarket people would show them some mercy and make the price of the milk - the milk they chose to buy instead of producing themselves - affordable again.

In case you haven't figured it out already, the Sam mentioned above is Uncle Sam, the government of the United States of America. In our great democracy, we allow everyone to have a voice and to fight for the things that concern them. However, some people here have worked very hard to limit the ways we can use our own resources to produce more of our own energy instead of buying it from the global market. Others have just been lazy and complacent and haven't worked hard to find new forms of energy. And meanwhile, most of us have refused to conserve and use only the energy that we need to use. We keep consuming more and more. We are Sam's family.

There's certainly plenty of blame to go around in the "supermarket" - the oil companies, the speculators, the foreign governments that are selling us their oil. But, like Sam's family, we don't have as much right to shake an angry fist at others as we think - until we've done all that we can do to help ourselves.

Let's tell our elected officials that while we're on the hunt for greedy bad guys, we also have to do everything we can to work our own farm. After all, this country is the third biggest farm in the world.

Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less.

 Congressman Wohson (a fictional person - it's "No Show" spelled backwards) doesn't feel comfortable simply sharing his good ideas on government with black voters. He feels much more comfortable sending others to "get out the vote" - or just ignoring them altogether. He's puzzled why this doesn't seem to work and why he gets so little support from these voters. He tells himself that they must all be liberal. Yeah, that's it.

ATTENTION, POLITICIANS! DO YOU SUFFER FROM ABNORMALLY BAD POLLING AMONG AFRICAN AMERICAN VOTERS? THE NEXT 30 SECONDS MAY CHANGE YOUR LIFE.

DO YOU FEEL INTIMIDATED AT THE PROSPECT OF TALKING WITH BLACK VOTERS? DO YOU AVOID OPPORTUNITIES TO MINGLE AND GET INVOLVED WITH THE BLACK COMMUNITY BECAUSE YOU DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THEM LIKE YOU DO WITH EVERY OTHER GROUP OF PEOPLE? IF SO, YOU MAY BE SUFFERING FROM URBANOPHOBIA, A TREATABLE CONDITION THAT HAS AFFECTED MANY TALENTED POLITICIANS FOR DECADES. SADLY, THIS TERRIBLE CONDITION HAS BEEN AT AN EPEDEMIC LEVEL IN THE GOP.

THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT YOU CAN RECOVER. YOU CAN LEARN THE TRUTH, AS SOME OTHERS LIKE YOU HAVE, THAT YOU CAN BE YOURSELF AROUND EVERYBODY AND PEOPLE WILL PROBABLY STILL LIKE YOU. YOU DON'T HAVE TO CONTINUE THE SHAME OF REJECTING INVITES FROM THE NAACP, TRYING TO "TALK BLACK" OR TRYING TO SOUND LIKE A PREACHER WHEN YOU SPEAK (A RELATED CONDITION THAT MOSTLY AFFECTS DEMOCRATS).

CALL 1-555-JUST-BE-U OR CONSULT THE REST OF THIS MESSAGE. IT'S TIME TO STOP SUFFERING IN SILENCE. YOU CAN OVERCOME YOUR FEAR OF TALKING TO BLACK VOTERS. ONE STUMP SPEECH AT A TIME.

A lot of white conservatives were stunned this weekend with the news that a few black conservatives are considering the possibility of voting for Barack Obama. Most shocking is the fact that former Oklahoma Congressman J.C. Watts, a well respected conservative, is among them. From the article:

J.C. Watts, a former Oklahoma congressman who once was part of the GOP House leadership, said he's thinking of voting for Obama. Watts said he's still a Republican, but he criticizes his party for neglecting the black community. Black Republicans, he said, have to concede that while they might not agree with Democrats on issues, at least that party reaches out to them.

If this isn't a warning sign for the GOP that they seriously need to start reaching out to black voters - not just from now until the election like they did in 2004 - but make it a permanent part of the party philosophy - nothing will help them.

For decades, many in the Republican Party have seemed afraid to reach out to black voters. Many falsely assume that blacks are liberals and won't vote for them no matter what. Too often, too many of them don't show up when given opportunities to reach out to black voters. A lot of these people have a history of being bold and brave when confronting foreign enemies and domestic inefficiencies. But too many have been far too apprehensive about simply meeting with their fellow Americans and potential constituents who are black.

Do you have any idea how much abuse people like J.C. Watts and Michael Steele take simply for being high-profile black Republicans? Watts was regularly called a "House Negro." During Steele's run for the U.S. Senate in 2006, he had Oreo cookies thrown at him while on the platform and was even called "slavish". These are tough guys and I don't think that any type of name calling would get them - they've both shown commitment to their principles in the face of severe and prolonged ridicule. But they're probably tired of their party not showing whole-hearted commitment to reaching out to black voters the same way it reaches out to basically every other demographic. I know I am. (No, I can't vote for Obama because of his positions on abortion, marriage and taxes. But I totally share the frustration).

I've talked about this issue again and again. If the Republican Party wants to avoid total decay, it needs to abandon some of the strategies that it has used for the past fifty years. They need to reach out to all voters. Actively. With long-term efforts that don't end on election day.

I know people are thinking that the Democrats have their own baggage - and they do. Or that Bush deserves credit for having a diverse cabinet - including the first two African American Secretaries of State and the first Asian American Cabinet Secretary - and he certainly does. But to point those out in defense of the GOP on this issue is to totally misunderstand the nature of the problem. Two whole generations of black voters have grown up from childhood believing that the GOP doesn't like black folks. There is an incredible level of mistrust. The Republican Establishment hasn't shown consistent interest in changing this perception. And then, every once in a while, some politician picks up a shovel and digs a few feet deeper. This simply has to change. Or else. A party that appears to many to be largely ethnically homogeneous stands out in an unflattering way in an America that mostly wants to bring everybody together.

Ironically, the favorite Republican candidate of both myself and J.C. Watts is Mike Huckabee. Huckabee does the opposite of what most Republicans have done with regard to reaching out to black voters. He engages. He's himself. He doesn't try to insult our intelligence by trying to be anyone other than himself and he isn't afraid to show up. Maybe Huckabee can cure the GOP of Urbanophobia. But based on the way that the establishment has treated him, it doesn't appear that they want much advice from him. If they don't take it, the party will be making a costly mistake, as Mike has a pretty good handle on both the ailment and the solution.

I want to start by wishing a Happy Fathers Day to dads of every skin color, every faith and in every country. I hope you all have a great day! May God bless all of you and your families.

But there is a crisis today that makes me feel the need to have a particular conversation with fathers who are African American. For starters, if you are one of the many millions of black fathers who are taking care of your children, both by supporting them financially and being actively involved in their lives, then I want to both express appreciation to you and encourage you to keep pressing on, from one black father to another. Our very presence is saving our kids' lives.

But if you are a black father and are not taking care of your children - either by not supporting them financially or by not being present in their lives, I really want to talk with you.

Statistically speaking, the biggest difference between black kids in America and white kids in America isn't economic status. It's not the level of education that these kids will eventually attain. It's not even the job opportunities that they will eventually face when they're grown. The biggest difference is that in 2006, while 67% of kids of all races lived with both their parents - along with 76% of non-hispanic white kids and 66% of hispanic kids (who can be of any skin color) - only 35% of non-hispanic black kids lived with both parents.

According to the information at Fathers.com, kids of all races who don't have fathers in the home are five times more likely to be poor. 75% of kids in single-parent families will experience poverty before they turn 11 years old. They're at higher risk for falling victim to drug and alcohol abuse. They are two to three times as likely to have emotional and behavioral problems. They're twice as likely to drop out of school. They're more likely to be in trouble with the law. And they're more likely to become sexually involved and have their own kids before they're ready to have them.

If you are a black man who is not taking care of your own children, you need to understand that you, and not racism, are the biggest risk to their future. Your absence is hurting your children in ways that no racist could even dream of accomplishing. Your absence from their lives is helping to destroy your own children more than anything that anyone else could do. Don't point your fingers at anyone else.

Almost all the problems we face (poverty, drug abuse, education, crime - even abortion) would be much better if more men would be fathers to their own children.

Racism has absolutely had a devastating effect of African Americans and those effects do continue to this day. But even if every anti-black racist changed today and begged for forgiveness, we'd still face the situation in which more than six out of ten black kids are growing up in single parent households. Most are growing up without their fathers. For children of any race, such a high level of disconnection from their fathers simply spells destruction and makes it easier for them to get into destructive behavior.

If you're a black father and aren't taking care of your children, you need to understand that you, not racism, are currently the biggest threat to the future of black kids in America.

And now a word to every white father and every father of every other skin color. Everything that I said to black fathers above - that your kids will suffer immensely if you aren't there - applies to you as well. Because although the fatherhood epidemic has hit black families the hardest, it is actually accelerating faster in white families at this point in time than in black families. If you are a father of any race who isn't taking care of your children, you are ruining their lives and helping to ruin this country and this world. Don't blame the government. Don't blame the President or either political party. Don't blame any particular group of people. Blame yourself. But most importantly, channel that blame into some change. Because no matter what has happened in the past or how badly you might have messed up (we all mess up) your kids still need you and will always need you.

Here's what you can do to protect your children.

• Be there. It doesn't matter what type of relationship, or lack of it, that you have with the mother. These are your children and God will hold you responsible for what you do or don't do for them (1 Tim 5:8). If you don't live nearby, at least call them every day. Can't afford to call? Write. Be in their faces. You'll save their lives.
• Support them financially. Obviously, this is a huge challenge for many people. Kwiesi Mfume did it when he was young and didn’t have money – supported his five kids by working his behind off night and day. But, these are your children and no one else is legally or morally responsible for ensuring that their needs are met.
• Reach out. If you're feeling overwhelmed with the responsibilities of being a father, there are organizations such as Fathers.com and many others that can help you. All of us - fathers of all races - face a lot of the same struggles.

No matter how hard things are, you can save your kids lives by doing everything you can do to be involved in their lives. But you have to care enough to be there. It's no one else's job. It's on you, dude.

From the Washington Post, a picture of Tim Russert and his beloved son, Luke. Photo covers of Russert's books on his dad and our dads. We lost a good man who, despite all his career success, knew what was really important in life.

A short time ago this afternoon, we learned of the tragic news of the sudden passing of one of the greatest television journalists of our time, NBC's Tim Russert. I never had the opportunity to meet him but feel like I knew him anyway. Tim collapsed at work, the place where he worked as hard if not harder than anyone in television news. He was only 58 years young.

Russert became host of Meet the Press in 1991 and became the longest-serving host of the program. He was a tough but fair interviewer who always seemed to be more than prepared for whoever sat in the other chair. He won an impressive collection of professional awards. This past year, Time Magazine named Russert one of the 100 most influential people in the world. Every impression I've ever had of him is that of a guy who really loved his job and gave himself energetically into it. He could be counted on to ask his subjects questions that they'd prefer that they weren't asked on camera. But he did it to everybody. And somehow, he never came off as overbearing, insensitive or jerkish. He just did his job as a journalist and did it extremely, extremely well. Nobody had much reason to feel that he was going to go easy on them or that he was out to do them in.

But what I respect about Tim Russert more than how well he did his job was how much he seemed to love his family. Russert honored his father with the book Big Russ and Me: Father and Son: Lessons of Life. He paid tribute to "Big Russ", his dad, who was a World War II vet and who worked multiple jobs as a sanitation worker and truck driver while raising his four kids. Tim Russert credited his father for teaching him, mostly through his actions more than just his words, to work hard and to be honest. It's clear from watching Russert on the air that he paid attention to what his dad taught him. "Little Russ" got so many letters from people who read the book and wanted to share with him the details of their own fathers that he wrote a second book the next year titled Wisdom of Our Fathers: Lessons and Letters from Daughters and Sons. Both books became bestsellers.

In addition to being a good son, he was also known for being a good dad. He spent a lot of time with his son Luke, who has followed the footsteps of his dad in broadcasting. According to a Boston Globe interview with Luke from 2006, Tim would take Luke to Yankees games when he was still an infant. Their apparently strong father-son bond involved regular trips, even with Tim's busy schedule, to Orioles games. In a world in which many consider their family bonds to be disposable and their jobs to be more important than their families, Tim Russert seemed to think it was important to be a great family man who was good at his job and not the other way around. From all accounts, he was extremely successful at both.

We're always going to remember Tim Russert and what a great journalist he was. But because he seemed to invest so much in his family, during his lifetime he established a much more important legacy than anything he could have done in the studio. He invested in building a strong family. He leaves behind a son who seemed to know that his father valued spending time with him. And he reminded the rest of us the importance of remembering where we come from and who we are working for.

Our prayers are with his family and his colleagues. Those of us who never got a chance to meet him personally will also miss him as well.

People living in the states colored in red pay no state taxes on any form of income. People living in the states colored yellow pay some state taxes on forms of income but don't pay any on ordinary wages. Somehow, these governments manage to get by. Even without taxing the income of "the rich" or on anyone else. They do just as well as the gray states do if not better. The rest of us, living in the gray colored states ... don't have as much money. So ... why can't America do what the red-colored states do?

We've only had the Income Tax with us for 95 years, but a lot of us act like as if the idea was handed down by the Founding Fathers. You know, no matter where you live in this country, not far from you there are democratic governments that exist and thrive without taxing their citizens on every dollar that they earn. (HINT: you don't have to leave the country to find them).

The map above is from Wikipedia and shows the states that do not have a personal income tax (gasp!). The states in red (Washington, Nevada, Wyoming, South Dakota, Texas, and Florida) have no form of income taxes at all. The states in yellow (Tennessee and New Hampshire) have some form of tax on income but not on wages - Tennessee taxes income from stocks and bonds and New Hampshire from interest and dividends.

That's nine of our fifty states that either do not have an income tax or that at least don't tax wages. That's 18% of the states in the country representing 19.58% of the 2004 U.S. Population. The average median household income in the states with no tax on wages in 2004 was $45,736, compared to $44,815 for all states that year and $44,618 for all states that have a tax on wages. Also according to the 2004 Census, there were slightly more businesses per person (0.0430) in the states that don't tax wages compared to the average for all states (0.0413) or the average for the states that tax wage income (0.0410). And according to StateMaster.com, these nine states have an unweighted average economic growth of 4.33%, compared to unweighted averages of 3.412% for all states and 3.181% for all the income tax states.

During the 2008 Presidential Election Primaries, one of the more controversial ideas was the idea of the Fair Tax. Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee and former Senator Mike Gravel were the candidates that supported the idea, which calls for the replacement of Federal Income Taxes, Social Security Taxes, Medicare Taxes, Gift Taxes and Sales Taxes with a national Sales Tax. Many on both the left and the right have attacked the idea as ludicrous and attacked those who support it. Amazingly, some conservatives who continually rail against "tax and spend" liberals have suggested that people who propose the ultimate tax cut - as in down to 0% - are liberals as well.

Rich Lowry of the National Review started to actually write something nice about Mike Huckabee (didn't he get the memo??). But he closed it off with the compulsive and obligatory shot at Mike Huckabee (needed to maintain conservative media street cred, I guess). His words:

"I had a terrible thought: Wouldn't Mike Huckabee be just the right Republican for this particular moment, when pocketbook concerns are looming so large? Tonally, he was always right on this stuff. Too bad he was so unserious and didn't understand—or have any interest in understanding—economics."

(A lot of the New York-based conservative media - the guys from deep down in the heart of Reagan country - accuse Mike Huckabee of being a liberal. Um. I thought the liberals were the ones who always wanted to raise taxes. This guy is talking about eliminating the income tax - taking it down to 0%. That's liberal? Has the term "liberal" changed in meaning? Is Barack Obama a conservative? I think I need to buy a copy of the New Non-Mainstream Media Dictionary, as my vocabulary must be outdated.

Also, I find it personally funny that people who complain about income taxes the most seem to be some of the people who've been most resistant to the idea of doing away with it.)

But the question remains. If nearly one-fifth of the states which are home to one-fifth the people are able to run without taxing every dollar that the people earn, why can't the U.S. Government operate the same way? It's a question that deserves more than a knee-jerk response.

Look at the data above showing the differences between the states that effectively implement the Fair Tax. States such as Texas and Florida don't have income taxes. It does seem like the proponents of the Fair Tax understand economics at least a little bit, doesn't it? After all, the states without income taxes have a higher rate of economic growth than those that don't. Even if you omit Texas and Florida, the average economic growth for these states is still higher - 3.84%.

Should I bother to mention that seven of these nine states were 2004 red states that voted for President Bush? Those zany populists! When will they ever get a grasp on economics?

The region in green below may not technically be the "heart of America," but from it, we get some sense of the nation's pulse.

As I noted before in the post As the states swing, there are five states that have voted for the General Election winner during each of the past eight elections (all elections going back to 1976). The states are, in order of the number of their electoral votes, Ohio, Missouri, Louisiana, Kentucky, and Arkansas. According to the data at MSNBC, there were 4,350,130 votes cast in the Democratic contests in those states while there were 2,168,138 votes cast in the Republican contests, meaning that the Democratic turnout exceeded that of Republican turnout in these belwether states by 100.64%.

For the Democrats, Hillary Clinton won three of the belwether states: Ohio, Kentucky, and her home state of Arkansas. Obama won Missouri and Louisiana. Each came in second in the states where the other came in first (John Edwards had already dropped out by the time the first of these states voted).

For the Republicans, John McCain won Ohio, Missouri, and Kentucky. Mike Huckabee won Louisiana and his home state of Arkansas. Each came in second in the states where the other came in first.

Mike Huckabee managed to come in second in one of the belwether states, Kentucky, two and a half months after he suspended his campaign. Mitt Romney came in a distant third in Arkansas and a closer third in Missouri. He dropped out right before the Louisiana primary but still narrowly beat Ron Paul in that state to come in a distant third.

Imagine yourself in the bleachers of an arena observing a crucial competition between two challengers.

"La-dies and gentlemen, we are in for a treat tonight. The winner of this contest will be declared the leader of the free world.

In the right corner, our first contender, wearing red shorts, is a war hero who survived five years in solitary in a prison camp. He weighs in with twenty five years in Congress and is an expert in national defense.

In the left corner, in blue shorts, we have our second contender, weighing in with a mere three years in the U.S. Senate, eight years as a little-known state senator and ... time as a community organizer (Jack, is this script right?).

Gentlemen ... on my count ... ready? May the contest begin!"

DING! DING! DING!

(Thud)

"And the winner is ... the guy in blue shorts??"

Does this sound like an unlikely scenario? It's not at all. Here's how the more experienced, more seasoned competitor could get knocked out by the guy who many regard as a lightweight. All that has to happen is for red to follow the following keys to defeat.

Losing Strategy #1 - Do what she did.

Hillary Clinton is intellectually brilliant, politically mature and fiercely determined. She and her husband created a powerful political machine and, in the wake of the Democratic disasters of 1980, 1984, and 1988, should really be credited with saving their party from extinction. Her toughest competitor turned out to be a guy who wasn't even out of high school yet when her husband started his first term as Governor of Arkansas. He came to the U.S. Senate only three years ago, was an obscure state senator for the eight years before that and held jobs as a college professor and community activist for the nine years before that. Many people from all political perspectives are still scratching their heads trying to figure out how she lost to him.

Here's a partial explanation of how it happened. Clinton surrounded herself with a set of highly paid advisors from the party establishment - very smart people who knew how to win elections back in what feels like a long time ago. She didn't establish a simple message that resonated with either her target audience or the public at large. And then she eventually alienated one of her most loyal constituencies, without which her party has not won a national election in decades. For all her talent and effectiveness as a politician, she took a lot of bad advice from people who didn't understand what voters really wanted as much as they thought they did. And, unfortunately for her supporters, this is one of the reasons why she lost to the kid.

So, here's the first way that McCain can lose. He can ignore his own instincts and follow the advice of the highly paid advisors from his own party establishment, the ones who knew how to narrowly win elections against less popular competition in years less hostile to Republicans. He can fail to establish a simple message that connects with the average voter. And he can alienate - or fail to connect with - the Republican Party's most loyal constituency, Evangelical Christians and "values voters," without whom the party has not won an election since 1972. For all his experience as a war hero and a respected legislator, he can also lose to the young man from Illinois.

Losing Strategy #2 - Depend on negative campaigning.

Simply put, John McCain and his supporters cannot win by spending all their time telling the American people why not to vote for Barack Obama. They need to spend time telling people why to vote for John McCain.

I know that we all hear from the political commentators that negative campaigning works. And it certainly works to some extent - except when it backfires. But it works best on willing victims - those who either help out their competitors by acting the part of the caricature the opposition painted them as - or those who don't do anything to defend themselves.

In 1964, President Lyndon Johnson seemed determined not just beat his Republican rival, Barry Goldwater, but also to humiliate him. The Democrats charged that Goldwater was a warmonger who wanted to start a nuclear war (capped off with the infamous "Daisy" ad). They called him a racist. And they not so subtly implied that he was .. eh .. not all there psychologically. It would have been tougher for these attacks to stick if Goldwater himself didn't help the cause by joking he'd like to lob a nuke into the men's room of the Kremlin, that he wanted to saw off the Eastern seaboard of the U.S., and saying things like "extremism in defense of liberty is no vice." His own words made the job of Johnson's "5 o'clock club" - his opposition researchers - a lot easier.

Just four years ago, in the 2004 contest, the "Swift Boat Veterans For Truth" launched a vicious public attack on the Democratic nominee. As the group gained more and more attention and their charges damaged Kerry more by the day, he did something quite unexpected for a Vietnam combat veteran who came under fierce fire. Absolutely nothin'! Many people think that his campaign's slowness in confronting the attack may have cost him the election.

But Obama doesn't say all that much that gets him in trouble. He's a very good talker and can talk his way out of trouble. And he's not afraid to fight back. Last summer, he seemed to be intimidated at the prospect of making eye contact with Hillary during the debates. But the long warfare with Hillary has made him a stronger candidate and he's now pretty darn good at the counter punch - much better than you'd expect from someone so new to politics. I don't think he's going to just sit there and take a lot of shots. Not these days.

So, another way McCain can lose is to have his team overcommit to attacking Obama and making the campaign about just why he shouldn't be President instead of giving a lot of reasons why McCain should be. It would work better if Obama were a goofball or such a pacifist that he refused to fight back. But he's neither.

Losing Strategy #3 - Take too much advice from the establishment.

According to a Real Clear Politics article by Bob Novak, John McCain is finding himself under unwanted pressure from President Bush, Karl Rove and others to pick former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney as his running mate.

The Democratic Party would love nothing more than to paint the candidacy of John McCain as one that would lead to a third Bush term. Although Obama has targeted McCain with this tag line, the reason it hasn't totally stuck is because Senator McCain has earned a reputation of taking orders only from Senator McCain. He is well known for refusing to simply fall in line to obediently do the bidding of the party establishment. However, if it becomes perceived that he is being coerced by important members of the current Administration to pick someone acceptable to them against his own wishes (and against the wishes of a significant portion of the Republican electorate), he will give legs to the theory that a vote for him is a vote for Bush. If this happens, those legs will kick everyone involved away from the Executive Branch of the government come this November.

Losing Strategy #4 - Either tolerate racial politics - or - simply concede the black vote

The very worst thing that the Republican National Committee could do in facing off against Obama is to tolerate any hint of racial politics. Failing to do so will do more than simply alienate the small percentage of black voters who do vote for the Republican Party. It will also alienate many white voters as well. Most people of all ethnic groups do not want to be associated with racism. Tactics such as the ad run against Harold Ford in 2006, the infamous Willie Horton ad, and anything like it, sadly may have worked in years past and in certain areas. But will lead to lingering disaster for the GOP if repeated in 2008. Disaster not just in this election but in many elections to come. Hey, wait, TVV. Are you saying we can't say anything bad about Obama because it will look racist? Of course that's not what I'm saying. His record, his associations and policies are subject to scrutiny and criticism just like anyone else's would be. But there's a difference between campaigning against a candidate who happens to be black and running against "the black guy." Choosing to do the latter will do much more harm than good - for the Republicans, for the Democrats and for the whole country.

Another key component to losing tip #4 is to simply assume that black voters are going to vote for Obama. I'm black. I'm very proud that a black man has earned a major party nomination for the Presidency. Am I planning to vote for Obama? No! He seems like a nice guy, but he's way too liberal on social issues like abortion and marriage. And contrary to what many people assume, most black voters are not liberal. The reason most black voters vote for the Democrats is because: a) there has been a 48-year rift between the GOP and African Americans and b) even today, most Republicans don't bother to ask for our votes. So, if McCain's folks really want to up the chances they'll lose the election, they need to tear out a page from the old Republican Playbook and just assume that we won't vote for them and that they shouldn't make a serious effort to ask. (It should be noted that in the key swing state of Ohio, where Bush wrapped up his victory over Kerry, he did better than his national average among black voters. The difference between his share of the black vote in Ohio over his national average accounts for one third of the margin by which Bush defeated Kerry in that state and won re-election.)

Losing Strategy #5 - Tick off your most loyal constituency

Every election in recent memory that a Republican has won the White House (which is pretty much every election in recent memory), which group has been the backbone of the Republican coalition? Is it the guys on Wall Street? The crew on Fox News? The Club for Growth? Well, those folks are all definitely important. But I'm going to think for a minute and try to figure out which group of Republican voters have been the most faithful and without whom the party is doomed on Election Night. Oh - I know. It's the faithful.

If Evangelical voters stay home this fall because they're discouraged, feeling neglected, or not actively sought out, it very well may guarantee a Democratic victory. Remember of course what happened in both 1996 and 2000 when Evangelicals stayed home? Dole lost the first contest and Bush would have lost had Al Gore carried his home state (which is something that even Walter Mondale did in 1984 and Mike Dukakis did in 1988). In 2004, Evangelicals came out in force, voted for the Republicans and that is of course the reason why the Republicans did not lose (the most common "most important issue" for voters was "Moral Values").

So, how can McCain and the GOP blow this thing big time? They can refuse to adequately reach out to values voters. And I don't just mean reach out with words and appearances. I mean reach out by balancing the ticket with someone who understands the issues that are important to us. Contrary to what many people believe, most of us don't actually want a Theocracy and aren't trying to use the government to push our beliefs on others. However, many of us have firm beliefs of when life begins (this backed up by science), the importance of family, and don't want our kids to be taught propaganda and shown trashy content all the time. Many of us respect everybody but want to be given a little respect as well. If Mike Huckabee becomes John McCain's Veep, the party will avoid one more way that they can lose on Election night. Of course, Huckabee helps as well because he also appeals to some Fiscal Conservatives (you know, the ones who actually like the idea of a 0% Income Tax), many blue collar workers who otherwise might vote Democratic, and conservative African Americans.

It's a tough year for America and for Americans. The race could certainly go either way. But one way to almost guarantee that it won't go McCain's way is for him to conduct himself according to any of the above.

Every election year, we are reminded that there are two Americas. Not the "two Americas" John Edwards was talking about. I'm talking about the two Americas that all political geeks love to study. Red State America and Blue State America.

Red State America votes for Republicans and Blue State America votes for Democrats. Generally speaking, the states - even swing states - are amazingly consistent in how they have voted on Election Day in the past several elections. Since both John McCain and Barack Obama and their strategists and supporters are trying hard to see which states they might be able to pick off from the other side, let's take a look back at the history of how states have voted in the past eight elections. How common is it for a state to change its colors?

First, take a look at this set of maps describing state voting patterns since the Election of 1976.

1976 Electoral: 297 to 240 Popular: 40,831,881 to 39,148,634 Carter beats Ford 23 states + DC/27 states	1980 Electoral: 489 to 49 Popular: 43,903,230 to 35,480,115 Reagan beats Carter 44 states/6 states + DC
1984 Electoral: 525 to 13 Popular: 54,455,472 to 37,577,352 Reagan beats Mondale 49 states/1 state + DC	1988 Electoral: 426 to 111 Popular: 48,886,597 to 41,809,476 George H.W. Bush beats Dukakis 40 states/10 states + DC
1992 Electoral: 370 to 168 Popular: 44,909,806 to 39,104,550 Clinton beats George H.W. Bush 32 states + DC/18 states	1996 Electoral: 379 to 159 Popular: 47,402,357 to 39,198,755 Clinton beats Dole 31 states + DC/19 states
2000 Electoral: 271 to 266 Popular: 50,999,897 to 50,456,002 George W. Bush beats Gore 30 states/20 states + DC	2004 Electoral: 286 to 251 Popular: 62,040,610 to 59,028,444 George W. Bush beats Kerry 31 states/19 states + DC

Consistency

The states have voted the same way that they voted in 2004 more often than not over the course of the last three decades. The 2004 red states went Republican an average of 81.85% of the time in the eight elections since 1976. The 2004 blue states went for the Democrats an average of 65.63% of the time since 1976. If you exclude the Election of 1984, the year that Ronald Reagan won his second term by winning 49 states (otherwise known as the "Tuesday Night Massacre"), the states that voted for Bush in 2004 voted for the Republicans 79.26% of the time while the Kerry states went Democratic 73.75% of the time.

There are ten red states that never once during those eight elections fell for the Democrats. Thirty states in all have fallen red more often than not. Across the ideological pond, there are the the bluest parts of Blue State America - Minnesota and the District of Columbia (yeah, I know it's not a state). These areas were so blue that from 1976 through 2004, they never once fell Republican and even resisted the Reagan wipeout of 1984. If you exclude 1984, you can throw in Hawaii and Rhode Island as well, which never went red during any other election year. And since thirty states have voted Republican more often than not during that time period, you probably already guessed that twenty states plus the District have voted Democratic more often than not during that same time period.

A number of states have voted with the winner for each of the past eight elections. These states are Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, and Ohio*. Fortunately, no state has always voted with the loser, not even if you exclude the two massive Reagan landslides. The state that voted with the winner the least amount of the time was Minnesota, along with the District of Columbia.

*(I can't help but noting that Mike Huckabee won or placed second in all of these states - in some cases even months after he suspended his campaign).

If you concentrate on just the past four elections, starting with '92, the states that teetered evenly between falling blue and falling red were Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Nevada, Ohio, Tennessee, and West Virginia. And actually, California was a red state from Nixon's first election in 1968 until Clinton's election in 1992; it has been blue ever since (it is interesting to note that during the time it was a red state, two of the three Republican Presidents of that time period, Nixon and Reagan, were from California.)

The following table shows the tendency for all states, broken up by their 2004 red/blue designation, to have voted the same way over the course of previous elections. The graphs below (which you can click on to enlarge) show this as well.

Biggest Swings

In the past 32 years, the biggest realignments in state red/blue designations have been as follows:

1992 - Bill Clinton turned 22 of the 1988 red states into blue states. He did this and gained a massive electoral vote win in spite of the fact that he earned a plurality of the popular vote and not a majority (he earned 43% of the vote to Bush's 38%). Clinton essentially maintained the balance of blue states - and delegates - in his party's favor. He turned California and Nevada blue, gained ground in the western states, won much of middle America and the entire northeast. Note that Clinton won comfortably in 1992 without Florida (which he won in 1996).

Before (1988)	1992	After (1996)

1980 - Reagan turned 17 of the 1976 blue states into red states. In the following election, he not only maintained all his states but almost managed to turn the entire country red (Reagan nearly won Mondale's home state of Minnesota - he came within 4,000 votes or 0.2% of the MN vote - and almost won all fifty states).

Before (1976)	1980	After (1984)

2000 - George W. Bush turned 11 of the 1996 blue states into red states (of course, it would turn out that he needed every one of them). For all the talk of the incredible closeness of the Election of 2000, Al Gore lost a lot of Clinton's 1996 territory. Unfortunately for him, this included his home state of Tennessee, which had he won would have given him the election with or without Florida. Bush not only maintained the red state balance in 2004 but increased the margin by one state.

Before (1996)	2000	After (2004)

Some of the people who have been preaching at the church that seems obsessed with race need to take a seat, humble themselves, and learn a few things. They need to jot down some notes from the things that the people of this great country have been teaching.

I am not an Obama supporter. I like him personally but can't and won't vote for someone who is so liberal on social issues such as abortion and the sanctity of marriage. I also do not decide to vote for someone or not vote for someone because of their race (to do so would be racist). But as an African American, I certainly am proud. I'm proud that it is now proven that a massive number of people in this country are willing to vote for someone that they believe in regardless of whether or not the person is from their same ethnic group. And because Senator Clinton has also done very well, we also know that this country is willing to support a female leader as well.

Take a look at a map of the United States with the states shaded to indicate the percentage of black residents living in each state. The people of Iowa, which in 2004 was less than 2% black, voted for a candidate who happened to be black. Utah is less than 0.75% black but also voted for Obama. North Dakota has a lower percentage of blacks than even Utah but also voted for the candidate who didn't share the skin color of most of her residents. Idaho and Montana, which have the lowest percentage of black residents of any states in the Union, went and did likewise (and Montana voted for Obama after the idiotic rants of Obama's former Pastor came to light). The two next states with the next fewest percentage of black residents, Vermont and Maine, also fell into the Obama column, and by twenty points each.

A map of the lower 48 states, showing demographics against Obama wins (lightest areas are states with virtually no black residents). Not shown are Alaska (3.19% black) and Hawaii (1.61% black) which also went for Obama.

Someone may ask about the other side of the coin - the fact that black voters didn't support the white candidate, Senator Clinton. Wasn't this an example of reverse racism? My firm belief is that for the most part, absolutely not. The Clintons have essentially owned the black vote for several decades until this past January. Anytime that the Democratic Party ever wanted to energize black voters, all they had to do was roll out Bill Clinton and he was treated as literal royalty and as an "honorary brother." At the start of Campaign 2008, black voters were solidly behind Hillary Clinton to a much more significant degree than they backed Barack Obama (it should also be noted that black voters did not back either of the two black candidates in Election 2004 - Al Sharpton or Sen. Carol Mosely-Bruan). And then, when times got tough, the Clintons did something no one could have predicted. It seems that they actively tried to alienate their most loyal supporters, African Americans, in a strategic maneuver that backfired badly. Earlier this year, Dick Morris, who probably knows the Clintons as well as anyone who isn't currently in their tight inner circle, wrote in his blog that "after losing Iowa and almost failing in New Hampshire, the Clintons basically panicked and played the race card - injecting it into a contest that had been colorblind." The Clintons are certainly not racists and have a lifelong record to prove as much. However, they chose to destroy decades of good will in an act of political desperation. I believe that this is the explanation for why now, for the first time ever, many black voters shunned their formerly beloved Bill and Hillary.

Likewise, some people automatically assume that the reason that the people of West Virginia, Kentucky, and Texas didn't support Obama is because of a supposition that those people are racist. I totally disagree with such a broad statement. Racists live everywhere, have all skin colors and all party affiliations, and just as there were some white people who wouldn't vote for Obama just because he was black, there were some black people who only voted for Obama because he was black. But I think these people are in the minority. It actually is understandable that places that have very socially conservative values would hesitate to vote for a Senator with a very liberal record. But it can't be said any longer that people won't vote against racial lines - one direction or another. We now know for certain that this is untrue.

And so, let's go back to our friends who preach a lot about America but don't apparently understand as much as they think they do about the people who live in it. They really need to humble themselves and learn something about us. The lesson is that there are a lot fewer people who are obsessed with race than at any other point in our nation's history. Most Americans are willing to be fair. You can't automatically make conclusions about people because of the color of their skin. Or their age. You can't judge people on the basis of whether they live in the city or the country. Or on whether or not you think they speak with an accent. You can't make broad generalizations about "black people" or "white people." Because this country is at a point at which most people are willing to give someone who doesn't look like them a fair shot.

A lot of white people who would never vote for Barack Obama would love to vote for J.C. Watts or Michael Steele if given the opportunity. A lot of black people who wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton now certainly would have had she run a different type of campaign. And regardless of who wins this fall, we know that neither color - or gender for that matter - is a characteristic that will automatically prevent someone from being evaluated the way we all should be evaluated. As individuals.