Do you want to play a game?

Here are the rules. Find somebody that you do not think is being honest with you about their opinions on issues that are really important to you. This person has to be somebody whose actions over the years have made you feel uneasy about either their judgment or their values. What's more, this has to be a person who you feel you're really being pressured to like - almost as if they were being "sold" to you. Then this person asks you to put them in charge of your future and the future of your children. You say no.

Oh - I forgot a very important point. This person whose values you are unsure of, whose actions over time make you doubtful and who you feel like you're being told to like, belongs to either another ethnic group, another religious group, or is of the opposite gender than you. And when you say that you won't put them in charge because of those reasons above, their supporters accuse you of bigotry. And then it's somebody else's turn to be rejected and to accuse. I call this little game "Pass the accusation." We'll play it in a few minutes. It's not that much fun to play this game, but it is very educational.

But let's first have a little one on one talk ...

I am one of those Huckabee supporters who is an Evangelical Christian and who has a problem with the candidacy of Mitt Romney. But you need to know more.

A number of people in the media and in the LDS community are of the opinion that fact that many Huckabee supporters have a problem with Mitt Romney is a clear example of anti-Mormon bigotry. The Washington Times article "Evangelicals warn against McCain-Romney ticket" is the clearest evidence of this to date. In it, the writer makes the claim that "Mr. Huckabee's supporters tend to be 'rabid' in their views against Mr. Romney because of his faith." This unsupported claim has sent a devastating shockwave though the support communities of Hukabee and Romney alike. I don't believe that this is the case with most people who have a problem with Mitt Romney and I know it's not the case with me.

Let's make this personal for a moment. I know what it's like to have others form outrageous opinions of you on the simple basis of your demographic identity. I know what it's like to have to deal with stupid presumptions  - made by people who don't know you at all. I know this both from the perspective of racial prejudice as well as religious bigotry. It hurts. It's universally wrong. And I wouldn't do that to anybody else.

In fact, I'm going to let you in on a little secret. When the 2008 election season began last year, I was seriously considering supporting Mitt Romney. Long after I knew he was of the Mormon faith. I never really cared. He was clearly a pretty smart guy. He had a nice presence and seemed self-deprecating in his humor. I had been of the impression that he held socially conservative views and - based on that belief - was impressed that he could win in a place like Massachusetts. He initially had a pretty good shot of getting my vote.

I remember hearing a talk show on a local news radio station one day during which the question of the hour was "would you be willing to vote for a Mormon?" I assumed that most callers would call in and reply "Yawn! Of course. Dumb question. Let's talk about the surge in Iraq." But a number of callers called in stating that they wouldn't ever vote for a Mormon. Which got me mad. I tried to call in but never got on. But I kept thinking to myself that because we're voting for the President of the United States and not choosing a personal church leader, that the whole question should have been irrelevant. It didn't seem right. I was angry about the tone of some of the callers.

Over the course of last year, though, I began to learn more about Romney and found myself less and less interested in him as a candidate the more I learned. But it had nothing to do with his religion. I learned how much he had shifted - more than once - on the issue of abortion, which is extremely important to me. And then learned that he had also been a supporter of gay marriage. I started to wonder if he really meant the things that he said on the stump. Then I really was turned off by the way he seemed to be aggressively attacking his rivals. First Giuliani, then Huckabee, then McCain. It was like whoever polled closest to him was going to go down. And then I picked up what seemed to be desperation on his part - as if "please like me" was written all over his face. It was Hillary-like. He gave me the strongest impression that he was willing to say whatever it was that I needed to hear in order to get my vote. Any level of trust I had ever had in his sincerity evaporated.

If my feelings toward Romney had turned negative, they only became worse the more I saw the conservative media bashing my favorite candidate and continually plugging him. I began to also distrust some of the conservative media, which seemed determined to push candidates whose positions on abortion were either ambiguous or liberal. And then I was amazed when statements he had made repeatedly - about him seeing his dad marching with MLK and him being endorsed by the NRA - turned out to not be true. I simply didn't trust him. At all. And the more I heard people in the media tell me that all of my instincts were wrong, the more determined I became that I would never vote for him.

I've never disliked people of the Mormon faith. I've never even known that much about the Mormon faith. I never was particularly concerned about Romney's religious affiliation. But I've always disliked people of all persuasions whom I thought were lying to me about who they were.

Okay, so I promised a game. Let's pretend that a Romney supporter, an Obama supporter, a Clinton supporter and a Huckabee supporter are all sitting in a circle. You're the Huckabee supporter and you have to explain why you don't like the candidate whose supporter is sitting next to you. You're up first.

You don't like Romney as a candidate. The reasons for your rejection of his candidacy have nothing to do with his religion. However, because there are some people in the country who disapprove of him because of his religion, his supporter sitting next to you calls you a bigot. Now it's his turn and he has to tell the Obama supporter sitting next to him why he won't support Obama.

The Romney supporter has what seems to him to be valid reasons to not support Obama. He doesn't think Obama is being honest about the issues that are important to him. He doesn't trust Obama's judgment and values because of his words and actions over the years. And he doesn't like the fact that it seems like the media is trying to force Obama on everyone. He politely explains to the Obama supporter why he could never vote for Obama. But the Obama supporter, aware that there are some people who won't vote for his candidate because of race, assumes that the opposition is because Obama is black. He supporter accuses the Romney supporter of being a racist. To him, it's an open and shut case.

Now the Obama supporter has to explain to the Clinton supporter sitting next to him why he won't support Clinton. He explains that he doesn't think she honestly cares about the issues that he's passionate about. He says that he doesn't trust her because of things that she's done over the years. And he doesn't like the fact that he's been feeling pressured to vote for her and that she was considered the "inevitable" candidate with deep establishment support. The Clinton supporter blasts him and accuses him of sexism. What other reason is there for him to be opposed to such a great candidate?

The Clinton supporter doesn't feel that Huckabee shares her values on issues that she cares about. She has been uncomfortable with some of the positions he's taken over the years. And she has been turned off by his constant media presence. The Huckabee supporter accuses her of being an anti-Christian who opposes people of faith.

And it goes on and on. This is obviously a game in which everybody loses. Because no matter what color, religion, or gender you are, other people may dislike or distrust you for reasons that have nothing to do with your ethnic, gender, or faith identity. And for every accusatory finger you point at somebody else, others can use the same logic to point one right back at you.

Prejudice is cruel. And there are prejudiced people who live in this world and in this country. There are people who would never vote for a person of the LDS faith. Or a black person. Or a woman. And, yes, there are people who would never vote for a self-proclaiming born-again Christian. None of it's fair. But it's out there. But I strongly believe that in this great country today, these people are in the minority. Most people of all persuasions are willing to be fair. And to make decisions about other people not because of what "groups" they belong to but because of what they do.

I wish I could give more comfort to those who believe that most people who have a problem with Romney oppose him because of his faith. I know that it's horrible to believe that people are opposed to you for reasons unrelated to your character. But I will offer them my strongest belief that for the most part, it's not true -  just like I don't think that most people who oppose Obama oppose him because he's black or that most people who opposed Hillary opposed her because of her gender. I think that most people make decisions about who they want to vote for because of what candidates do. There certainly are exceptions. But most people want this country's problems solved and don't care how the person who solves them identifies themselves.

I've learned to live with the fact that everybody who dislikes me doesn't dislike me because of the color of my skin. And that everybody hates being accused of things that they're not guilty of. And the fact that when people dislike an individual from our "group" it may for the same reasons that we dislike an individual from another "group." Honestly, we all need to learn to give each other a bit more credit.

(If you like this article, you can vote for it on Real Clear Politics. What? You're not going to vote for it? It's because I'm black, isn't it? Joking.)

There are other potential running mates in the perennial Republican Veepstakes who could theoretically appeal to Evangelicals. Some on the rumored short list could appeal to blue collar workers. Perhaps some may have some appeal in the south (although, curiously, all of the members of the latest rumored short list are from deep in the heart of Yankee country). It's unlikely that any other than Mike Huckabee or Bobby Jindal (who stated rather firmly last week that he doesn't want the job) could appeal to all of the above mentioned groups.

But there is something else that Huckabee brings to the table that no other national Republican brings into the mix. And this is a something that the Republicans probably need this year more than they've needed it at any other time in recent memory.

Let's go back in time nine months and a day. The GOP held a Presidential debate to discuss minority issues on the campus of Morgan State University, a historically black college. The debate was broadcast live on PBS and received widespread national coverage. But yet one of the most noteworthy things about the debate is that the four leading Republican candidates were all missing. They all cited scheduling conflicts - even though the debate had been planned for a year and a half and scheduled for six months. The GOP was represented by Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, and Alan Keyes - and by the four empty podiums representing the four highest-polling candidates. An advisor to one of the missing candidates, speaking anonymously, asked "What's the win? Why would [the candidates] go into a crowd where they're probably going to be booed?"

Four of the 2008 Republican Presidential Candidates had better plans for the evening than to attend a debate for black voters. Mike Huckabee won a lot of points for himself by showing up, being himself, and showing that some Republicans do have both an interest in asking black folks for their votes as well as a knowledge of some specific challenges in the African American community. The four candidates were represented by the four missing podiums. Sadly, some of the missing candidates and their supporters are probably still wondering why most black voters across the ideological spectrum have not been willing to support the Republican Party. It's really not that hard, guys.

It would be one thing if this had been an isolated snub. But this painful reminder of the fact that some in the leadership of the Grand Old Party seem to not think that it's worth the trouble to ask black voters for our votes was part of a long-standing pattern. And the snub got widespread criticism from both the left and the right. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich blasted the missing candidates, saying "for Republicans to consistently refuse to engage in front of an African American or Latino audience is an enormous error" and "I'm puzzled by their decision. I can't speak for them. I think it's a mistake." Former Vice-Presidential candidate Jack Kemp stated "we sound like we don't want black people to vote for us ... If we're going to be competitive with people of color, we've got to ask them for their vote." CNN Commentator Roland Martin asked bluntly "why is the GOP scared of black voters?"

But if the anonymous campaign advisor even bothered to watch, he would have noticed that the candidates who showed up weren't booed. In fact, one of them won himself quite a few new fans. And I'm not talking the black candidate.

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, the only candidate present who was from the deep south, was the first to answer the first question of the night: "please tell me and this audience, in your own words, why you chose to be here tonight."

Huckabee responded "I want to be president of the United States, not just president of the Republican Party. Frankly, I'm embarrassed. I'm embarrassed for our party and I'm embarrassed for those who did not come, because there's long been a divide in this country, and it doesn't get better when we don't show up." And then he stated that "for a lot of people there's a perception that Black Americans don't vote for Republicans. I proved that wrong in Arkansas, with 48 percent of African Americans voting for me."

Kevin Tracy, who attended the debate, wrote in his blog: "I don’t know if you heard this over your televisions but during Huckabee’s first answer when he mentioned that he earned 48% of the black vote in Arkansas, there were people in the audience that were completely taken aback by the statistic, gasping in disbelief." But as unbelievable a statistic that was - in the face of decades of estrangement between the more-conservative-than-not African American electorate and the GOP - it's true.

Huckabee's natural presence in the debate and his knowledge of issues of importance to many African Americans earned him praise from the left and right alike. One liberal black blogger wrote that "Huckabee was by far the most relaxed, professional, and thorough of the candidates. This guy had the right answer for everything: racism, Rwandan genocide, DC statehood, you name it. … I'm never going to vote for a GOP President, but I can surely understand why this guy pulled 48% of the black vote the last time he ran for Governor.” DeWayne Wickham wrote for the USA Today an article titled "Huckabee stands out at minority-issues debate," noting that while Huckabee is a firm opponent of Affirmative Action, his "responses to racially sensitive questions suggest that he could win more black votes in a general election than any GOP presidential candidate in a long time"

And all of this brings us forward nine months to today.

In recent days, more and more African Americans Republicans have complained more and more openly about the fact that the GOP has failed to seek the support of black voters. Many of these people have taken tremendous criticism over the years for supporting the Republican Party and have grown extremely frustrated because they haven't seen the party taking many steps to remedy its past refusal to actively seek black votes. Some have even hinted at the possibility of voting for Obama. Dr. Michael Fountroy, author of "Republicans and the Black Vote," said "Black Republicans who vote for Obama want to let it be known that they are frustrated with the party's inability to court the black vote."

At the same time, some of the surprise "pink" states - traditional red states where the GOP support is not firm today - are states like Mississippi and Georgia, which have huge black populations. With an increased amount of black voter turnout and Bob Barr nipping at McCain's heels, it is not that unlikely that without Huckabee, McCain will lose one or more states that has not voted for the Democratic candidate in the past eight elections.

But Mike Huckabee, on the other hand, is popular with many black voters, including at least most of the prominent black conservatives who have been critical of the Republican Party. J.C. Watts wrote an article shortly after Huckabee's withdrawal from the race titled "Missing Mike Huckabee already" in which he wrote that "Mike Huckabee spoke to so many issues that I've been trying to get the GOP establishment to speak to as a black, a social conservative and an opportunity conservative." Personally speaking, I have yet to speak to a black voter who doesn't at least like Huckabee.

Huckabee's popularity among blacks might not only help McCain in the south but also help in many places in the north. Kevin Tracy later pondered in his blog entry the question "could the GOP win states like Michigan or Pennsylvania if someone like Huckabee carried 30% or 40% of the black vote?” Pretty intelligent question. And Michelle Bernard wrote in the National Review, speaking about the Republican share of the black vote in 2004, that "President Bush increased from 9 to 16-percent. Similar increases were seen in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Pennsylvania. Given the narrow margin of victory President Bush realized in Ohio and other key states, all candidates should remember that every vote counts. In 2008, the number of black voters casting a ballot for a Republican candidate could make all of the difference."

Make no mistake about it - Obama will resoundingly win the black vote this election - and he's likely to win every other ethnic minority group as well (Democrats often do). But this election has the potential to be very close. And even if it weren't, no candidate or political party in the 21st century can afford to write off an entire ethnic group. And black voters, like all voters, respond well to candidates who didn't just suddenly start caring about their support in the eve of the election.

John McCain is a good, decent, and fair man. He is an American hero. He has much more sensitivity and plain common sense on diversity issues than many who are trying to give him advice. But, for some reason, he also was one of the four missing candidates (along with Giuliani, Romney and Thompson). He needs to balance his ticket with someone who helps him to bridge the divide between the GOP and African Americans, in addition to satisfying conservative voters and helping his general appeal. There is a guy from Little Rock who comes to mind.

So, while McCain and his advisors are thinking about the right way to find the perfect balance to keep as many social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, defense conservatives and independents happy as possible, they need to think about one more thing. There are probably Republican candidates who can appeal to some of the various constituencies that Mike Huckabee appeals to. But I can't think of any who appeal to all of them and can't think of any who appeal to any of them with the same level of fervor.

And I can think of no other GOP candidate of any race who has the possibility of doing something tangible to fix the GOP's perception problem in the area of race better than Mike Huckabee. Certainly, none of the remaining Veep candidates gives me much of a comfort level that they understand me or my issues as a Fiscal Conservative, an Evangelical Christian and an African American. And there is no time in the party's history that it is more urgent for their very survival that they no longer be perceived as not being interested in reaching out to voters of every hue.

I was watching one of my Star Wars DVDs not long ago. And then I turned off the DVD player and saw the news clips about Obama's great week. He had the press eating out of his hand, and foreign leaders appeared to endorse his plans at the same time that news leaked that his opponent was thinking about selecting the worst possible pick for a running mate while ignoring the best. Both his friends and his enemies are doing everything exactly the way he'd probably want them to do it. And at that moment, I had a strange thought.

Could Obama actually know how to do Jedi Mind Tricks? I'm starting to think maybe he does. In fact, that would explain how much of this saga has unfolded as it has ...

A long time ago, in an income bracket far, far away, the young Lord Obama went to visit his opponent for the Democratic nomination. "I mean you no harm. I am no threat to you. You are inevitable. You should concentrate on beating the Republicans." Although the princess was extremely smart and had a strong mind, she somehow fell for the trick. "You're no threat to me. I am inevitable. I will concentrate on the Republicans." And so he managed to evade her pursuit for a long time.

Eventually, the princess realized that he indeed was a threat and needed to be immediately confronted. The young knight appeared to her and her companions and spoke again."Strike me down verbally. Attack me with all your might. Especially in South Carolina. I am defenseless and a 'fairy tale'. It is your destiny." Amazingly, they accepted this thought and acted accordingly. And so they gave into their anger and launched too ferocious an attack on the young knight. Not only did he escape their wrath again, but from this point on, the force was no longer with them. He was well on his way toward control of the galaxy.

He used his powers to gain influence over the media - both the red side and the blue side. He caused the left side to give him an unprecedented level of press coverage. After eluding the princess, he appeared to an editor of the forces of leftness and said to him "I am going on a voyage ... to the restroom. It is a big story." The editor nodded his head in agreement. "It is a big story. We must cover it. We'll have cameras waiting outside the door. What a big story!"

And he spoke to the forces of the right. "My middle name is Hussein. That's very funny. You should talk about this constantly for four more months." The righties stared back blankly. "Hussein. That's funny. He he.  We shall spend the whole hour today talking about 'Hussein.'  Maybe we'll get around to talking about the tax increases later." But even more impressively, the young knight tricked the red side of the media into loving candidates who were either unpopular or unknown in much of the rest of their galaxy while rejecting those who could help them beat him. He used his Jedi Mind Tricks to plant a series of thoughts in their heads. "Your voters care not about abortion." "The one who wants to eliminate income taxes, protect the second amendment, protect marriage and strengthen the military - you shall call him 'liberal.'" "Those who could actually win elections in my Democratic party are 'true conservatives.'"  And "Every problem you have is the fault of the liberal media - look not within." And so the red side of the media force acted on the thoughts the Lord Obama planted in their heads and acted in a manner that confused and alienated those that lived on the planets in their system. Meanwhile, in the midst of all the confusion, the young knight escaped yet again.

A few pundits on the red side tried to resist the attempts to resist and to question the logic of the thoughts that were being planted in those on their side. "You're telling me that this guy is a conservative?  And the other guy is a liberal? B-but ... this doesn't make any sense." Lord Obama smiled at them and looked them in the eye. "You must unlearn that which you have learned."

And so the young knight has done very well in his fight for the political galaxy in part because both those on his side and those who oppose him appear to be saying and doing the things that he would want them to do - all things that either increase his profile, weaken his competition or, to cause many to flee in exasperation to the blue side. What is especially mysterious is that many who oppose him don't realize that they're doing the young knight's bidding.

After using his Jedi Mind Powers to influence both his allies and the media representatives of his opposition, the young knight is now plotting to give some final advice directly to his wise and skilled opponent in preparation for their final battle.

"You should choose a running mate that is acceptable to the red media. They are in tune with the people. And that Immigration Reform proposal is a great idea. Your side of the galaxy will love it."

I'm going to take a minute to pay tribute to one of my personal role models. A guy who I have never met but who I think exhibits class and leadership to the nth degree - Coach Tony Dungy of the Indianapolis Colts.

There probably is no more widely liked and respected coach in professional sports than Dungy. I've read countless quotes from current and former players who talk on and on about his character, fairness, and about how great a man he is. He also is a leader who helps form other leaders - four of his former assistant coaches are now NFL Head Coaches. Of course, last year, he became the first African American Head Coach to have his team win the Superbowl.

But his accomplishments off the field, combined with the way that he shows Christian character on the field, are what really gets my attention. When he was the Head Coach of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, he started a mentoring program for youth called Mentors for Life. He provided the kids who participated with tickets to Bucs games. He has been involved in Big Brothers and Big Sisters programs, the Boys and Girls Club, the Prison Crusade Ministry, and others. He is currently an NFL spokesman for All Pro Dad. And when he lost his job in Tampa Bay, his first thought, instead of seeking another high profile and high salary coaching position, was to strongly consider taking a full-time position ministering to prisoners.

I'm still reading his first book and need to fill in a lot more bio information about him. But Dungy is in my book a total class act and one of those people we can all learn something from.

Although it may not sound like it, this is a story about our current oil crisis.

Two men were walking in the desert on a hot day. They carried with them a supply of water, which they were drinking heavily.

At some point, the men realized that their water supply would run out before they got to their destination. They needed to do something.

The first man proposed that they cut back on the amount of water that they drank. They needed to accept being a little thirsty and not take such big gulps. They also needed to try to explore some cactus plants to find some alternative fluids other than their gradually depleting supply.

The second man responded by calling the first man an idiot. "What we need to do is keep walking until we find some storm clouds. It does rain at times in the desert, you know, and we need to grab some of that water and store it so that we can drink."

"That won't do us any good!" said the first man, the conservationist. We need to cut back, not go hunting around for a drop here and a drop there."

"Your way just won't work at all!" shouted the second man, the explorer. With your way, we will just wear down and not have the strength to go find new water."

The two men, who needed to cooperate in order to find a workable solution to their water problem, continued debating and arguing with each other, with each refusing to listen to the other. They also did nothing to address the water shortage problem. They did continue to drink water until it ran out.

Eventually, both men passed out. Little did they realize that each of them was partially right and that had they cooperated and implemented both of their suggestions, they might have been able to get the water they so desperately needed.

Some people think we need to drill here, drill now, and pay less. Some think we need to conserve and look for new sources of energy. And they're both right.

Sometimes, the things that make the most noise in life are the things that are least likely to actually hurt you.

It's fair to say that John McCain has been warned of the dire consequences of displeasing the establishment.

From their seats of power in offices in New York and Washington, the conservative media have virtually wagged their finger in the face of John McCain. "You may have been able to handle five years in a Vietnamese prison camp. But, you look here, John! You don't want to get us mad. Do you know who we are?"

Somewhere in all the establishment suggestions of who would and wouldn't be acceptable to them as a running mate is an implied threat - especially about who not to pick. If he disobeys them and picks a person they've told him not to, he's off the speed dial completely.

And in the face of the constant drumbeat by the conservative establishment to push the guy of their choice and beat down the guy of our choice is a simple question. What will the members of the national conservative media actually do if John McCain taps somebody that they don't approve of? What will they really do?

To gain some insight into this, let's back up a few months and think about the primaries. Back then, in between long rants against Mike Huckabee and commercial breaks, many members of the conservative media establishment spent much of the rest of their working day trashing Senator McCain. He was called "John McLame." His mental stability was questioned. He had a declaration of war levied against him. One pundit actually promised to campaign for Hillary Clinton if McCain became the nominee (I wonder how that worked out for them).

And then on March 4th, McCain clinched the delegates needed to secure the Republican nomination. And within a few weeks time, we rarely heard a peep anymore about how evil John McCain was. Before the end of the month, with the help of Jeremiah Wright, the pundits decided that they actually did dislike Democrats more than McCain. And from then until now, they've directed their verbal venom leftward, sparing McCain from any more direct hits. Some of them have evenly publicly decided that they now really like McCain ("He he. John, ol' boy. We were just kidding about calling you a liberal. How's the war?").

Which should teach McCain a lesson about some members of the conservative media establishment. Many of them are pretty flexible. Oh, they may bark ferociously. They may growl. If they really dislike a Republican candidate, they might even show their teeth. But when faced with a choice between someone they don't like and someone who terrifies them, they ... wag their tails. Sometimes they'll even give you a paw.

The people McCain should concern himself with are conservative voters. Unlike pundits, who get paid to talk regardless of who is on the ticket, voters have this nasty tendency to stay home sometimes. Or even to vote against you. The voters can't always be counted on to automatically be there, but the pundits generally get in line. And they often will even try to look and sound happy about it.

And so, what lessons do you think that John McCain learned from the media pundits who trashed him and now aren't against him anymore? Do you really think that he came away with that experience with the idea that he has to do what these good people demand? Think about it. They decided that he was evil and took up trashing him day in and day out. And then he managed to win anyway. And now they're trashing his opponent day in and day out, continually trying to drive down his opponent's negatives while leaving him alone.

They certainly did show him a thing or two. I'm sure McCain has learned his lesson.

Gregg Jackson makes some very serious charges against the conservative media establishment. I guess he reports, we decide.

Link to the Gregg Jackson link

The White House once had a CEO in the Oval Office.

This man was an intellectual heavyweight. He had an ability to innovate in ways that were superior to his peers. He also had a penchant for business. Although he started working for an international corporation, he quickly worked his way up the ranks, proving himself capable of handling one difficult assignment after another. He eventually rose to the partner level.

Then he branched out and founded his own company. He had a mind to cut costs and was successful at it. He became a very wealthy man. Then, tired of simply making lots of money, he headed up a non-business organization in which he was responsible for the complex coordination of an extremely important effort that involved the coordination of international efforts. He formed liaisons with foreign governments and, just like he had been in business, was successful in taking a very complicated operation and making it work.

Afterwards, with his reputation at an all-time high, this CEO decided to try his hand at government administration. Although he was viewed as someone who teetered between the two parties, he took his place within a Republican administration and served at a time at which times were good and people had a positive outlook of the future. He worked hard toward the increase of efficiency in business and industry - all good stuff. He worked to improve relations between business and government - more good stuff - and was viewed by many as a natural for an even higher position.

And then his supporters got their wish. He became the President of the United States. And even though he was well versed in the economy and had been associated with one of the most business-oriented Presidents in U.S. History, his knowledge soon proved not as useful as many thought it would. Within the first year of his Presidency, a set of events transpired that caused the confidence and positive outlook that many Americans had held to evaporate. Consumers began to radically scale back their spending. Earnings fell. Banks collapsed. Many mortgages could not be paid. Unemployment sharply rose. And the conditions worsened for many years to come as the public began to despise him as much as they had eagerly hoped for what his skills might bring to the nation.

The CEO's name was Herbert Hoover. He was the 31st President of the United States.

Although Hoover was brilliant and was actually a very decent man (he saved millions from starvation in the aftermath of World War I and donated his salary to charity), he had several problems that kept him from being a good president. First, he could not seem to personally relate to the plight that many in the nation were experiencing. Secondly, his view on the role of government was such that he didn't think that it needed to directly intervene even when the intense suffering of a huge number of its people reached a catastrophic level.

The man who knew how to run an organization efficiently did not know how to run a country at a time it was in desperate need of empathetic leadership.

Being President means that you are the Chief Executive, the Commander-in-Chief, the Chief Legislator, the Chief Diplomat and the Chief Citizen. No one person with one set of skills will naturally be good in all the things that are required of the Presidency. President Lyndon Johnson once said that "the presidency has made every man who occupied it, no matter how small, bigger than he was; and no matter how big, not big enough for its demands."

America would not be as great a country as it is without our talented leaders of business, who are responsible for coordinating much of the nation's exports, innovation and employment. However, the best predictor of success as President is experience in running a government. And running a government is very different from running a business. As a CEO, you can dismiss people pretty much at will. People are afraid of you because their livelihood depends on you approving of them. But as President, to get anything done at all, you need the cooperation of the majority of 535 people (Congress) whose loyalty to you depends on what you can do for them, with each of them caring more about the approval of their constituents than of you. And you have nine Supreme Court Jurists who can never be fired (not even if you "hired" them) who will do whatever they feel is right - including undoing whatever you are able to get Congress to agree to - regardless of how it affects you.

Being a good businessman is a great life accomplishment. But success in business requires a different set of skills than success in the presidency. To be successful, one must be able to motivate and inspire people that they didn't hire and that they can't fire. Talent and knowledge are not the same as leadership.

I realize that the New Yorker cover was intended to be satire. The apparent intent was to make fun of some of the tactics that some people have used against Obama. It wasn't funny, though - at all. And the types of attitudes it parodied aren't funny either.

I have points of view on the Obama candidacy that I will share. I'll start by sharing why I am not going to vote for him. First, I can't vote for somebody - anybody - who has the positions on abortion that Obama has. He has the worst position on abortion that I've ever seen in my life. I'm not impressed by how much he talks about church or where he got his degree from - if he hasn't read Jeremiah 1:5 or grasped the fundamentals of the human reproductive cycle to know not to support late term abortion, I can't get with that program. I also suspect, based on his liberal leanings and repeated criticisms of the Bush tax cuts, that he will raise taxes. I don't think he has a commitment to protect the traditional family. And I'm not entirely comfortable at this point in time that he'll truly stand behind Israel. But, do you see a pattern in what I've mentioned in this paragraph? I oppose him because of at least four issues. I'm not out to get him - I just oppose some of his policies.

I have two different and conflicting viewpoints on the campaign against Obama. First of all, I think that politics is a big boys (and girls) game and it's a contact sport. If you want to be President, no matter who you are or what color you are, people are going to go after you. John Kerry was treated pretty badly four years ago and it wasn't because of his race - it was because he wanted a job that his opposition also wanted. So, I have a pretty high threshold for the point at which political opposition goes over the line. If you run for the Presidency, no matter who you are, people are going to come after you. Which is probably why we don't have very many great Presidents - the smartest people are too smart to get involved. I'm not in the "smartest people" category but I will never run for office.

But even though I have a high threshold for where the line is, I am sick of some of the types of attacks against Obama - like the ones depicted in the illustration. I'm especially tired of seeing his wife demonized (I must have missed the news on the day that Mrs. Obama became Ms. Omarosa, the prototypical angry black woman. I'm wondering if those who thought Hillary was the victim of sexism will also jump in to speak up if they believe that Michelle Obama is being treated unfairly). There is absolutely nothing wrong with talking about issues - like the fact that Obama still opposes oil drilling at a time when domestic oil supply is low and currency exchange rates are high, the fact that he wants to make the top tax rate 55%, that he has long supported late-term abortion and that he has yet to go to Iraq anytime recently despite his many opinions about what he'll do there. But when people make it a full-time sport to attack him the person and his family, they are unwittingly working against their stated goals and towards his.

The more people attack Obama personally, the more people will rally toward him. Especially if race is used in the attack (fortunately, this has not happened that much - and it had better not). But think the things that Obama has already survived - including Tony Rezko and Jeremiah Wright. The things that have sunk other politicians bounce off of Obama - he's got a coat of teflon on him. He didn't defeat Bill Clinton, he became him. But besides that, every second used to attack Obama the person is a second less that could be used to point out honest differences with Obama's policies. It is impossible to beat Obama this year by attacking him the person (and even if it were possible, the winner wouldn't be able to govern). It is possible to beat him by digging into the details of the policies he supports and his political record. Some of his ideas are very hard to defend.

John McCain is proving to me more and more that he is a man who has class. I respect the fact that the McCain campaign quickly stated that they thought the illustration was offensive. And even though I have tons of disagreement with the current leadership of the NAACP, it still is the nation's oldest civil rights organization. I respect the fact that McCain is showing up at their convention this week - the biggest problem the Republicans have is that they haven't showed up in the black community - and I can see McCain starting to work to address this. McCain has tact and a sense of decency and I expect him to campaign fairly - which is probably another reason that some in the conservative media dislike him. But he understands this aspect of campaigning against Obama better than they do.

I would guess that Obama will benefit from the most important change that Jesse Jackson is capable of making these days. To disappear from his campaign and from the headlines.

A while back, I wrote a piece called Obama's Prayer, in which I imagined the types of thing that Obama might be praying for as the fall campaign heats up (Republican missteps that will take the focus off of Obama's policies). But neither could my eyes see or my hears hear nor did it enter into my imagination how much Obama might be blessed because of what happened last week - with Jackson's sermonette about Obama's anatomy.

If there are some four-word phrases that would turn off most white voters regardless of ideology, geography, age, or income level, I would guess one of them would be "Campaign Advisor Jesse Jackson." And for mostly good reasons. There was a day, three and four decades ago, when Jackson probably preached unity across racial lines and did things to help other people more than to help himself. But today, frankly, he's sort of a parody. A man full of contradictions. It's sad. (In fact, those of you my friends who happen to be white, let me let you in on a secret. Jackson has a lot of critics among African Americans as well. We didn't elect him as our "leader" - the media did. I'm still not sure why people see him as a "leader" of black people. He's not my leader. Maybe his card is the first one in their rolodex).

So, the fact that Jackson threw Obama under the bus in such a crass and public way gives Obama an excuse for sending Jackson the way of Jeremiah Wright. And he can create this distance without alienating the subset of African Americans who support Jackson (and I have yet to meet many members of this subset). The presence of Jesse Jackson is a a drag on any national campaign. And now Jackson gave Obama a valid reason to jettison him.

And in addition, there are people out there who are thinking "I don't like Jesse Jackson ... Jesse Jackson doesn't like Obama ... heyyy ... maybe that means that I might like Obama more than I thought I would." Obama benefits from both of these side-effects.

I haven't paid much attention to anything Jackson has said since 1984 (when he made an even more ignorant comment when he thought he was speaking in private). But beyond what this reveals about his cattiness and character, I just can't believe that he was that foolish. I've never thought Jackson was a dumb man. But I can't imagine many intelligent people thinking to themselves "yep, I'm wearing a live mic and on camera on a news network that hates me. Hey .... psst ... over here! Let's talk privately while we're waiting to go live. I just heard this new joke ... ").

Obama's probably thinking "if only Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan would trash me, all my prayers may be answered."

[Note: A commenter at race42008.com noted that I made a mistake in one claim I made in an earlier version of this post - the claim that "of the six red state contests that Mitt Romney won, all of them were in Caucus states." That sentence was incorrect - I made a mistake in my spreadsheet. Romney won six red states that held Caucuses in 2008 and Utah, which held a primary. The electoral counts below, though, are accurate (I didn't mess that up) - McCain 72, Huckabee, 53, Romney, 31.]

I am very underserved by the news media in some of their analysis on the elections ... so I do my own. Let's focus again on the GOP side here. I did a little homework, based on the primary results and the 2004 electoral map. I compared the election results for all the contests in which more than two of the leading GOP competitors were in the race (i.e., until Romney dropped out in February). I only considered the states which were red states in 2004 and tallied up the electoral votes allocated to each state and awarded them to the GOP candidate (McCain, Huckabee or Romney) that won the state. The results were interesting.

Here is the 2004 electoral map:

Here is an overlay of which candidates won which red states during the time in which at least three candidates were running:

And if you were to tally the electoral votes according to who won the red states during the time there were three or more candidates, the total is:

McCain = 72 Electoral Votes

Huckabee = 53 Electoral Votes

Romney = 31 Electoral Votes

(Remember, it's not about the physical size of the states that matters; it's the number of people living in those states, which determine the number of electors that those states will send to the electoral college.)

Some more facts:

• Of the seven red state contests that Mitt Romney won, six of them were in Caucus states. He also won the primary in Utah.
• In South Carolina, Georgia, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Tennessee (52 electoral votes), the margin between McCain and Huckabee was less than 3.5%. Huckabee won Georgia and Tennessee. McCain won South Carolina, Missouri, and Oklahoma.

The map above is a visualization of the data from the Real Clear Politics projection of "toss-up" and leaning states. The purple states are states that Bush won in 2004 by at least five percentage points but which are in the toss-up category right now. The states in white are the states that Bush carried by at least fifteen percentage points in 2004 but which are merely leaning in the McCain direction now. Of the states that Kerry won by more than five points, none are toss-ups and only New Jersey and Washington state are less than solidly blue.

With the exception of Montana, all of the other states are in Huckabee-friendly territory. Huckabee came in second in North Carolina, garnering more than 60,000 votes, two months after he dropped out of the race. He won Georgia and for that matter, won both states that border Florida. He got 523,554 votes in Texas to McCain's 709,477, came within 9,000 votes (1.5%) of winning Missouri, and placed second in Indiana two months after suspending his campaign.

It would be really foolish to listen to the people in New York and D.C. who don't want Huckabee on the ticket (of course, McCain can't afford to tick those folks off and lose New York and the District - what Republican can win without those key places?). The greatest area of vulnerability for the GOP are the places where the combination of McCain and Huckabee are the strongest. This year, the south cannot be counted on to vote Republican. Obama has spent his entire life learning how to adapt himself to new situations. He's putting his mind toward going after Evangelicals and NASCAR folks. Will he win those voters? No. But he can siphon off enough of them to pull just enough red states away that McCain will probably face a huge struggle - unless McCain shores up his ticket with someone who has proven that he can win in the south - like Huckabee.

Five years ago, if somebody told me that the two guys who I most enjoyed watching political news from on the Sunday shows would both be dead at a young age, exactly one month apart, I wouldn't have believed it.

It's not just that these were very talented and hard-working guys with magnetic personalities that drew people in. From every account, they were also just really good guys, period. Dedicated family guys. Stayed out of trouble. Had other interests in life than just what was going on in Washington. Able to communicate to the average person really well.

I pray that their families have peace and comfort and also know how much many of us who never even got to meet them miss their presence on the air.

In the face of the insane rants of the leader of Iran, I keep thinking of a simple question. Even in the face of the emotional aspects of the middle east conflict and the Biblical background of this conflict area, there is a simple logical question that needs to be asked.

There are currently 55 countries in the world with a majority Muslim population. These countries total in land area about 11,643,805 miles - which is 20.25% of the total land area of the entire world. The weighted average of the Muslim population in these 55 countries is 81.49%. If you divided the total Muslim population in those countries by the total land area, you'd end up with a ratio of 101.59 Muslims per square mile.

The nation of Israel, by contrast, is the only majority Jewish state in the entire world. It has a land area of 8,522 miles - just a little smaller than the state of New Jersey - and a population of 7,282,000. What's more, 16.2% of that population is Muslim. They don't even have all that much room - if you take the total population of Israel over the size of that country, you end up with 854 people per square mile.

The question is: can't the people of Israel at least have their one country? Is that really too much to ask? Why can't everybody leave Israel alone? If you look at it from a world perspective, it really doesn't seem unreasonable at all. They deserve to live in peace.

But of course, that's an argument based on logic. Which is the exact opposite of what people like Iran's leader - and people like him - uses when he talks.

Earlier this week, while waiting to give an interview to Fox News and while wearing a hot microphone, Jackson whispered to a fellow African American guest that by some of his faith based talk and some of his speeches on issues such as the responsibility of fathers that Obama was "talking down to black people." He then voiced his frustration about Obama in a very ugly way. It's unfortunately not the first time Jackson has tried to privately make some ignorant remarks  and got caught doing it.

But let's focus on the "talking down to black people" part. As an African American, I'm very sensitive to being condescended to. But I tell you the truth, nothing about the faith-based initiatives or the talk about absent fathers makes me feel as if I am being talked down to. I don't see it that way.

But you know what does make me feel "talked down to?"

I feel talked down to when someone talks about all the problems facing the black community today and concentrates only on the impact of racism and not on other issues like the absence of many black fathers. Yes, there still is institutionalized racism in this country and the long historical impact of racism does impact black people in America even today - even when there are rich black people in this country and we have a black Presidential nominee. It's there, it hurts, and it needs to be dealt with. But so does the fact that 65% of black kids are growing up without their fathers in the home. And when you talk about taking on one of these issues without taking on both - as people like Jackson do on the left and people like Pat Buchanan do on the right - you lose credibility with me. I feel that you're talking down to me.

I feel that my intelligence is being insulted when I hear Jackson mention the infant mortality rate in the black community while knowing that he has shifted his position on abortion over the years to support the practice that is destroying the black community. I wonder if he knows that for every two black babies born in America that one unborn black baby is aborted - or if he just thinks that I don't know. Infant mortality and child health care are serious topics that deserve serious attention. But if a person supports policies that result in the termination of the lives of one out of three unborn black babies - in some cases up to the moment of birth - I am pretty astounded when they talk about concern for the health of the black babies that survive and are allowed to be born.

I can't help but feeling like people think that I'm stupid when they are quick to attack a white guy who insults and demeans black women but slow or absent to do the same thing when black music artists do the same thing. I'm all for condemning racism from whatever direction it comes and regardless of who it is directed toward. And I get deeply offended whenever anyone utters vulgar and racist remarks toward black women. But I'm offended regardless of whether the speaker is an aging white talk show host or a young black rap artist. But if you spend all day jumping over the former and won't spend five minutes criticizing the latter, I don't think you're being straight with me.

I know that I'm being talked down to when I hear people talk about the causes for poverty and racism and injustice are the only ones listed. Because I know that the marriage rates for all races have fallen precipitously over the past three decades - and has fallen especially among black people. And when I think of the fact that it's hard for a family that has two working parents to make it financially, I wonder why no one talks about how much of an increased financial struggle is experienced when there's only one parent in the family. When you tell me that you want to solve a problem but only articulate one of its causes, I feel like you're talking down to me.

I feel insulted when I see some music artists portraying prison life as if it were something to be aspired to, the "thug life" as though it were a badge of honor - teaching a new generation of black kids, too many of whom don't have fathers in their lives to teach them otherwise, to do as they see on BET. And when I see public figures who are not shy in issuing criticism refusing to publicly criticize this issue while taking on every other form of injustice, I feel like they're not being as brave and courageous as they portray themselves to be. It's a lot easier to take credit for fighting a battle that people like Rev. King largely won forty years ago - by winning hearts and minds - than it is to run the risk of being the next Bill Cosby and facing the ridicule associated with saying things that need to be said.

I even feel talked down to when somebody proclaims themselves to be "my leader." There are nearly forty million black people in this country. And we have a few leaders? I have to ask, who are the "leaders" of white people in this country? There aren't any because ethnic groups don't have "leaders" - every ethnic group is a group of individuals. And though I respect some of the things Jackson has done in his long career, I can say very confidently that today he doesn't speak for this African American individual. Or most of my black family members or friends either. I actually don't know many black people who claim that he speaks for them today.

So, Rev. Jackson, I share your dislike of talking down to black people. Why don't you set an example on how to not do that. Starting today.

Should we drill for oil? Instead of arguing this question the same way over and over, let's discuss the same problem without talking about oil.

Let's pretend that America has all the oil that we need. But what we don't have is enough of our own water. We have plenty of water underground, as we all know. But suppose that many Americans and their elected representatives had opposed the building of wells and water purification plants, because of the impact of their construction on the environment. And because we don't produce our own water, we import a lot of water from abroad. Which wasn't a problem when the price of water was cheap. But because of fears of climate change, water is suddenly expensive and the cost of it is impacting our economy.

So, with this as our premise, let's answer the "should we drill" question - without ever mentioning oil ...

Real Life	Our "What If" (Parallel Universe)
In real life, America imports much of its oil from foreign sources. The cost of the foreign oil has skyrocketed, harming the economy and making it difficult for many people to live and making everything more expensive. We have a lot of oil underground. We have the potential to drill more of our own oil so that we need less oil from foreign sources. But many refuse to do so because of concerns about the impact to the environment. Should we be drilling for more oil?	In our imaginary scenario, America imports much of its drinking and bathing water from foreign sources. We don't have very many water purification plants or wells. We buy a lot of our water from abroad and the increasing cost of water is making everything more expensive. We have a lot of water underground. We have the potential to start building more domestic water purification plants and wells, which will increase the supply of domestic water and decrease our dependency on the expensive foreign water. But building purification plants have impacts to the environment as well.Should we be making more of our own water?

Imagine reading this story ...

DISPUTE OVER DOMESTIC WATER PRODUCTION INTENSIFIES

Supporters argue that America should produce its own water; opponents cite environmental concern, blame greed of bottled water industry for high water costs

The average price this week Americans pay for water: $1.15 an ounce

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The debate about the future of America's policy on water production took a heated turn this week as the higher summer temperatures have increased the demand for water at a time when water prices are at an all-time high. While many Americans believe that we should drill more wells to capture more of our own water instead of buying it from Canada, some members of Congress opposed to this idea reject the notion that this would lower costs and place most of the blame on the bottled water industry.

Proponents of increased domestic water production highlight the fact that this nation is believed to have enough water underground and through other sources that it can produce most of the water it needs without the need for importing so much from abroad. Opponents cite the environmental impact of building a large number of wells and water processing plants and highlight record profits earned by bottled water manufacturers. In addition, they insist that America should work harder toward discovering alternate liquids with which to drink and bathe.

Congressional supporters have been leading the charge to build more water wells and water treatment plants because they have contended that a higher domestic water supply would lower the cost of drinking water. Opponents have expressed concern that the construction of the water treatment plants and drills would negatively affect the deer population which reside in many of the areas designated for water processing facilities. Also, there is fear that some of the chemicals used for water purification may have adverse health effects on the nearby population.

"I disagree with the idea that simply building more wells and water processing plants will necessarily lower the price Americans pay for their water," Congressman Esnesnon stated in a press conference. "All that needs to happen is these bottled water companies need to stop trying to profit so much from the thirst of the American people."

As the cost of water has increased, it has in turn driven up the cost of other goods. Soft drink and soup manufacturers have been particularly hard hit, which has in turn caused the restaurant industry to suffer financially as have coffee shops. "We're really hurting" stated a business owner from Virginia. "We can't wash our dishes and we've had to start charging customers for each cube of ice."

In addition to their charges that the water industry is punishing America with its greed, Congressional opponents to increased domestic water production have expressed concern about the damage to wildlife that would be caused by the massive construction of water plants proposed by supporters. "Do you know what happens when just one water plant is constructed?" asked one anonymous staffer in frustration. "The deer that lived in those spots of land - where are they going to go? People don't think enough about these types of concerns. If we work hard enough, in twenty years, we'll have some better alternatives to water. Why don't people get that?"

Opponents of increased domestic water processing insist that the biggest cause of the increased cost of water is the greed of the bottled water industry. Congressional leaders have been grilling the top bottled water executives over why water imported from Canada has dramatically increased in cost over the past several years. They reject the notion that if more water could be produced in the United States that consumer costs might fall.

Suggestions for conservation have included a proposal to cut the recommended daily intake of water down two ounces and to reduce showers to one every other day. Although many Americans have balked at such suggestions, the opponents believe that more water is not the solution but that the answer lies in less salt intake - because of its impact on thirst - and increased use of deodorants.

"This whole thing is so foolish" responded a coffee shop owner. "This nation has the water that we need and we can get it without buying it from foreign countries. My business is failing. It doesn't make any sense to me that we don't get as much of our own water as we can."

No bottled water executives were available for comment.

People with common sense have contributed to this story.

Imagine that you owned a company and wanted to hire a manager to run it. Although there are a lot of good candidates out there, all of the masses of applications get narrowed down to two: Candidate A and Candidate B. It's time for the interviews.

Candidate A shows up on time. He seems happy to meet you, friendly and chatty. As you read his resume, though, you see that he doesn't have a very impressive record. What's more, when you talk to him, you get the feeling that he doesn't really have well thought-out answers to the problems your company is facing. In fact, many of the ideas he's touting as potential solutions are things that you're sure won't work - they've been tried before. And besides that, you get the feeling that he's a bit condescending. He seems as if he is trying to "talk your language" - as if he were trying to fire up the troops at a pep rally instead of having a conversation with someone who wants to have her questions answered. You wish he'd just be himself, talk, and come up with some new ideas instead of the same old same old. But he really seems like he wants you to hire him, he looks energetic and he showed up. You shake his hand and tell him you'll call him.

Looking over the resume for Candidate B, you see that over the course of his whole career, he has accomplished a lot and seems like he is better qualified to meet many of the challenges of your company. During the phone interview, he gave answers that showed that he actually also has some good ideas. But there's one big huge problem with Candidate B. He won't show up in person for the interview. It seems that "B" has already decided that you're going to hire "A" and it's not really worth his time to show up. He knows that if he comes to the interview, he might be asked to explain some gap areas in his resume. He'd rather not and has figured that you're already predisposed to hiring Candidate "A." You try again anyway to bring him in for an interview. No dice. He's busy. Busy with what, you ask? Various things. Interviews with almost every other company in town. A baseball game. Unspecified conflicts. Down time. Candidate B on paper is the best person to hire but he has no interest in asking you to hire him.

So, what do you do? Do you hire Candidate "A" - the unqualified candidate with bad ideas who shows up? Or do you go with Candidate "B" - the candidate with better qualifications and hints of better thinking but who doesn't seem to have either the motivation or the courage to ask you for the job?

If you chose "A," then congratulations again. Because if you haven't before now, you have just understood why, no matter how they classify themselves ideologically, black voters have tended to vote for the Democrats.

The Democrats are "Candidate A." They have ideas that sound great until they start explaining them. The more they talk, the more you get the sense that many of these ideas - higher taxes, abortion at any time and for any reason, more government and less individual freedom - stink. Furthermore, you get the sense that in their eagerness to gain your approval that they are trying too hard - they're trying to talk the way they think you want them to talk and to say things they think you want them to say. But, they did show up for the interview and they do really want you to hire them. If you can't say anything else for them, they seem to be consistently trying to win you over.

The Republicans are "Candidate B." Their ideas - lower taxes, respect for life, less government and a strong defense - are awesome. But in spite of the brilliance of the things that they claim they represent, they don't seem motivated to want to work for you. They have no problems applying to other companies. But they don't seem like they want to ask you to hire them. Which bothers you because if they're not motivated enough to show up for the interview, how motivated will they be to work for you if you did hire them?

Candidate B's beliefs become a self-fulfilling prophecy that continues an endless cycle. He doesn't believe you'll hire him so he doesn't show. You feel snubbed and so you hire Candidate A. When the next position comes up, "B" remembers that you recently hired "A" and is now more convinced than ever that you won't hire him and so he won't show up. You're more convinced than ever that "B" just doesn't like your company and so you unhappily revert to the default choice of "A." Word gets out that "B" just doesn't like companies like yours and this belief continues to damage his reputation. And so it goes on and on and on.

Not a good set of choices, is it? This is why the GOP has to work much harder to appeal to voters of all colors - consistently. In our scenario, both you the employer and Candidate "B" lose. You don't get to make an actual choice between two candidates who actually compete for the job - you pick by default. We all know that lack of competition leads to mediocrity. And Candidate "B" loses because he could have earned your loyal support and instead not only faces your disdain but is looked down on by other companies who don't like the way he's treated you either.

It's time for Candidate "B" to get in the game. If they do, their active competition will even help Candidate "A" to work harder and be a better interviewer as well.

Based on the data from CNN on the relative turnout of voters between the Democratic Party Primaries and the Republican Party Primaries, along with the latest Real Clear Politics polls, it seems that the GOP has a bigger mission for this fall than going after the traditional swing states or winning Michigan and preserving the western states. The Republican Party needs to do all it can do to keep the south.

The map above shows in purple the states which meet several criteria. These states all voted for Bush in 2004 (by an unweighted average of 14.89%). All of these states held primaries (not caucuses) for both parties in 2008 at a time in which the nominations for both parties were still in contention (before March 4th). And in each of these states, the 2008 Democratic Primary turnout was greater than that of the Republican Primary Turnout. Several of these states are showing the possibility of becoming battleground states. These are the only states in the country that meet all the above criteria.

Of the 35 states in which both parties held primaries this year, 21 of them were states that Bush won in 2004. Of those 21 red states, seven of them held the Republican Party primaries after John McCain gained the delegates needed to secure the Republican Party nomination. In these states, the number of Democratic Party primary voters were an average of 161.31% higher than the number of Republican Party primary voters - and for reasons that are easy to understand. There was no mystery left in the Republican Party contest at that point in time while the Democratic nomination continued to be in dispute. Republican voters had little motivation to come to the polls. But Democrats turnout was also very, very high in the 14 red states that held their primaries before the Republican nomination was settled.

Four of the 21 red states that held primaries had their Republican Primary after "Super Tuesday" (February 5, 2008) and before "Super Tuesday II" (March 4, 2008) - at a time that John McCain had a gigantic lead in the delegates for the Republican nomination but that Mike Huckabee continued to contend for the nomination. These states were Ohio, Texas, Virginia, and Louisiana. In these states, Democratic turnout exceeded Republican turnout in the respective primaries by 92.12%.

In the ten red state primaries that were held on or prior to Super Tuesday in February, at a time when there were at least three major candidates for the Republican nomination, six of those ten states had higher turnout for the Democratic Primaries than the Republican Primaries. Those six states - Missouri, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Georgia, Arkansas, and South Carolina - are southern or border states that, with the exception of Missouri, have been fairly dependable red states for several elections. Bush won these states in 2004 by an average margin of 18.34%. Yet in each of these states, the Democratic Primaries got more participation than the Republican Primaries at a time when both party nominations were in play. And Senator Obama has been showing strength in recent polls in several of these states.

President Bush won Georgia by 16.6 points in 2004. But the number of Democratic Primary voters who came out to that state's primary exceeded those who participated in the the Republican Party Primary - held on February 5th - by 8.56%. Further south, Bush won Louisiana by 14.52% in the last election. But Democratic participation in the primaries outnumbered Republican participation by 67.73%. And even though Bush won Virginia by a fairly comfortable eight points against John Kerry, 70.97% more Democrats showed up to the primaries this year than Republicans. Worse for the Republicans, Virginia is now considered a toss-up state.

Even in the four red states that voted on or before Super Tuesday in which Republican Primary participation was greater than Democratic Primary participation (Alabama, Florida, Arizona, and Utah), there is still bad news to report to the Republicans concerning their challenge in the south. The Democratic Primary participation in almost all of these states was not far behind that of the Republicans. In every state except for Utah, Democratic Primary turnout was at least 80% of that of Republican turnout. Despite the fact that Bush won those states by an average of 19.42%. And the Democratic turnout in Florida may have been diminished because of the fact that the state was punished by the DNC for holding its primary early and because most Democratic candidates did not bother to campaign there.

It should be noted that either Senator McCain or Governor Huckabee placed either first or second in each of the states shown in purple regardless of how many other candidates were in the race at the time the contests for those states were held. And many believe that if Huckabee, who is a still-popular long-term former southern governor who is popular with southerners, evangelicals and blacks, is selected to be McCain's running mate, that McCain would have a good chance of blunting Obama's challenge in the south and appealing to some traditional Democratic voters elsewhere.

The Republicans need to bear in mind that they met the 270 electoral vote threshold during the last two elections by a grand total of seventeen electoral votes. They are vulnerable in the south against a candidate who seems to do well in some key parts of it. If the party does not hold on to the south, Senator Obama will likely become the next President in part by winning in parts of the "solid south" while holding firmly onto traditional blue states.

"Sure, he’s a wonderful person ... He’d make a great vice president." - Mitt Romney, December, 2007

1. His Experience and Record: He has ten and a half years experience running a government as the Chief Executive. This is a longer tenure of governmental Chief Executive experience than any other 2008 Presidential candidate and is longer than the tenure of any current governor of either party. In 2005, he was named by Time Magazine as one of America's five best Governors. As Governor, Huckabee managed to deal with many of the major issues that Americans are asking the next Administration to handle. He was the first Governor in his state's history to institute a broad-based tax cut and was criticized for refusing to raise taxes at a time of budget deficit. He created a program that offered health insurance to poor children. He reduced the percentage of uninsured Arkansans so that it was a fourth less than the national average. He cut welfare rolls in half and even with all of these things, his state's economy grew at a rate faster than the national average.
2. His reputation among his peers: He was trusted by his Governor peers of both parties to serve as the Chairman of the bipartisan National Governor’s Association, one of the nation’s most respected public policy organizations.
3. His Chief Executive experience: Because historically, Presidents who have been Governors have performed better than those who were not, McCain would be wise to pick a long-term Governor like Huckabee. Presidents who never held Executive offices but who had running mates who did have performed better than Presidents who never held Executive offices but did not have running mates with Executive Experience either.
4. His Youth: Although he has more experience running a government than any other national politician, he is actually less than six years older than Barack Obama. And in spite of this, his presence on the ticket won't blunt McCain's argument that Obama isn't experienced enough (the "if experience is important, how can you make this person one heartbeat away from the Presidency" response). Despite their closeness in age, Huckabee has four times as much experience as Obama.
5. His Clean Lifestyle: In a time when many politicians of both parties have been ensnared in tawdry personal scandals, Huckabee has a very stable family life, having been married to the same woman for 34 years and being the father of three grown children who are still close to him and who have helped run his campaign.
6. His Leadership Capabilities: In addition to his long experience in Government, Huckabee has a variety of leadership experience outside of politics. He was a successful and popular Pastor and was also elected to be the President of the Arkansas Baptist State Convention. He is also the author of six books and is in the process of completing his seventh. And as the national Republican Party is still suffering image problems in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Huckabee is an example of what people want their leaders to do in a time of crisis. During the disaster, Huckabee's government helped do all that it could do to accommodate the evacuees. It helped make room in hotels and motels for needy families. Huckabee released state funds to assist some of the shelters. He also provided free emergency prescriptions and access to dialysis machines to those who were in medical need.
7. Their Combined Electability: There have been five bellwether states - Ohio, Missouri, Louisiana, Kentucky, and Arkansas - that have correctly predicted the winner of the General Election for each of the past eight elections (dating back to 1976). Of those, in the GOP Primaries, Huckabee won the popular vote in two of them (Arkansas and Louisiana), coming in second to McCain in the other three. McCain won the popular vote in three of them (Ohio, Missouri and Kentucky), coming in second to Huckabee in the other two. The margin between the two in the state of Missouri was extremely narrow. And in the state of Kentucky, Huckabee even managed to come in second to John McCain three and a half months after he suspended his campaign and endorsed McCain. So, the McCain/Huckabee ticket is the one that performs best in the places that matter the most.
8. His Long-Held Support Among Conservatives: Huckabee's national support among conservatives is not just a recent phenomenon but a constant. In 1998, Huckabee came in second (to John Ashcroft) in a Christian Coalition Presidential Straw Poll. (He actually came in higher than then-Governor George W. Bush). Edward Walsh wrote for the Washington Post (2/17/1998) that “It's settled. The Christian Coalition has surveyed its leadership and decided that Sen. John D. Ashcroft (R-Mo.) should be the next president and Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) should be his vice president.”
9. His Support among Influential Politicians: J.C. Watts, who represents both the concerns of Evangelicals and conservative African Americans, has expressed dismay at the Republican Party’s failure to reach out to both groups. But the inclusion of Huckabee on the ticket would do a lot to shore up this support and even lure voters from some traditional Democratic groups to the Republican ticket.
10. Even His Enemies Want Him Around: Remember the Club For Growth and their endless attacks on Mike Huckabee? Isn’t it interesting that some of these same people, who called Huckabee a liberal, were begging him to run for the U.S. Senate – or even to become the head of the RNC – within a week of him ending his Presidential bid. One might ask “why would self-proclaimed fiscal conservatives want a liberal to take over the party?” The answer is that their opposition to him was not substantive in nature. And just as they wanted to promote Huckabee into higher levels of responsibility, they would very likely get behind a McCain/Huckabee ticket, no matter how much they’re kicking and screaming now.
11. His Geographical support: With Barack Obama making progress in the south, Mike Huckabee, as a long-term and popular southern Governor, secures this backbone of Republican support. There was even a story in the news about some Alabama politicians almost fighting over which one of them would get Huckabee’s endorsement.
12. His Media Savvy: Mike Huckabee has many years of experience in communicating with the public over the mass media. His first job was reading the news on the local radio station at age 14. He started two full-time television stations at the churches he pastured and has recently been awarded a contract at Fox News.
13. His ability to win in hostile environments: He achieved cross-party popularity, becoming only the second Republican Governor of Arkansas since Reconstruction and remaining in the job until term limits forced him out. He won two elections for Lieutenant Governor and two as Governor – in the heart of the Clinton political machine and at a time when Clinton was a popular President who supported his opponents.
14. His success in winning many voter segments: In Arkansas, Huckabee won with voters of every age group, all voters making more than $15,000 a year, and won or nearly tied voters of every education level. He also won almost all Republican voters, the majority of Independents and more than a third of Democrats.
15. His unusual (for a Republican) success with black voters: He has the greatest support among African Americans of any national Republican politician in decades. He won 48% of the black vote in Arkansas. He is very highly regarded by black voters nationwide. Since several of the southern states that have large black populations are showing surprising strength by Obama, Huckabee would appeal to these many of these voters who are conservative, disagree with Obama on the issues, but feel rejected by the Republican Party.
16. Many fiscal conservatives actually do like him: In addition to Evangelicals, blacks, blue collar voters and southerners, Huckabee is a favorite of the ultimate fiscal conservatives – supporters of the Fair Tax. These are the people who don’t just complain about the unfairness of the tax code but actually want to do something about it.
17. He brings social conservatives and then some: As some journalists who have bothered to actually talk to Huckabee supporters have discovered, we’re not all Evangelicals. Huckabee won four million votes but did it without even getting the majority of the Evangelical vote, which was split among multiple candidates.
18. His loudest critics realize that he resonated with voters: Even Huckabee’s harshest critics, such as Rich Lowry of the National Review, grudgingly acknowledge that Huckabee would be “just the right Republican for this particular moment, when pocketbook concerns are looming so large.” Even though they continue to slam him and question his economic credentials, they clearly understand that his message has resonated with the public that is so disenchanted with the status quo.
19. His success in dealing with the health care crisis: At a time that the nation is concerned with health care, Huckabee is both an advocate for preventive health through a healthy lifestyle and an example of it – he lost 110 pounds after being diagnosed with diabetes. He wrote a book on losing weight and launched a childhood obesity campaign with the American Heart Association. And he even offers a personal example of lowering health care costs – he stopped needing to take diabetes medication when he lost weight.
20. He knows how to campaign competitively while at a financial disadvantage: Huckabee spent less money per vote than any candidate in the 2008 Campaign and perhaps less money per vote than any candidate in the past three decades. In a time that McCain finds himself severely underfunded in comparison with Barack Obama, Huckabee has experience in capitalizing on free media and stretching campaign dollars to the extent of outperforming better funded rivals. He also never had to take any campaign loans and ended his campaign in the black - after outlasting and outperforming almost all of his better-funded rivals.
21. His online grassroots network: On any ticket that includes Huckabee, his bloggers come with him. Huckabee has a massive web of grassroots activists, including Huck’s Army, a dedicated group of volunteers who like to share with other people why we think this guy is so cool. We aren’t paid. We spend some of our valuable free time advocating issues that are important to us, doing lots of research and in some cases providing the type of good press that no ad agency or political consultant can buy. During the primaries, whenever anyone said anything false about Huckabee, we were on it within minutes. We also ran phone banks, made our own bumper stickers, etc (and yes, thank you, we actually do have lives). And if our guy is on the ticket, we will work just as hard for McCain/Huckabee as we did for Huckabee.
22. His other grassroots networks: It’s not all about Huckabee’s online supporters. There are also truckers for Huckabee, Homeschoolers for Huckabee, conservative blacks for Huckabee. Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. While a good number of these people might vote for a ticket that didn’t include Huckabee, they definitely would vote for one that would include him. And more important than that, they would get out and fight and work hard for it. In a close election, there is a big difference between having a good number of lukewarm supporters and a greater number of fired-up supporters.
23. He knows how to campaign with class: Huckabee’s urging of his party to approach their differences with Senator Obama with civility and focus on the issues instead of personal attacks has earned him praise from a wide variety of groups whose support will be important in the General Election.
24. He is liked even by people who totally disagree with him on issues: Although Huckabee has unshakable socially conservative credentials, a lock on the south, and support from many who oppose the Federal Tax Code, he is also personally liked by many who disagree with him on almost every issue. On the liberal blog the Huffington Post, Drew Westin wrote “from the first time I watched Huckabee, he made me nervous, because I disliked most of what he said but I liked him anyway” and called him “the most politically intelligent of the candidates on the Republican side in 2008” and praised his “sense of humor” and “genuineness.” Many Democrats have spoken kindly of Huckabee especially as he urged his party to campaign against Obama on the issues instead of through personal attacks and as he defended Hillary Clinton against pressure to drop out.
25. He has shown class and respect to McCain - even when they were rivals: He hasn’t made statements against McCain that could be used against McCain by the Obama camp during the General Election.

and ...

There actually is one more very important reason for including Huckabee on the ticket, beyond the factually verifiable reasons listed above. Chuck Norris wants him on the ticket. Stop smiling - he means it.  (You didn't just read this last reason. Chuck Norris just read it to you.)