Notes From D. R.

Weekend Box Office: Bad Boys

Superbad remains on top. More from Leonard Klady.

I Have A Nightmare

A controversy erupts over a monument to Martin Luther King Jr. More from Booker Rising.

Legally Blind

The Wall Street Journal on the problems racial quotas pose--for African-Americans.

Seeing Red

Oscar-winner Jon Voight on his status as a Hollywood non-liberal.

It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World

The Weekly Standard on President Bush's ability to drive the hard-left crazy.

2 Fast 2 Furious

Tragedy strikes filmmaker John Singleton.

What The Huck?

Will Mike Huckabee become the Republican Party’s 2008 savior?

Conservatives disillusioned by Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain seem to have warmed up to the former Arkansas Governor and Baptist minister in the wake of his strong second-place finish in the Iowa straw poll earlier this month. With contenders such as Sam Brownback no longer considered viable options for the party’s base, and with the summer hype over Fred Thompson apparently cooling down, Huckabee is generating an unusually high amount of interest.

It’s easy to see why. While there will never be another Ronald Reagan, Huckabee clearly has the same fundamentally optimistic spirit that made Reagan such a beloved political figure. His social-conservative credentials are solid; it’s difficult, if not impossible, to accuse him of ideological duplicity.

However, despite his current fame, it’s also somewhat difficult to see him becoming the GOP nominee next year. In order to beat the political odds, he’d have to be the beneficiary of several happy accidents: Fred Thompson either deciding not to run or failing to gain any conservative traction once he officially announces, Newt Gingrich deciding not to run, and continued conservative contempt for Mitt Romney (who would, under normal circumstances, be the clear beneficiary of Thompson’s failure to thrive and Gingrich’s decision to abstain). Even if Huckabee managed to secure the GOP nomination, his ability to defeat Hillary Clinton would still be in question, at least initially.

Huckabee’s taken heat from some conservatives for supporting a handful of tax hikes during his tenure as Arkansas Governor, and for his advocacy on behalf of the undocumented. Because of his support for the “FairTax” concept (i.e., replacing federal income taxes with a national sales tax), it’s very likely that the GOP base and right-leaning independents will overlook his past apostasy on the tax issue. However, Huckabee’s “progressive” take on immigration is a potential red flag; if Huckabee receives the nomination, he’ll either a) move immediately to the right on immigration and face accusations of flip-flopping or b) remain “progressive” on immigration, and risk losing votes from those who desire a GOP candidate willing to take a strong stand on border security.

Perhaps Huckabee’s faith will allow him to attract enough general-election support to offset the votes lost by those opposed to his view of immigration. Huckabee’s ministerial past and his commitment to his Baptist beliefs will reassure many voters concerned about excessive secularism in American society. Huckabee is uniquely gifted in this respect: he can speak with authority on culture-war issues without coming across as an obnoxious, Pat Robertson-style “holy roller.” Huckabee’s faith cannot be considered “extreme”; in fact, it is fundamentally mainstream—he reflects the views of those who don’t want an American theocracy, but who do believe that faith plays a key role in forestalling the “anything goes” philosophy. Churchgoers not loyal to the Democrats would, in all likelihood, turn out in droves to support Huckabee, just as they supported Reagan and George W. Bush.

Not to beat up on the current President, but Huckabee is more articulate, more charismatic, and arguably more ideologically committed than Bush. He seems closer to the Reagan-conservative template than the current occupant of the White House, more comfortable with the “Morning in America” image.

Bush always had problems preserving that image. Reagan was adored by voters in part because he managed to keep the country positive and optimistic. While Bush has also tried to keep America hopeful, his attempts have been foiled by America’s frustration over the length of the Iraq War and by his overall difficulty in articulating a confident vision.  While conventional wisdom holds that the country won’t vote Republican next year because of anti-Bush sentiment, it’s possible that the country could choose Huckabee over Hillary precisely because Huckabee can easily articulate the positive vision for the future that Bush has long struggled to express.

America instinctively responds to Presidential candidates who can tap into our innate desire for a better tomorrow. John F. Kennedy and Reagan won because they could do that. Both Bushes won because their visions for the future, even if haltingly expressed, were more hopeful than the visions being expressed by Michael Dukakis in 1988, Al Gore in 2000, and John Kerry in 2004. If Huckabee manages to become the nominee, and delivers a positive sermon throughout the general election, a majority of voters will ultimately conclude that he is, indeed, a godsend.

UPDATE: The AP on Huckabee.

Can You Dig It?

Dean Barnett on the left's contempt for conservative pundit William Kristol. I can understand why the left finds Ann Coulter and Michael Savage unpleasant, but I never understood what the liberal gripe was with Kristol, one of America's better political writers of any stripe.

Sky Captain And The World Of Tomorrow

I’m convinced that our earliest political memories play a role in our political preferences as adults.

I have no doubt that the over-the-top early-‘90s attacks on such figures as George H. W. Bush, Dan Quayle and Clarence Thomas were critical factors in my later embrace of center-right views. I remember when people used to attack Bush, Quayle and Thomas as figures worse than Satan; especially in Massachusetts, all three were regarded as being lower than dogs.

I never understood why these men were being demonized so much—I regarded all three as people who were simply doing what they sincerely believed to be the best for the country as a whole. I found it particularly absurd when folks would accuse Bush of being a racist and Thomas of being a self-hating African-American—without ever bothering to explain why.

As I studied the views of all three men, I realized that their beliefs did not constitute “right-wing fascism” but simple common sense. My contempt for those who falsely attacked all three men “back in the day” clearly fuels my politics.

I’m sure the same goes for people who came of age during the Clinton era. If one believed that Newt Gingrich, Bob Dole and Rush Limbaugh were reckless and excessive in their criticisms of the 42nd President, then one would naturally find Clinton’s views more reasonable and logical than those of his conservative critics.

While it may seem absurd now, I’m certain that those who came of age in the early-2000s will be staunch Republicans in the future. Think of those who were in their early adolescence when 9/11 happened. One of their clearest memories will be George W. Bush standing in the rubble of the Twin Towers, vowing that those who committed the attacks would face vengeance. Having perceived Bush to be a heroic figure protecting the country from further assaults, these young Americans aren’t likely to think much of those who regard Bush as a low-IQ Jesus-freak.

9/11 was a formative experience for many young Americans, a horror that made them think critically about national security and the steps that must be taken to protect the homeland.  Who are these young folks more likely to become: future Republicans, or future Democrats?

It’s going to shock a lot of people in the future, when young voters shaped by 9/11 express love for Dubya in polls. In reality, it shouldn’t be that shocking. Americans love underdogs, and rally to defend those seen as being unfairly attacked. Look at how many older Americans still like Richard Nixon—a fondness forged out of the belief (accurate or not) that the disgraced ex-President was an unjustly demonized man hounded out of office by his political enemies.

The “Last Legion” of Bush defenders have argued for some time now that the President is, at bottom, an honorable man whose actions will be vindicated by history. How stunning will it be just a few years from now, when 9/11-shaped young voters disrespect the Democrats out of devotion to Dubya?

LIKE A ROCK

In a magnificent speech, President Bush warns Iraq War opponents of the chaos that will occur if the United States abandons the country prior to establishing a functioning democracy. More from the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, Power Line, Jonah Goldberg, WhiteHouse.gov and the Washington Times.

How The Mighty Have Fallen

A gigantic embarrassment for former Boston City Councilor David Scondras.

All Hail The Queen

Hotelier and tabloid-media figure Leona Helmsley passes away at 87.

Survivor Series

Fred Barnes on the Republican Party's woes.

Doggy Style

NFL star Michael Vick pleads guilty to dogfighting charges. More from Booker Rising, Jed Babbin and Jonah Goldberg.

Go Your Own Way

It’s hard to believe that we’re just a few months from marking the fifteenth anniversary of Bill Clinton’s defeat of George H. W. Bush. I remember that election as though it took place last year.

Say what you will about the unusual conclusion to the 2000 election—it was the 1992 election that was the biggest circus in recent American political history. So many “abnormal” things occurred during that election—voters turning against an incumbent who won a war the year before, a Democrat challenger surviving a sex scandal, a third-party contender who at times seemed more popular than either the Democrat or the Republican.

Were it not for these “abnormalities,” George H. W. Bush would have won re-election. Bush 41 was done in by a perfect storm of events—a severely lagging economy, Clinton’s unlimited charisma, internal division in the GOP, and an electorate that was seemingly unconcerned about maintaining any vestige of the Reagan legacy.

I’ve long believed that despite the weirdness of the 1992 campaign, Clinton’s election was proof that the United States was not a fundamentally conservative country. Had the country truly adopted Reagan’s principles, Clinton would not have been able to win under any circumstances—in fact, a country truly committed to the Reagan cause would have rejected both Clinton and Perot and stuck with Bush despite his broken promise not to raise taxes. A truly conservative country would have recognized that Clinton’s real agenda was the destruction of every element of the Reagan Revolution—and would have seen to it that he did not win the White House.

It’s too bad that the country did not fully move to the right during the 1980s. Had the country given Bush a second term, both Clinton and Perot would have been consigned to the dustbin of history, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg would not be on the Supreme Court, and perhaps the United States would have begun aggressive antiterrorism efforts (in the wake of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing) that would have prevented the horrors of 9/11. If those who admired Reagan in the 1980s realized that Bush was the only man capable of protecting the Reagan vision in the early-1990s, perhaps we could have avoided some of the over-the-top partisanship we have borne witness to over the past decade and a half.

I’m sure most of the folks who voted for Perot wish they could turn back history’s clock and avoid the mistake that resulted in eight years of nonstop scandal. Hopefully, the disillusioned conservatives who fell for Perot won’t make a similar mistake next year, if a third-party candidate who markets himself to conservatives jumps into the race.

When the GOP base is united, it is unstoppable—the Presidential elections of 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000, and 2004 prove it. When social, fiscal, and security conservatives join hands, victory is almost certain. However, when the conservative house is divided against itself, victory for the other side is a guarantee.

I hope the GOP base never forgets the lesson of Bush’s loss. If conservatives had stuck together, we could have handed the Democrats a fourth consecutive loss—a loss that could have forced the party to rid itself of its far-left element, a loss that could have compelled the party to become serious once again.  Our political system simply can’t work if one party is controlled by an extremist fringe—because if that party manages to come to power due to division in the more centrist party, the only result is chaos.   

Next year, there could be a scenario in which a third-party candidate tries to split the conservative vote. Just as Perot seized upon economic issues to steal votes from Bush, a 2008 independent candidate could seize upon social issues such as illegal immigration to break the conservative bond—but only if that bond allows itself to be broken.

As George Santayana said, those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. If a third-party “conservative” candidate emerges next year, the GOP base will be doomed—and damned—if they don’t study the 1992 edition of the American political textbook.

Change Of The Guard

For decades, conservatives have accused the Boston Globe of downplaying black-on-white assaults and hyping up white-on-black assaults in the city. Looks like the Globe is trying to avoid that perception now.

There You Go Again...

Why doesn't the Washington Post just change its name to the President Bush Sucks Post, and be done with it?