William Kristol writes an op-ed piece for the NY Times called President Mike Huckabee?. A few highlights:

“For me, therefore, the most interesting moment in Saturday night’s Republican debate at St. Anselm College was when the candidates were asked what arguments they would make if they found themselves running against Obama in the general election.
The best answer came, not surprisingly, from the best Republican campaigner so far — Mike Huckabee. He began by calmly mentioning his and Obama’s contrasting views on issues from guns to life to same-sex marriage. This served to remind Republicans that these contrasts have been central to G.O.P. success over the last quarter-century, and to suggest that Huckabee could credibly and comfortably make the socially conservative case in an electorally advantageous way.”

Noting that Huckabee drew new voters to the caucuses, Kristol observes that Huckabee beat Romney by almost two to one, and John McCain by better than four to one, among voters under 45. The conclusion:

“Some Democrats are licking their chops at the prospect of a Huckabee nomination. They shouldn’t be. For one thing, Michael Bloomberg would be tempted to run in the event of an Obama-Huckabee race — and he would most likely take votes primarily from Obama. But whatever Bloomberg does, the fact is that the Republican establishment spent 2007 underestimating Mike Huckabee. If Huckabee does win the nomination, it would be amusing if Democrats made the same mistake in 2008.”

Read the whole thing.

I’m about half way through so far. Mohler uses the first few chapters to paint a picture for Christian engagement in the public square, unpacking myths such as the notion that no religious motivation should ever be allowed to influence policy determination. Mohler sums up the argument:

“Not only must a person advocating a public-policy position have a purely secular rationale, but his advocacy must be secularly motivated as well. It is not enough to offer secular arguments for a position if one’s real reason for holding it is a belief in God.”

In chapter four, Mohler responds:

1. A liberal democracy must allow all participants in the debate to speak and argue from whatever worldviews or convictions they possess.
2. Citizens participating in public debate over law and public policy should declare the convictional basis for their arguments.
3. A liberal democracy must accept limits on secular discourse even as it recognizes limits on religious discourse.
4. A liberal democracy must acknowledge the commingling of religious and secular arguments, religious and secular motivations, and religious and secular outcomes.
5. A liberal democracy must acknowledge and respect the rights of all citizens, including its self-consciously religious citizens.

The book is a great read so far. I was particularly impressed with a chapter entitled “Torture and the War on Terror: On Adding Dirty Rules to Dirty Hands.” The chapter was originally written in response to Charles Krauthammer’s December 2005 Weekly Standard article The Truth About Torture. Mohler defends a modified form of John McCain’s view, contra Krauthammer.

Naomie Emery in this week’s cover story for the Weekly Standard provides a detailed and fascinating discussion of the unstable, tense balance of power in the eight years of the Clinton Administration, with both the Vice-President and First Lady setting their sights on the highest office from well before Day 1. The article helpfully explains why Gore lost in 2000 while Hillary Clinton won. It also sheds light on why Hillary is now struggling (as I write, she is 10 points behind Obama in NH). The Intro:

Between January 20, 1993, and January 20, 2001, the Clinton White House was home to three boomers of boundless ambition, high expectations, and vast self-regard, all three of whom thought that they ought to be president. Of these, only one–Bill Clinton–really was president. But the other two–his wife Hillary and his vice president, Albert Gore Jr.–firmly believed that they should be and viewed Bill’s terms in office as the jumping-off place to their own.
Unfortunately, only one–Bill, again–was a born, or even a good, politician, making the two others dependent upon him, first to lift them to within striking distance of power, and then to help them campaign. But Bill, too, had his problems, and so needed them: to keep him focused and disciplined, to impose some sense of order, to reassure voters disturbed by his fast-and-loose manners, and at least in the case of Hillary Clinton, to help him suppress and/or cope with his bimbo eruptions, if and when worst came to worst.

The Conclusion:

With their conspicuous lack of political talents, neither Gore nor Hillary would ever have reached the top tier of candidates if they had not been elevated by being chosen by Clinton. But if they had been more graceful, and less pedantic and heavy-handed, they would not have been chosen, as they would not have supplied what Bill lacked.
It was a bargain that worked well for Bill, but ended in heartbreak for Gore, and may do the same thing for Hillary Clinton. This story is not over yet.

Emery’s article seems to be (in some ways) a primer for a new 600 page book by Sally Bedell Smith called For Love of Politics: Bill and Hillary Clinton: The White House Years.
(HT: JT)

National Review White House correspondent Byron York pens an insightful piece on the contrast between the strategies of Team Huckabee and Team Romney in Iowa.

The campaign’s strategy was shaped by two things, Saltsman said. First was Huckabee’s talent as a communicator, and second was the fact that the campaign was always nearly broke. Put those two together, and you had a campaign constantly searching for free media exposure. “We’ve been criticized sometimes for — after a big event, we went straight to Washington to do media, or we went straight to New York to do media,” Saltsman said. “That was because a lot of those shows wouldn’t have us on unless we did that.”
…
So Huckabee went from show to show, and he came up with other attention-getting moves like devoting his first commercial to the now-famous “Chuck Norris” ad. “Any other campaign, that ad never gets shown,” Saltsman told me, “because you have a conference room full of consultants saying you can’t do it.” At the moment Saltsman was saying that in Des Moines, Huckabee himself was in California, sitting down to talk on The Tonight Show — perhaps the ultimate in free media. A number of commentators thought that was a blunder; Saltsman checked the number of Iowa homes tuned into the show on any given evening and thought it was a pretty good idea.
That disconnect between the conventional wisdom and Huckabee’s strategy worked time and again in the campaign’s favor.

Read the whole thing.

Last night, Governor Mike Huckabee won the Iowa caucuses, besting Governor Mitt Romney by 9 percentage points (34% versus 25%), even though Romney had outspent Huckabee by a 15:1 margin. As Senator John McCain noted, this sends two messages:

1. One cannot buy Iowa (Romney spent an estimated $10MM).
2. Negative attack ads are ineffective, particularly in Iowa.

Joe Carter chimes in with his usual incisiveness, commenting on the CNN entrance polls. Compare the following hard data to what you have relentlessly been told by both the MSM and many conservative pundits:

1. In Vote by Ideology Huckabee took both “Very Conservative” and “Somewhat Conservative” while McCain and Romney split the “Moderate” vote.
2. On the four top issues listed (illegal immigration, war in Iraq, economy, and terrorism) Huckabee had the top percentage.
3. Huckabee took 40% of the female vote–more than Giuliani, Hunter, McCain, Paul, and Thompson combined (34%). (Huckabee also came in first among men.)
4. Huckabee took the top percentage in every category regarding the “Events in Pakistan” (on which he is supposedly inept and unsophisticated).
5. Huckabee took the top percentage in “Feelings About Bush Administration” in every category except “Angry” (which Ron Paul took, naturally).
6. Huckabee took the top percentage in every category “Vote by Income” except “$100,000 or More” (which Romney took, naturally).
7. Huckabee took the top percentage in every region of Iowa.
8. Huckabee took the top percentage in every age category. Get this: Among voters 17-29 years old: Huckabee outperformed Romney, Thompson, McCain, Giuliani and Hunter combined.

Sadly, I must agree with Carter:

“If he had a degree from Yale rather than Ouachita Baptist University, if he spoke with a Midwestern twang rather than a Southern drawl, and if he had spent a decade as an investment banker rather than a pastor then Mike Huckabee would be the Republican establishment’s ‘favorite son’ right now.”

Carter’s conclusion: message matters more than money. “If the GOP would take that lesson to heart we’d soon be the permanent majority party in America.”
Michael Medved notes:

“The point to remember is that all those who dismissed Huckabee as a one-dimensional candidate who appeals exclusively to Evangelicals ought to look closely at the numbers and the enthusiasm he inspired in Iowa.”

And:

“The irony here is that Mitt Romney (a genuinely nice guy, with a winning, affable, good-humored demeanor) could have easily competed with Huck in the niceness department, but his ill-considered consultants pushed him to turn mean – blanketing the state with negative TV ads (he’s doing the same to McCain in New Hampshire) and viciously irresponsible hit pieces in the mail. Didn’t President Reagan, the appropriate inspiration for all present day Republicans, prove once and for all that kindness and good humor work better than anger, edge and gloom?”

Joe Carter shares what he learned in his 30-days as a staffer for Governor Huckabee. Whatever you think of Huckabee, Carter is an outstanding blogger whose posts are always worthy of serious consideration.