Mike Huckabee has written a vindictive account of Campaign 2008, taking shots at Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, conservative Christian leaders, libertarians and others who frustrated his political ambitions.

As usual, I find his analysis rather less than insightful, particularly on religious issues, given his claim to expertise on the subject:

Huckabee describes other elders of the social conservative movement, many of whom meet in private as part of an organization called the Arlington Group, as “more enamored with the process, the political strategies, and the party hierarchy than with the simple principles that had originally motivated the Founders.” Later Huckabee writes, “I lamented that so many people of faith had moved from being prophetic voices — like Naaman, confronting King David in his sin and saying, ‘Though art the man!’— to being voices of patronage, and saying to those in power, ‘You da’ man!’ “

Uh, do you mean Nathan?

You should probably have at least a passing familiarity with the Bible before you write a book about how you’re the voice of evangelical Christians. Good grief.

Previously: Why Mike Huckabee Lost Me At “Hello”

There appears to be some disagreement among Flyer staff concerning the National Enquirer’s story on John Edwards earlier this summer.

Senior Editor Jackson Baker:

This is pure Comstockery, writ large. What the hell is the National Enquirer doing, snooping around a hotel room where two consenting adults are doing whatever they’re doing? What business is it of anybody else’s? Why is the MSM admiringly preparing to creep into the same set of nocturnal shadows? This ain’t good, people.

Staff Writer Chris Davis:

Bottom line: John may have f*cked up but he isn’t the real bad guy in this piece, the National Enquirer is.

Editor Bruce VanWyngarden:

[T]hank God for the National Enquirer. They deserve a Pulitzer for saving us from the likes of Edwards…

What do you think? Pure comstockery, or Pulitzer Prize?

It will come as no surprise to this blog’s readership that General Powell is being considered for three different cabinet positions in the Obama Administration, according to unnamed sources at U.S. News. Obama already said Powell would “have a role as a top presidential adviser” in the administration, but was the General’s endorsement valuable enough to land him the top job at Defense, State or Education, three areas where he’s apparently being considered? It doesn’t really matter, of course — the important thing is that Powell has successfully rehabilitated his career, proven by virtue of his even being considered for these roles. That, not race, and not the ridiculous reasons he gave on Meet the Press, was the primary reason for his endorsement of Obama. I don’t blame him.

Thanks to Mediaverse for passing on this masterpiece of local tele-journalism (be sure to check out the transcript he posted): (more…)

David Brooks says there’s a battle being waged over “the future of conservatism” between the Traditionalists (who are conservative) and the Reformers (who are not).

It’s nice of the moderate Reformers to take time out of their busy schedules to tell conservatives what they should say and do. Particularly since they’ve been so successful of late.

Brooks says the Traditionalists want to “return to [the GOP's] core ideas,” while the Reformers “argue that the old G.O.P. priorities were fine for the 1970s but need to be modernized for new conditions.”

Apparently, the old GOP priorities weren’t modern enough in 1980, 1984, 1988, 1994, 2000, 2002 and 2004. Why bother with core principles, anyway? All you need to be a moderate is an opinion poll and a pink tie.

Brooks says “the Traditionalists are going to win the fight for supremacy in the G.O.P.” in the near term, because they have all of the “activist groups, donor networks, think tanks and publicity arms.” Besides, all of the moderate politicians from the Northeast and Upper Midwest are gone, having lost their seats in Congress. The party will “veer right,” he predicts, and “suffer more defeats.”

But why let that happen when we could help these defeated Reformers light a fire under the non-existent moderate activists? It makes perfect sense to me.

Then, finally, some new Reformist donors and organizers will emerge. They will build new institutions, new structures and new ideas, and the cycle of conservative ascendance will begin again.

Who will rescue the conservative cause? Why, failed moderate politicians and their fictitious base of activists, of course! Throughout history, moderates have always launched cycles of conservative ascendance. It’s an undeniable fact of life.

My thanks to all who serve and served. I appreciate you.

Mike the Eyeguy, I’m sorry I offended you with my thoughts on the election. That was certainly not my intention. The line from my post you found “personally offensive and patronizing” wasn’t intended to be either:

These are the things I believe are sacred and fear may have been subordinated by a misinformed and short-sighted electorate seeking emotional healing, immediate gratification and hand-outs.

My objective with the post was not to tear anyone down, but rather to explain my own thoughts, perspective and mixed emotions on the election; I wanted to explain why I disagreed with the results, why I thought America chose this option, what I feared was at risk following that choice, and how I intended to respond.

So, let me break down the line above and try to explain how it fits with my objective.

First, “These are the things I believe are sacred.” You left that part out of your quote, but it’s the subject of the sentence, and refers to the preceding paragraph, which explains what I think is great and important and essential about our government — namely, that it recognizes the Creator as the source of our rights and freedoms, and provides the optimal environment or system for securing and protecting them.

Next, “and fear may have been subordinated.” You dropped this part, also, though it contains the important qualifiers “fear” (as in, “I’m afraid was”), and “may have been” (as in, “might have been”). Both were intended to signal a level of uncertainty about my perspective and identify what follows as something closer to conjecture than certainty.

You picked up the quote around here: “by a misinformed…” I explained what I meant by “misinformed” later in the post (see the second to last paragraph), and was referring primarily to the biased media, which deliberately withheld information from the public and consistently skewed coverage in favor of the Democratic ticket. I wasn’t, in other words, criticizing the voters who were the victims of misinformation, but rather the media professionals who cheated all of us.

I probably erred by bundling that broader idea with: “…and short-sighted electorate…” which deals more specifically with the voters whose rationale for supporting the Democrats I find severely lacking. Hence, my use of the word “electorate” was a synecdoche — I adopted a general term to refer to a narrow set of voters, specifically those who were voting for the reasons that I then identify. I was clumsy in switching gears from a wider mass of voters to a more specific group without a clear transition, so in retrospect I can see how that could have offended you.

However, I maintain that many voters indeed were “seeking emotional healing, immediate gratification and hand-outs.”

Again, taking these one at a time:

Emotional Healing: Ive heard from several people who were overcome with emotion upon ushering the first African-American President into office. There’s no doubt that this nation was eager to see that threshold crossed in our lifetime. Even General Powell was brought to tears. There’s just no denying that racial healing was an important factor in the outcome of this election. Maybe not for all people, and perhaps not even for most, but it certainly was a big enough factor for some voters to influence the result. The President-Elect’s race was a central topic of conversation in the media and around water coolers throughout the campaign, and it was the primary reason there was such jubilation across the country and emphasis on the historic significance of his victory.

Beyond race, you also have to acknowledge the primarily-emotional appeal of the candidate’s central themes of “Hope,” “Change” and “Yes, We Can.” These terms and phrases are completely non-specific and explicitly generated to create an emotional bond with certain voters. Simply put, those who were swayed by such messages were letting their hearts and their feelings reign over their minds and their thoughts.

Immediate Gratification: The Democratic platform is distinguished by such planks as immediate withdraw from Iraq (regardless of the situation on the ground and any ramifications that could result), immediate meetings with enemy dictators (without precondition), instant tax rebates to stimulate the economy (an idea also adopted by some factions of the GOP, obviously), an aversion to domestic oil drilling (rejected because it could take up to a decade to see the results supposedly), and immediate action on environmental issues (without much regard to natural climate cycles, or how realistic any man-made solution might actually be). The same holds for many other issues discussed during the campaign.

Hand-outs: The Democrats campaigned on the ideas of higher taxes for those with the largest incomes, tax rebates for those with little or no tax liabilities, generally “spreading the wealth,” free health care and other entitlements, and selective Social Security tax increases untethered from increased corresponding benefits.

There’s a reason for the popularity of the clip on Youtube featuring a the joyous woman celebrating that she no longer has to worry about her mortgage payments or paying for gasoline. The reason is that it’s a very telling look at the mindset of many people who voted for this man. The clip perfectly encapsulates my three points, and it represents many of the people who tipped the election in his favor.

Another anecdote I heard just recently tells a similar story. This woman plainly said she voted for the Democrats because rich people needed to be taxed more so she could be taxed less and get more benefits. That’s not principled, or logical, or long-term thinking.

So, Mike, I know you consider my thoughts to be “the same o’ same o’ partisan pap,” but I made my distaste for the alternative clear, and I could have just as easily picked apart the failures of his campaign (such as not having a coherent economic policy, for starters). Furthermore, I suspect my assumptions are more accurate than you’d like to admit. I’m also curious why you seem to have overlooked the real source of “partisan pap,” which (as illustrated above) goes by such vacuous phrases as “change” and “hope.”

Same “O,” same “O,” you might say.

By popular demand, a photo of the little Wright family in front of our new home. We are very happy, humbled and blessed. Now I have to learn how to use things like a garden hose, a rake and a telephone (to call people who know how to fix things). The house is a little empty at the moment, so we’ve been hitting estate sales and looking for things like tables, desks, shelves and ornamental elephants. Eden and Freckles have really enjoyed having a yard in which to run, bark incessantly and generally cause trouble.

Inside joke #1: Is Bartlett a lily white enclave?

Inside joke #2: We moved to Bartlett so we could be closer to family in Iowa. Too soon?

The week we moved in, the city held a festival in our honor. Some people just assumed it was the annual Bartlett Festival and didn’t realize there was a concurrent celebration happening. Very few people realized, actually. Kinda weird.

Eden was uncharacteristically chilled, but Freckles was very concerned about the new washer and dryer. She didn’t want to walk anywhere near them, though she had to pass by them to get to her crate. So she would race by quickly, as tight against the far wall as possible.

Anna and Abby recreate this photo.

The secret to temporary peace is exhaustion; the wall-to-wall water bowls plan isn’t feasible.