Gotta wonder what happened to Mike Huckabee. At his peak, he was one of the most politically savvy candidates running in either party, always at the ready with a clever quip that made you chuckle. Not so his disturbing quip today during his speech at the NRA, referring to a bang heard in the background:

"That was Barack Obama, he just tripped off a chair, he's getting ready to speak," said the former Arkansas governor, to audience laughter. "Somebody aimed a gun at him and he dove for the floor."

It's actually really disturbing to watch because you have the sense that he knows it was a stupid thing to say; there's this really long uncomfortable pause after he says it as though he was trying to think of a way to retract it but just couldn't think of one.

Watch it below:

Jeffrey Feldman, whose new book, Outright Barbarous, explores the right's tendency to evoke violent language in a political context, reminds us that this isn't the first time Huckabee has joked about shooting a presidential candidate. Last year, on a hunting trip, Huckabee joked about shooting Mitt Romney. That at least had the benefit of context, although, obviously, it was still really twisted. The only context here was the fact that Huck was speaking at the NRA, even though, as Ben Smith notes, the joke was even off their message. I have to agree with Feldman that Huckabee should face consequences.

For joking about the assassination of Sen. Obama, Mike Huckabee should be removed from the rosters of all the various cable and network stations on which he regularly appears.

Of course, perhaps Huck already has. This episode probably single-handedly disqualified him from being McCain's VP, or at least it gave McCain the excuse he needed to cross him off his list.

Did you know that John McCain only got 73% of the vote in the Pennsylvania primary?

The media is barely mentioning it. The blogs have laughed at it, but haven't really dove in. But it might be really important.

Think about it. Running virtually unopposed, the Republican presumptive nominee somehow didn't get 27% of the voters. What's more amazing, this 27% - that's 220,000 people - bothered to drive to their polling place and cast their vote for someone who could not ever hope to win the nomination, all to thumb their nose at John McCain.

McCain has been the only candidate in the Republican race for almost a full two months, yet 16% of this group voted for Ron Paul and 11% voted for Mike Huckabee!

These statistics should perk up the ears of Democrats. Even with ample time to consolidate the base - and with ample flip flopping on the issues - John McCain still can't get almost a third of the Republican party in Pennsylvania to board the "straight talk" express. And there is reason to think those voters might never get on the bus.

Ron Paul voters, driven by anti-war and anti-federal reserve sentiment, will never agree with McCain's hawkish foreign policy or schizophrenic economics. Huckabee voters will never believe a divorcee who's admittedly shy about his faith is the spiritual conservative they've been waiting for. These people might vote for Democrats in November, or they might at least stay home.

But only if we make them.

You see, McCain's a smooth talker, and people tend to believe what he says. (For the life of me, I can't figure out why.) Given enough time and enough party surrogates and conservative media backing him, John McCain can solidify the Republican base, at least to some significant extent.

We should make sure this doesn't happen.

In 2004, Ralph Nader was funded by wealthy Republican donors to try and sabotage John Kerry's candidacy. There's no reason we can't sabotage McCain's.

I'm not saying large donations to Bob Barr or any other third party candidate is quite the way to go. Ron Paul supporters, for example, aren't lying down yet - they will be a presence at the Republican convention. Actions as simple as making sure the candidacies of Paul and Huckabee aren't forgotten in the media and in American society might be enough. Perhaps Democrats (especially those that go on TV) could bring up Ron Paul at every turn, making sure people remember he's still in the race. Maybe they could constantly compare McCain's faith to Huckabee's. Whatever it is, I do feel Democrats should be thinking about a coordinated campaign of some sort.

So, I'm open to suggestions: How can Democrats make sure McCain doesn't get this 27% to vote for him?

It is very rare that the veep pick makes much of a difference in general elections. (ask Lloyd Bentsen and Dan Quayle.) But every once in a while, there is an JFK-LBJ moment, that does make the difference of who becomes president.

I believe this year there are 5 such possibilities, only one of which is on the Dem side. Later, I will write diaries on the Dem candidate i believe could make a difference, James Webb, and the other GOP difference maker, Mike Huckabee. this diary is on the 3 GOP candidates who could make a HUGE difference by attempting to split the divisions that have been raised in the Democratic primary wide open.

the purpose of this diary is to emphasize how important it is to COME TOGETHER AS PARTY behind our eventual nominee.

If John McCain is brave enough, there are 3 candidates who could open up this divide if we don't heal it, and give the GOP new inroads into groups that usually provide the winning margin to Dems. these candidates are Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, and Kay Bailey Hutchison. all of these candidates can help the GOP no matter who our nominee is.

in short, any of these three would give the GOP an answer to the Democrats historic ticket. granted, the GOP choice would be at the bottom the ticket, but McCain's age and the idea that he might only serve one term makes the historic implications very real.

[Republished from 2008Central.net]

During an interview on a Texas radio station, Mike Huckabee outlined his strategy for winning the Republican nomination:

"If we win Texas, I think it changes the dynamics of this race.  It could well go all the way to the convention.If the convention delegates pick the president, chances are they would pick the most conservative.  I would be the one they would end up picking, if that's the criteria."

There are a total of 898 remaining Republican delegates (523 pledged and 375 unpledged).  In order for Huckabee's strategy to work, he would need to win 74% (666) of these remaining delegates.  Yes, that's right, the magic number in Huckabee's winning strategy is 666.  Oh sweet irony.

Quite simply, Huckabee's strategy simply is not plausible.  And he recognizes it as such when he compared the continuation of his presidential race to the Battle of the Alamo, adding:

"You don't engage in battles only because you anticipate you're going to win them.  You engage in your battles because you believe that they're right."

This isn't exactly a fair analogy to the brave soldiers at the Alamo, nor does a presidential campaign want to analogize his campaign to a battle that resulted in the brutal slaying of the remaining soldiers.  Huckabee might seem a lot more sincere about his incredibly unrealistic intentions, if he wasn't performing paid speeches.  He gave one last weekend in the Cayman Islands and gave another today in Colorado.  The paid speech issue is a bit more complicated and I'll post on it in the coming days, so stay tuned.

If you're curious about the math, you can check it out here.

     As soon as the Republicans can get Mike Huckabee out of the race the sooner they can begin to institute the new/old strategies for 2008. The Republican strategies will rely on two main points for the general election. The first will be the nation at war narrative that will require a national hero and security hawk to navigate this dangerous world we now find ourselves in. The country will need his experience and understanding of war to succeed in the global struggle against the Islamo-fascist terrorists that hate us for our freedoms. The second will be a large cash give-away in an effort to buy the election. I am not talking about the tax rebate or stimulus package, no I am referring to the recently unveiled budget of George W. Let's look at both of these strategies and their appeal to voters in November.

So says Tom Scholz (the guy on the far right).  

Who is he?  Scholz is the founder and MIT grad turned lead guitarist for 70's rock giants Boston.  Turns out that Mike Huckabee's band, Capital Offense (inspired by the death penalty apparently), does a cover of their biggest hit, 1976's "More Than A Feeling", as part of their set.  Scholz ain't digging it, and in a recent letter, objects to its use to promote a presidential candidate.  This is despite the fact that former Boston guitarist Barry Goudreau has played said hit along with Huckabee's band at campaign appearances.  

It's also worthy to note that Goudreau and Scholz had some professional clashes and Goudreau was eventually fired from Boston amidst Scholz's legal battles with their record label.  Now they're on opposite sides of the political fence, with Goudreau supporting Huckabee and Scholz in favor of Barack Obama.  A key quote from Scholz's letter is below:

     With his nomination all but inevitable, the Republican machine is ready to begin the process of selling John McCain as a maverick and a different kind of Republican. He will be presented as someone who appeals to Democrats and Independents, a unity candidate of the first order. The problem is that John McCain is not a mainstream candidate, he is a war-mongerer and has no intention of letting the American people decide what to do about Iraq. He will be another "decider" who knows better than the American public what is best for us. The MSM has already begun the John McCain make-over, the same folks who had pronounced his campaign all but dead in December are now trumpeting his "straight talk", independent candidacy as right for America.

[Republished From 2008Central.net]

I've been meaning to do  this for a while, but this week Chuck Todd was on Meet the Press went on and on and ... well, let's just say that I need to comment.  His comments, followed by mine. I'll include Russert's questions, but the first question is just a list of the post - Feb. 5 states and the results.

MR. CHUCK TODD:  OK.  I've got all this blue right here.  Here you go.  It's, it's a remarkable fight.  I mean, everything--it, it is a delegate by delegate fight.  You know, yesterday the Clinton campaign knew they weren't going to win any of those three states.  Maybe they thought they could--but they were figuring out how to get a few extra delegates in Louisiana.  They threw in a few more people in Nebraska because, as one Clinton person said to me, "We don't want another Idaho situation." What does that mean?  Well, in Idaho they almost didn't make threshold.  They almost didn't get a single delegate out of Idaho and those caucuses.  So they are trying to improve their numbers in some of these caucuses.  I think they realize now, looking back, this Obama strategy of getting delegates everywhere he can--I mean, look, he got three delegates out of the Virgin Islands, you know, instead of two--one, you know, you see the 8 percent.  Well, if she could have just done up to seven, she could have snagged a delegate, you know, gotten to that 15 percent threshold.

Chuck Todd, political director at NBC News, has no idea why people caucus; it's apparently just a function of reality that Obama is strong in Republican states he mentioned. The Clinton campaign has to spend resources to keep it merely embarrassingly bad instead of tragically bad. Why do people in Nebraska, Kansas, and Idaho love Obama? Beats him. That's not his job, he's just the political director at NBC. The Clinton campaign, meanwhile, dismisses these wins as irrelevant since Democrats cannot compete there in the fall. So there you have it: Democrats in dark red states, you're irrelevant. Pack it in, move along, hope to see you in a couple decades.

MR. RUSSERT:  They asked Willie Sutton why he robbed banks, he said, "That's where the money is."

MR. TODD:  Right.  And so why do you participate in caucuses?  Because that's where you can continue to win delegates.

But let me throw in one big monkey wrench in all this, about these caucuses. When--there are delegates that are allocated to Obama that he's winning.  All of these caucuses still have to go through state conventions and district conventions.  And that's where--for instance, in '84, that's where Walter Mondale cleaned up and stole delegates, basically, from Gary Hart.  Gary Hart would win in places, and they would go to the state conventions and somehow outmaneuver them.  The Clinton folks could still end up figuring out how to nab extra delegates in here.  So this caucus thing, it looks good right now in the totals, but that's--you want one of the monkey wrenches we could throw into this?  That's one of them.

Chuck Todd, conspiracy theorist, is insinuating the Clinton campaign will cheat the caucus goers of those states out of their support. This is just ludicrous and somewhat insulting. Moreover, the hart campaign lost when Mondale took superdelegates. I'd be more than happy to ask Mr. Vice President how he feels about cheating regional caucuses out of delegates the next time I see him. Moreover, it betrays an awful level of ignorance to estimate that the Clinton campaign with stalk these regional conventions while the Obama campaign does nothing.

Also, let's point out that Chuck Todd in succession suggested that you go to a caucus to win delegates and that you don't win delegates at caucuses. His first point is more apt than his second: delegate totals can certainly be estimated from the vote total.

MR. RUSSERT:  All right.  Before I go around the table, let me just show you two new Mason-Dixon polls.  Tuesday is the Washington, D.C., Maryland, Virginia.  Here's Maryland:  Obama, 53; Clinton, 35.  And in Virginia:  Obama, 53; Clinton, 37.  It shows the undecideds still 20, still high.  Only a snapshot, things could change.  But if Obama did sweep D.C., Virginia, Maryland, would he then be ahead in total delegates--elected delegates and superdelegates?

MR. TODD:  It's a--it would have to be an emphatic sweep.  He needs to win D.C. with that, you know, 70, 75 percent of the vote.  He would have to win in Virginia and Maryland getting close to 60 percent, because the way Virginia and Maryland are, there's some--some of Obama's vote is packed into certain congressional districts, the way the delegate split works.  But if he got--if he starts approaching 60 percent in both of those, Maryland and Virginia, approaching 75, he could net 25 delegates.  There is a path for him to net 25, in our estimate, that would bring him even.

Chuck Todd, mathematical genius, has a projection but doesn't really stand behind it. CBS already has him ahead. Most (all?) others do not. Does he acknowledge the uncertainly? Not a chance!

MR. TODD:  Let me, let me also--there's going to be a weird role the Internet will play here.  They will get their hands on this list, on the superdelegate list.  And you watch, there will be people in the DNC that have never gotten e-mail campaigns before against them, and they will get deluged.  It will start--you will start seeing crazy campaigns being organized by supporters of both Clinton and Obama that will just bombard these DNC members.  And I think they're going to get overwhelmed, and a lot of them are going to be, like Donna Brazile, "Stop.  I don't want to be a part of this."

Chuck Todd, humanitarian, is concerned about email deluges against superdelegates. Also, it's strange that he refers to the Internet like it's an incompetent Bond villain or something. "We're going to send them emails, Mr. Bond. Many, many emails."

MR. RUSSERT:  But how do you let their votes count if, in fact, the elections, when they were held, were under the agreement that they wouldn't count?

MR. TODD:  Two scenarios I've heard.  One is that Michigan--if any of them are going to hold a revote, Michigan seems more likely than not because of labor--those guys are afraid of not getting their place--seats at the table. Florida is going to press this all the way to the credentials committee, and one scenario laid out to me was, well, they may--because the credentials committee's going to be controlled 50/50 by Clinton and Obama.  And the compromise might be "OK, we'll seat a Florida delegation, but it's going to be made up of whatever the popular vote is nationally, whatever that is." And we just showed it, basically 48-48.  And that that's what the Florida delegation will be able to say, 48 percent Obama, 48 percent Clinton.  So they'll be able to say, "OK, Florida, you get your seats," but they won't have an effect on the, on the...

MR. RUSSERT:  On the outcome.

MR. TODD:  ...outcome.  And who knows.

Chuck Todd, the Perez Hilton of politics, gives the real story on Michigan and Florida. And notice that he spends all this time on one scenario "laid out to him" but he does not say how likely that scenario is or even who told him that. Was it Dean? Al Gore? Or anyone else, who is essentially unqualified? And at the end, he admits he has no idea what will happen. So if he has no idea, why spend all that time sharing gossip from some Democratic friend? Off the record, on the QT, and very hush-hush, I suppose.

MR. RUSSERT:  Yeah, yeah.  I just quoting--I'm just quoting the man.  Now, you heard Tom DeLay say on "Hardball" that he wasn't sure that he would endorse or support John McCain.  Laura Ingraham said, "It's one thing to say you're a foot soldier for Ronald Reagan, but what have you done for conservatism lately?" And if you look at the vote count thus far in these primaries, here it is:  Republicans have gotten 12.9 million votes, Democrats have gotten 19.2 votes.

It shows a little more intensity and enthusiasm for one party over another, Chuck Todd.

MR. TODD:  It's a huge problem for the Republicans.  I mean, they look at these numbers, and they're very, very nervous.  But I'll say this for McCain. I feel like I've seen a weak nominee like this, you know, where you feel like that he has a weak support.  Bill Clinton at about this point in 1992, he had the nomination.

MS. IFILL:  True.

MR. TODD:  And he had this thorn in his side in Jerry Brown.  Well, John McCain has this thorn in his side in Mike Huckabee.  And Jerry Brown started winning a few primaries, and suddenly you heard some senior guys--I remember, Willie Brown was the one that stuck out, where he was thinking about, out of California then, he was the speaker, "Well, maybe we should hand the nomination over to Ross Perot." This was when, when Perot was rising up.  And you just wonder, I mean, this is the danger John McCain is in.  Yes, mathematically--I mean, literally he could--he could fall on--he could have a macaca moment and still probably get the 1191.  But he can't be losing primaries.  You know, he can do what happened yesterday.  But if he loses Virginia, Texas is not a great state for him.  We've seen that Huckabee does, does well in some of these Southern states.  Then suddenly those whispers.  It won't be just talk radio.  It, it will be some serious senior guys will sit there and say, "You know, do we have a problem here?" And that was, you know, it almost doomed Bill Clinton.  It almost cost him the nomination and the presidency.

Chuck Todd, historian, apparently spent 1992 in a coma or desperately celebrating just getting a job at The Hotline. Jerry Brown was a minor inconvenience for Bill Clinton. He won Colorado and Connecticut, and that's about it. Mike Huckabee is a minor inconvenience for John McCain. The real opponent for Clinton was Tsongas, and the real opponent for McCain was Romney. Bill Clinton was not doomed, or almost doomed. John McCain is not doomed right now. Comparing Brown to Huckabee made my head hurt. Brown was a backlash candidate against Bill Clinton; Huckabee is someone who appeals to a particular demographic.

Also, let's note that McCain's supporters are more likely to stay home than caucus for 3 hours now that his lead is so formidable. Anyone mention that on what is routinely called the premier political show on TV? Not a chance. Occam's Razor doesn't apply to Chuck Todd.

MR. RUSSERT:  It's clear Huckabee wants to stay in until McCain mathematically reaches the 1191 he needs, which could be at least another month.

MR. BRODER:  Yes.

MR. TODD:  It actually could be two months.  Could be Pennsylvania.

Chuck Todd, calendar expert, points out that the Pennsylvania primary is in two months but does not indicate the bizarre things that would have to happen for this scenario to arise.

MR. RUSSERT:  We have 10 seconds.  Will electability influence Democratic voters in the remaining...

MR. TODD:  I think it'll influence superdelegates.  I think they read national polls.  It's in--Obama has to keep those lead in the national polls. If he wins the pledge and he's up 8-to-10 on McCain, superdelegates will listen.

Chuck Todd, fortune teller, does not resolve the conflict of Obama being down in national polls (on average) and being up significantly in every head to head poll with McCain vis-a-vis Clinton. But one of those is important. Which one, well, I'm sure he'll claim credit later on for whatever he is right on. Also, he needs to be more clear about his language; he meant winning the pledged delegates, not just 'winning a pledge.' Because I like Chuck as a person, I'm going to assume this is a careless error of an overworked transcriber, not him.