Notes From D.R. | Random Thoughts on the Passing Scene

Several Massachusetts school districts are refusing to comply with a recent Supreme Court ruling restricting the use of race in school assignments.

It has to drive the Democrats crazy that President Bush refuses to give any signal that he plans to abandon Iraq. More from the New York Times.

It has to drive the Democrats crazy that President Bush refuses to give any signal that he plans to abandon Iraq. More from the New York Times.

Robert Bluey and the Washington Post on embattled GOP Senator Larry Craig.

UPDATE: More from Human Events, the New York Times and Washington Post.

SECOND UPDATE: More from the New York Times, Washington Post, Redstate.com and Dean Barnett.

It must frustrate Republicans to no end to know that African-American voters will, in all likelihood, strongly back the likely Democrat Presidential candidate next year—even after that Democrat Presidential candidate sabotages her African-American rival for the nomination.

Only the most naïve political observers believe that Barack Obama will actually become the Democrat’s standard-bearer next year. Obama has stood out in the Democrat field by being the least obnoxious contender for his party’s nomination—say what you will about his grasp of foreign and domestic policy, but he’s not nearly as intolerable as John Edwards, who’s won a Purple Heart for class warfare.

Yet Obama is, for all intents and purposes, Hillary Clinton’s opening act. It’s only a matter of time before “Clinton Inc.” reaches into Obama’s closet and finds the special skeleton that will render his candidacy null and void.

African-American voters will be outraged by “Clinton Inc.”’s obliteration of Obama—but such outrage won’t be enough to prevent voters of color from rejecting Republicans in large numbers in November 2008. It is this paradigm that vexes the GOP so much.

The GOP has been trying to “reach out” to African-American voters since the early days of the Reagan Administration—and their efforts have repeatedly, and unfortunately, failed. The Republicans have never been able to counteract Democrat propaganda when it comes to civil rights issues.

The Democrats are gifted at exploiting GOP gaffes and missteps—Trent Lott’s remarks about Strom Thurmond, George W. Bush’s February 2000 address to Bob Jones University—to promote the idea that the GOP is a fundamentally bigoted enterprise. Ever since Democrats seized upon Barry Goldwater’s misguided objections to the 1964 Civil Rights Act to commandeer the vast majority of the African-American vote, Republicans have struggled in vain to convince these voters that the GOP is still the party of Lincoln.

In a sick way, I have to give the Democrats credit. They’ve managed to make embarrassing incidents like the Goldwater and Lott imbroglios more important in the minds of African-American voters than the growth of the African-American middle class under Reagan and the historic diversity of Bush’s Cabinet. They’ve managed to convince these voters that the GOP is responsible for every injury and illness that affects people of color in this country.

Considering the effectiveness of Democrat propaganda on civil rights issues, it’s amazing that Bush actually managed to yield eleven percent of the African-American vote in 2004, up three points from what he received four years prior. Of course, considering the unilateral blame the GOP received for the problems of post-Katrina New Orleans, the Republicans will be blessed to obtain anything over five percent of the African-American vote next year. 

There will be no opportunity for the GOP to take advantage of African-American angst over “Clinton Inc.”’s dismantling of Obama, no chance to question African-American admiration for the Clintons, no hope of gaining headway by asking African-Americans, “What have the Clintons done for you lately?” The Democrats have engineered things so that, for African-American voters, Hillary will essentially be the only name on the general-election ballot.

It’s a lamentable reality that widespread African-American support for the GOP exists only in theory. But for relentless Democrat propaganda, churchgoing, socially conservative African-Americans would be key elements of the Republican base. Imagine how different American politics would be if the GOP had never been smeared as hostile to people of color; Reagan would have won by even larger margins than he did in the 1980s, Bush would have won two landslides, and Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, Ward Connerly, Michael Steele and Condi Rice would not be considered ethnic outcasts.

Some Republicans still hold on to the fantasy that one day, African-American voters will suddenly look around, conclude that the Democrats have spent the last four decades taking them for granted, and begin to seriously consider voting for the GOP. As if! The Democrats’ demonization of the Republicans as civil rights opponents—and the Republicans’ apparent inability to disarm such weapons of mass rhetorical destruction—have made such a prospect preposterous.

Even though Bush will not be on the ballot in 2008, the Democrats will be able to exploit every real or imagined bogeyman of the Bush years—from “illegal wiretapping” to the supposedly nefarious Samuel Alito and John Roberts—to ensure maximum African-American turnout next year. Remember how the Democrats, in the aftermath of the 1992 Los Angeles riots, blamed all of the country’s problems on “twelve years of Reagan-Bush”? Whatever grievances African-American voters hold against the Clintons for shot-blocking Obama will surely be forgotten once Hillary promises these voters that she’ll fix the problems created by “eight years of Bush-Cheney.”

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales steps down. More from the Washington Post, New York Times, Matt Margolis, Redstate.com, Hugh Hewitt, Power Line, Jonah Goldberg, the Wall Street Journal and Jed Babbin.

Tragedy hits the family of former professional wrestling star Hulk Hogan. Also, a bizarre incident involving popular actor Owen Wilson.

Superbad remains on top. More from Leonard Klady.

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

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

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

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

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

Tragedy strikes filmmaker John Singleton.

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.