Mark Casey Online

Most would never have guessed that a Republican candidate would be the first to reintroduce the concept of a Works Progress Administration in a major presidential campaign. But then again, Mike Huckabee–a fierce social conservative with a serious case of liberal financial morality–isn’t your typical presidential candidate.

The WPA was a program introduced by Franklin Roosevelt during his “New Deal” to help pull America out of the depression. Among other things, it was a government agency that hired unemployed laborers to do anything and everything–building bridges, digging ditches, paving roads–and paid them for it. It was the absolute best thing to do after an economic crash, and Huckabee’s own ideas for curbing our current recession are notably similar. In tonight’s debate he said:

“If we are going to spend a $150 billion, I’d like to suggest we add two lanes of highway from Bangor all the way to Miami on I-95. A third of the U.S. population lives within a hundred miles of that. This nation’s infrastructure is falling apart, and if we built those lanes of highway, with American labor, American steel, American concrete, I believe it would do more to stimulate the economy.”

It may be a bit extreme for our mild recession, compared to the Great Depression, but then again it does seem a bit more productive–and “conservative”–than Bush’s current plan of just giving away money.

In an apparent effort to get southern fried Christians in South Carolina to believe that Mike Huckabee is their best gal-durn pal in the whole wide world, ol’ Huck has really amped up the “aw, shucks” charm and the “I’ll put a boot up yer ass” rhetoric.

Here are just a few choice lines dropped lately by the hopeful Pastor in Chief:

“That’s what we need to do — we need to amend the constitution so that it’s in God’s standards.”
–Jan. 16, 2008

Apparently Huckabee wants to sell our daughters into slavery.

“If somebody came to Arkansas and told us what to do with our flag, we’d tell them what to do with the pole, that’s what we’d do.”
–Friday Jan 18, 2008

haha! Sodomy is funny to the religious fanatic. Strikes one as kind of queer, don’t ya think?

“When I was in college we used to take a popcorn popper, ’cause that was the only thing that they’d let us use in the dorms, and we would fry squirrel in popcorn poppers in my dorm room.”
– Jan 16, 2008

Whoo doggy, that’s good eatin’.

If Howard Dean, Rudy Giulianni, and Hillary Clinton can teach us anything, it’s that living up to people’s expectations can be difficult.

All three were leaders in seeking their party’s nomination at one point, and all three ended up on their face because people expected too much, watched too much, and got too little out of them.

Generally, there’s an advantage to starting lower and then being catapulted into the lead, as Obama and Huckabee have both done–but being in the lead this early still isn’t a great idea if you can’t handle it. McCain had the lead in 2000 until late in the nomination process, when the larger spotlight of “Frontrunner” showed people his flaws and gaffes, then the lesser known and more “likeable” George W. could swoop in an scoop up people’s insecurity votes.

Obama can handle it. He’s youthful, excited–people will find his enthusiasm appealing. He’ll wear the mantle of “Frontrunner” well because he’s not boring–that’s why Hillary and Romney’s support wilted in the spotlight. But they can still come back, with the right mix. Romney isn’t boring.

For now, good luck to Huckabee and Obama. They deserved to win this round.

Click here for a newspaper clip of this article.

By now, there aren’t many people who haven’t heard of Mike Huckabee’s swift (and possibly temporary) rise to the top of this year’s Republican candidates. And similarly, there aren’t many who haven’t heard of Oprah’s recent stint campaigning with Democratic hopeful Barack Obama.

What you may not know, however, is that Obama’s endorsement from the iconic Oprah Winfrey pretty much fizzled, without any increase in public support, even as Huckabee’s success was immediately preceded by a high-profile celebrity endorsement of his own.

So why such a difference between the campaign strategies? Two words: Chuck Norris.

Read more…