And do you believe that HucksArmy should be an independent organization
I have voted for #3, concentrate our efforts on electing Mike Huckabee in 2012. In my opinion, if he thinks Obama is beatable, Mike will be there in 2012. If he thinks Obama will be reelected, he will wait for 2016. One way or another, I believe Huckabee will re-run again for president. Therefore, any efforts we expend in 2012 I think will not be wasted.
Christopher, I believe that HucksArmy should be an independent organization. We can go where HuckPac cannot. We should not be in opposition to HuckPac (otherwise what the heck are we standing for) but we should move independently.
Look at how quickly we got a rewrite from Ryan Rhodes re the Iowa Tea Party activists when we voiced our suspicions and our support. We need to make our voice heard, sometimes individually, sometimes as a group, but always in a concentrated fashion. Just as many leaders and pundits fear backlash from Palin supporters, they will fear backlash from Huckabee supporters. I am not suggesting we use that power arbitrarily or unfairly (or in the form of victims -- I truly dislike that stance), but we should certainly recognize the "power" we hold and refrain from acting as if we are backing a third-string potential candidate.
I do not believe we should involve ourselves as a group in endorsing 2010 and other candidates. There would be many who might disagree on who those candidates should be and we would be taking our efforts in the wrong direction. Leave that to Huck Pac. We all agree (and if you don't then reconsider your membership) that, at least here and now, Mike Huckabee is our candidate. That is where we should concentrate our efforts.
Boards, committees, breakdown of authorization -- all of these are fine, if everyone agrees to abide by them, and if these bodies do not become an entity onto themselves -- forgetting the purpose of Huck's Army. I have seen that happen too often. But I totally agree, to be more efficient, we must be more organized.
Certainly, mounting presence at important functions (i.e, CPAC, Southern Conference, Value Voters) is a must. I think we have started in that direction. But it would be helpful if we have a "committee" directly in charge -- to the extent we do not already.
Secondly, mounting resistance and retort to unfair criticism is equally important -- and I think the Clemmons incident brought out the best in many of Huck's Army members. Perhaps having a panel that compiles information and makes it readily available for members to use would be a good idea.
Having an Ideas Committee is often helpful -- although sometimes it goes off course. Maybe we could set up an "ideas" thread -- Members Only (you know how I covert privacy) and bump it up every now and then. Then members could suggest new "ideas" as we go along.
We have some pretty terrific writers on this forum. Perhaps certain of them could begin circulating articles for publication. They do not necessarily have to focus completely on Huckabee but, naturally, somewhere in there should be the suggestion that he is the way to go. Again, this writing effort can be individually or writers can form a sort of editorial panel.
We need to get the word out to the establishment -- mainly politicians -- but also certain pundits (i.e., forget the Michelle Malkin types but concentrate on those who seem willing to listen); again, we need to exercise our "Huckabee" power and stress that how we spend our time (i.e., listening to their programs, reading their blogs) or voting for them depend on how they respect our values and our candidate. May I suggest that the biggest way to hit the media is to stop listening to unfair critics. Maybe we could have a panel that reports back to us so that we can keep abreast of what others are saying but minimize the ratings and hits. (And a panel wherein our responses to certain blogs are concentrated might not be a bad idea.)
These are just a few off-the-cuff ideas. In general, I believe in dealing from strength, rather than weakness; I believe civility will take the day far more than crudeness; I believe strength lies in ideology as well as numbers; and I believe organization is always a good idea.