Just what the title says... random ruminations on life, the universe, and everything by a Christian Conservative Geek (that's me). Could be religion, politics, or the state of the Star Trek franchise.
More evidence of the implosion (I'll explain after the quote):
I think that every candidates should speak for themselves, and that every thing that involves the candidate's name or another candidate's name should be authorized and approved by that candidate, otherwise it shouldn't be spoken....
Okay, first off, this is basically slicing the First Amendment out of the Constitution and stuffing it in the shredder. Essentially, if this law were passed, I would have to get Mr. Huckabee's permission before I could even include his name in this sentence (no idea if nicknames like "The Huckster" would also require permission).
However, this is also evidence of his campaign imploding. There's a pattern here, and it is reminiscent of another politician. See if you can guess who:
The Huckster raises taxes while in office. Realizing that this is bad news in a Republican primary, he immediately latches onto a plan that many conservatives like, the FairTax.
The Huckster pushes for a federal smoking ban. When he discovers that such a ban doesn't sell well among the GOP base, he dumps it.
Now, The Huckster gets caught push-polling, so he immediately calls for lots and lots of restrictions.
This is worse than campaigning by polls, this is knee-jerk campaigning, folks. Something jabs The Huckster, he immediately responds in a way that is not only painfully obvious, but at times is greatly excessive.
In short, there is no core set of political beliefs in The Huckster (I won't comment on his religious beliefs except to say that many of his policy positions fly in the face of my understanding of Southern Baptist theology--but I am not a Southern Baptist so I may be misunderstanding their positions on some issues). There simply is no "there" there. I may have policy disagreements with Mr. Giuliani, but at least he is open and honest about them, and I respect him for that. Rudy is not my first choice, nor my second, but if he gets the nomination I would vote for him (First and second choices are Mr. Thompson and Mr. Romney, in that order, in case anyone is curious). Anyway, getting back to The Huckster, he has not shown us the kind of honesty that Mr. Giuliani has, and as such, he reminds me powerfully of another Arkansas governor who had the same lack of core beliefs.
The Huckster is Slick Willie with less polish. That's about all there is to it.
Because I frequently comment on Confederate Yankee's blog (yes, I am that C-C-G), I generally try to stay away from stuff he is covering... it just doesn't seem right to me for some reason.
This time, however, I am gonna make an exception.
The obvious suspect here is the campaign of the man who wants to rewrite the Constitution to match his personal idea of God's will... and has even said so!
Okay, enough channeling CY... I just had to share that one, tho.
UPDATE: More, from Reason Magazine:
Ah, the joys of the primary season. South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster has been asked to prosecute pro-Mike Huckabee push polling now underway in the state. State law bans such automated calls.
McMaster is a major John McCain supporter in the state, but the prime target of the calls -- at the moment -- seems to be Fred Thompson. In a call partially recorded last night by one South Carolina resident and sent to McMaster, Thompson's record on abortion and taxes was attacked.
This mirrors similar recent efforts in Michigan against Mitt Romney, where the same firm placed calls to voters blasting Romney's record on guns and immigration. One report pegged the number of such calls into Michigan at five million while South Carolina is on tap to receive one million calls.
As I commented to a friend earlier today, The Huckster is imploding, and it's about time. This sort of Bravo-Sierra is not Christian at all.
UPDATE II (and bump): The Palmetto Scoop has uncovered more about the firm actually making the calls, and it's not pretty:
The firm that’s been doing the calls on Common Sense Issues’ behalf is ccAdvertising (also known as FreeEats.com). And their legal record isn’t encouraging. That company has already lost twice in federal court. In 2004, they challenged North Dakota’s do-not-call law and lost (they’d made approximately 235,000 calls polling a range of GOP hot-button issues). The company was fined $20,000. And in 2006, they challenged Indiana’s do-not-call law and lost (the group made 400,000 calls attacking Rep. Byron Hill (D-IN)). [PAUL KIEL - TPMmuckraker]
Also, The Huckster's campaign has issued a sort of a call for it to stop:
Huckabee's campaign quickly disavowed the push polling. "We know nothing about that and don't condone it. Anyone who is doing that in an effort to help us needs to stop. This does not reflect the positive spirit of the campaign," said spokeswoman Alice Stewart.
Oh, where to start with this one.
First, why is a spokeswoman saying this and not The Huckster himself?
Second, why not name the companies--and the leaders of those companies--that are doing this by name and demand that they stop? The "we know nothing" Sgt. Schultz defense ain't gonna fly, the name of Common Sense Issues has been out there since soon after this story broke.
Third, I nearly spewed my morning beverage all over my laptop when I read "positive spirit of the campaign." Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight! That "positive spirit" that had The Huckster claim that a crying baby was a Romney supporter, perhaps? How about the "positive spirit" that had The Huckster openly questioning Romney's religion, while at the same time not permitting any questions about how The Huckster's own actions square with his own religion? Maybe they're referring to the "positive spirit" that had The Huckster call an organization dedicated to prosperity for all Americans "The Club For Greed," just because they pointed out The Huckster's real economic track record? "Positive spirit," indeed.
Just more evidence of The Huckster imploding, folks.
Nevada Republican voters are receiving automated phone calls that appear to be a poll, but end up criticizing candidates with the exception of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.
Also known as "push polls," the phone calls are intended to present negative information about candidates and have caused hostile reaction in Nevada.
"I got it myself," said Heidi Smith, chairwoman of the Washoe County Republican Central Committee. "I can testify to it. I was so mad.
"They were pretending they were doing a poll. It was horrible. At the end, they said this was not paid for by any political party, but you'd have to be an absolute moron to know it's not Huckabee (this group is supporting)."
The calls, which also targeted voters in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, are sponsored by Common Sense Issues, a nonprofit organization that backs Huckabee.
The more this story gets around, the worse The Huckster looks... which is why I am doing my small part to spread the word.
WARREN, Mich.: Confronted by crying toddler on Tuesday, Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee quipped the child must be for his rival Mitt Romney.
"He's not the happiest boy today," Huckabee said, smiling for a picture with the boy and his brother and sister. "I think he must be a Romney voter. Look at him. He's so sad."
Okay, here's the results of my ruminating so far. I reserve the right to change my mind at a later time... say, any time more than 30 seconds after posting this.
Fred has to bring his "A" game to South Carolina. Fortunately, South Carolina's culture is a lot more similar to Tennessee's than Iowa's or New Hampshire's, so if Fred is going to shine anywhere, it will be in SC. I am cautiously optimistic that Fred will do well there, especially if he and others start really pointing out Huckabee's dismal record on taxes and other issues.
Giuliani also has to bring his "A" game, but to Florida, not SC. That's the first state where Rudy has a halfway decent chance of winning, IMHO. Fred could do well there, but so could Romney or McCain... Huckabee probably wouldn't sell well in Florida.
Others have suggested this and been pooh-poohed, but if Fred takes SC and Rudy wins Florida, a brokered convention is a real possibility. Note that there's a lot of ifs in that statement, but the chances are better than in any election since I've been watching elections.
I think a brokered convention could be a good thing. With the popularity of "reality" TV, a brokered convention might just draw more eyes to the TV than a convention usually gets, and give the GOP a real opportunity to explain who they are and what they stand for. Of course, if the GOP screws it up, they could end up turning off a lot of prospective voters, so it would have to be handled with care... and rule number one should be to remember that the media (with the possible exception of Fox News) is not their friend.
Well, that's my take on it. Your mileage may vary, past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results, coffee is hot, and all the rest of the usual disclaimers apply.
That's the current running order in the only "poll" that really matters... the results from the states that have already chosen their delegates... and did you know that there's more delegates pledged than just the ones from Iowa?
Anyway, here's the breakdown as of right now (subject, of course, to change)
Presidential candidate John McCain asked yesterday for an investigation of thousands of calls to New Hampshire voters disparaging the Republican senator and supporting rival Mike Huckabee.
In a letter to the New Hampshire attorney general's office, McCain's campaign accused a Colorado-based nonprofit, Common Sense Issues, of illegally conducting push polling, which is asking questions intended to influence voters while pretending to take a poll.
"This push poll disparages John McCain, while, at the same time, urging support for Governor Huckabee," McCain adviser Chuck Douglas wrote. "We demand a full inquiry into these distressing and illegal calls."
Common Sense Issues responded that New Hampshire law doesn't apply to presidential primaries, only to other elections.
"This law isn't applicable to us," said Patrick Davis, the group's executive director. "This is a headline-grabbing release. I'm not surprised this is coming from the McCain campaign. . . . This is pretty straightforward. They didn't read the law."
The state law regulating push-polling says the caller must identify the candidate he is working for or against. Deputy Attorney General Bud Fitch said the law specifically exempts primary campaigns.
Common Sense Issues favors Huckabee but does not explicitly say so in the calls, which are similar to ones being made in Iowa, South Carolina and Florida.
Voters are asked if they know that McCain was part of a group "that derailed the nominations of 14 conservative judicial nominees." The callers also ask voters if they know McCain limited the free-speech rights of anti-abortion groups and pushed for campaign finance legislation.
First it was anti-Romney calls, now anti-McCain calls... Huckabee has been all over Romney for his religion (which is interesting when one considers how Huckabee responds to questions about his own record), which raises a suspicion in my mind... is it truly the Huckabee campaign behind this, and if it is, was it also Huckabee behind the anti-Romney push-polls?
This one is far from over, folks, and could really destroy the Huckabee campaign. Unfortunately, the failure of Huckabee could cause future problems for Christian candidates... I'm still ruminating on those effects, so more on that later.
The latest Evans-Novak Political Report has some interesting tidbits about Fred (bold in original):
Thompson has far more upside potential than any other Republican, and he is spending the entire final stretch in the Hawkeye State. Thompson has perhaps the most broadly conservative record of any candidate besides the three congressmen (see below). Many conservative Iowans currently settling for Romney, Giuliani or Huckabee (or planning a protest vote of sorts for one of the congressmen) could certainly jump on board with Thompson. If he defies his reputation as a lazy worker, he could make a spectacular surge here.
Huckabee's high poll numbers and big leads do not guarantee a victory. He has nowhere near the campaign team, organization or money of runner-up Romney. As media scrutiny is finally arriving, he could be in trouble. Still, he is likable, and his openness about his Christianity plays very well among some blocs in the GOP.
Many Iowa Republicans like Huckabee because he comes across as genuine, especially in comparison to Romney. This is soft support that could bail to Thompson if he rises or to another candidate if Huckabee's negatives continue to surface.
Immigration is a big issue for Iowa Republicans, and Huckabee's support of state-subsidized education for illegal immigrants hurts him. His big-government record turns off some voters but is not a factor for some of his core supporters.
Huckabee's dig at Mormons in Sunday's New York Times magazine has turned off some Republican voters as dirty, bigoted or just politically dumb. This is the sort of thing that could bring him down.
--snip--
This battle will hinge on Thompson's performance down the stretch. If he excels, he could draw down Huckabee's support significantly, and maybe Romney's, too. If Thompson is as uninspired as he has been to date, Huckabee will probably win.
The most likely result at this point appears to be a slight Thompson surge at Huckabee's expense, leaving Romney in first place and either Thompson or Huckabee in second. Leaning Romney.
Opinions seem to be mixed--even within one online publication--among conservatives about whether Mike Huckabee's Christmas ad will prove a netgain for his campaign, or a loss.
I, personally, come down on the latter side. Jim Geraghty explains it thus:
But it's worth noting that too much talk about Jesus in a political context can make folks look skeptically even on utterly innocuous uses of His name.
I would phrase it a bit differently... it seems to this lay preacher that Reverend Huckabee is turning what should be one of the holiest days in the year into a campaign sound bite. And, honestly, I agree it is likely to increase the skepticism overall, and that can't be good for Huck.
Bottom line, Huck is talking too much Jesus and not enough policy for a political election, and I think it will backfire on him. If he were running for, say, Archbishop of Washington or High Priest of America, it would be different, but the office of the Presidency is a secular, not religious, office.
It's not just Wayne Dumond... there appears to really be something there:
Over the course of more than a decade as governor, Huckabee granted over 1,000 commutations and pardons, and they’re currently being examined closely by journalists. The latest to draw national attention is a commutation of Eugene Fields, who had multiple drunk-driving convictions.
The question is if there was there a connection between his wife Glenda Fields’s five-figure political donations and Huckabee’s action. On April 14, 2004, then-Gov. Huckabee commuted the sentence of Mr. Fields — then a four-time driving-while-intoxicated offender — granting him early release from prison. Fields, a resident of the western Arkansas town of Van Buren, was a habitual offender. He had already been convicted of DWIs in 1996, 1998, and 2000, but his 2001 felony-DWI conviction resulted in the maximum six-year prison sentence and a $5,000 fine.
Read the whole thing... link is in the title, as usual.
Looks like the former governor of the great state of Arkansas has had questions raised about some gifts that he received while in office.
"there are reports that Huckabee received hundreds of gifts as governor the value of which exceeded $100,000 in one year. One of the donors apparently was appointed to a state commission. Huckabee and his wife also registered for gifts as they were planning to leave the governor's mansion and move into a home they had recently purchased. In a related matter, Huckabee removed the drapes from the governor's mansion when he left.
There was no violation here; the drapes had been one of the many gifts. As a friend from Arkansas told me, Huckabee wasn't a corrupt governor; just a tacky one."
As a Native American might say, Huckabee speaks with forked tongue. From an email from his campaign:
1. Expectations Management
There’s been a lot of buzz lately about “managing expectations” going into Iowa. I’m not sure about the other campaigns, but here at the Huckabee camp we expect to win—just as we expect to win the nomination and the general election. Apparantly, not everyone feels the same.
Jennifer Rubin from the American Spectator Blog quotes an interesting tidbit from the LA Times: "But in a sure sign of concern, the Romney camp has begun to raise the prospect of a second-place Iowa finish, insisting it would not hurt his chances in the contests that follow. 'It would be nice if Romney won,' said Doug Gross, an attorney overseeing Romney's Iowa campaign. 'If he finishes in the top two, he's fine.'"
Fine with second in Iowa? The Romney campaign dumped about $7 million into Iowa while we’ve spent, approximately, $327.00. Maybe they are satisfied with second but as fiscal conservatives we expect to get our money’s worth.
But later in the same email...
6. Tied for Second in NH
According to the latest Rasmussen Poll: "The new primary election poll shows a virtual three-way tie for second place between former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Arizona Senator John McCain at 15% and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee at 14%. For Giuliani and McCain, those figures are a very slight dip from earlier in the month while Huckabee has gained four more percentage points."
Please moderate your expectations accordingly.
Either the Huckabee campaign is being sarcastic at the end with the "Please moderate your expectations accordingly," or they're demonstrating a double-standard Hillary would be proud of. "Hah, hah, Romney is 'managing expectations,' now please excuse us while we do the same thing we just castigated him for doing."
Either way, I don't think that it will help the campaign much.
As noted in Values Voter Debate Review all the candidates had ample time and opportunity to answer questions. The only candidates who were short changed were the four not participating. In Values Voter Debate Review (Extended), covered some of the questions and answers I thought were interesting.
In this post will try to concentrate on each candidate, in no order, just as they come to my mind. Video clips of the debate are starting to show up on YouTube. Search page results of debate videos.
Alan Keyes - The newcomer to the race, but not to campaigning. Powerful speaker, maybe a bit overdone for a debate forum. Sure he's great at speeches and on the stump. Much the same positions as the other participants, just more insistent on their place in our nation and government. Could only help himself by participating. Doesn't have a chance.
Duncan Hunter - Usual solid performance. Emphasis on building the fence and stopping illegal immigration, tying it to strong families and values. Consistent in hitting on unfair trade agreements with China and the looming military standoff. John Cox - Someone most of the public isn't even aware of. A businessman, non-politician. Says the GOP has lost it's way because there are too many career politicians. Running as true outsider. Took to task the Congressmen on the stage for losing their way along with the rest of the party and not making enough of an effort to stop it as it was happening.
Mike Huckabee - As noted in the initial review, the runaway winner of the straw poll of the Values Voter delegates. Right in his element in this setting, in front of the sponsoring groups. The guy has perfect timing and pitch. I think most of his answers ended and the chime went off indicating end of his time. Emphasized his ten years as governor and three as lieutenant governor. When informed he had four minutes for his closing remarks, always the Baptist preacher, quipped, "With four minutes, I have time to take an offering. If I could ask the ushers to come forward."
Sam Brownback - Played to Sam's strong suit: Abortion, family, values. No surprises from Sam. Emphasized the work he's done in the Senate on these issues. Losing points advocating for guest worker programs while the nation's sentiments are distinctly 'secure the border first'. IMO, his best debate performance, but not good enough to help him among primary voters.
Ron Paul - No surprises. Had more time than usual to explain and expound on his position and beliefs. Paul hammered on his usual smaller government theme. He's not losing any support there. But, he went into his illegal war in Iraq, leave everyone alone, mind our own business routine. Emphasized the Christian them of the just war and says ours is not. Got a direct question concerning libertarianism and he answered it quite well. Wish I had a transcript. Maybe it's in one of the video clips.
Tom Tancredo - Of course, Tank hammered home the illegal immigrant issue and tied it in with American values and family. Addressed his controversial stance on suspension of all immigration until we are able to assimilate the immigrants now here. Thought he had one of the best closing remarks. Said even though he didn't agree with everything all the other candidates believed, he was proud to among them as he considers them all men of integrity and principle. I liked that.
If you think I didn't capture the essence of a particular candidate, oh well. As I said, my observations and impressions. So, what you read is what stuck with me and what I recalled from reading my notes. I'm sure everyone who watched garnered different things from each candidate.
All in all, I liked the whole debate and think it was great the non-top tier candidates got so much time to answer questions. The shame is that more people couldn't have seen it. I'd be interested in finding out how many viewers and listeners the debate had.
The only real losers in this debate were the four candidates who didn't show up.
None of the candidates on the debate stage last night can legitimately claim they were short changed on time. The debate format was very fair and equitable. In the first round, each candidate got to answer each question. The second round consisted of a series of yes or no questions that the candidates responded to by illuminating a green or red light on the front of their podium. Round three was a series of questions posed to a specific candidate, but each candidate was asked a question.
The four absent GOP candidates were represented on stage by an unused podium. Each candidate had a set time to answer questions in each round and each was allotted a two minute time bank they could use to finish answers or extend or elaborate on answers or rebut another candidates answer. All the candidates did quite well in staying in allotted time. Only a couple of the candidates had used all of their extra two minutes at the end of the debate.
The debate kicked off at 7:30 PM Eastern. About twenty minutes was taken up with opening remarks by the debate hosts, prayers and a choir. In no way did those preliminaries cut into the time for the main event. The entire program lasted three hours; about two hours and forty minutes of that was devoted to the questions and answers.
All the groups that participated in the debate invited delegates to the debate who would vote in straw polls before and after the debate. Janet Folger explained they went to great lengths to make sure these delegates were representative of values voters and were in no way connected or associated with any of the candidate. Folger went to great lengths to make clear these straw polls are not like the straw polls we are accustomed to, as the candidates did not bus in their supporters, buy tickets or provide food or entertainment. It was a straw poll of strictly values voters.
(All emphasis in quoted passages were in the original text.)
“Unlike other straw polls where candidates have bussed in supporters or paid for their tickets, forty national leaders chose hundreds of delegates who accurately represent America’s largest voting block,” said Mat Staver, Chairman of Liberty Counsel, and Values Voter Debate committee member. “This is the most important straw poll yet.”
During the question and answer periods the delegates had a means to indicate their reaction to each candidate's answers. There was no on air indication of what those reactions were and I have not found anything after the fact showing those results.
Before the debate the delegates voted on which candidate they favored at that time. After the debate they voted once again and the debate sponsors tabulated the results to see what shifts took place from hearing the candidate's answers to the questions.
I missed the first few minutes of the after debate wrap up. The after debate results showed that the four absentee candidates had all suffered losses from the before debate polling. Ron Paul also suffered a big drop but still polled in the top three or four in the after debate poll.
“The big losers last night were the no-show candidates Fred Thompson who placed at 4 percent, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain who each received 1 percent and Mitt Romney who was the only candidate to receive zero votes at the end of the night.
Considering the audience and the questions, unsurprisingly, Mike Huckabee came out the big vote gainer and runaway winner in the after debate straw poll. Folger seems to think this might coalesce values voters behind Huckabee's campaign.
“While many very good candidates attended the event, Governor Mike Huckabee was the clear winner,” said Janet Folger, President of Faith2Action and member of the Values Voter Debate committee. Huckabee received nearly five times the votes of the other candidates.
Again, there is no place I've found that shows the before and after polling results. All this is from releases from the debate and what I jotted down as they were explaining the results.
This debate was almost tailor made for these seven participating candidates. Even though some of the questions might have been a bit controversial for the four absentees, I don't see how they gained anything by skipping this forum, and think some of them lost quite a bit of credibility by not showing up. Even if their positions on some of the issues are not totally in line with groups sponsoring the debate, their appearance would have at least shown they are willing to face those who do not totally agree with them.
I can't help but wonder how the democrat presidential candidates would fare in this debate, being asked the same questions. There's obviously a reason they all declined an invitation to participate in a similar format sponsored by the same groups.
I'll make another post with some specifics from the debate and my impressions and observations of the candidates.
I've been reading, with some skepticism, GOP presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee's rising prospects, as noted in some polls. Some of this increasing popularity is based on his solid showing in the Ames GOP Straw Poll last month and his solid performances in GOP debates.
I'll admit, Huck is an attractive candidate. He's a former governor, he is well spoken, he's humorous, he's solid on family and values and has a good grasp on the issues. Nevertheless, Huck worries me. I think he's a populist and bit of a nanny-stater.
When I first heard Huckabee's name circulating as a prospective GOP presidential hopeful over a year ago, I did a little research and wasn't impressed with what I read. Yes, Huck can claim a record of accomplishment as Arkansas Governor, that doesn't mean it's a record he should run on as a conservative GOP presidential hopeful.
Those two things alone give me pause. But it goes beyond that. In one of the early debates, Huckabee tried to shoulder the mantle of fiscal conservative and tax cutter. He claimed to have cut taxes ninety four times, then went on to say, as governor, he had turned a deficit into a one billion dollar surplus.
My first reaction was to wonder how Arkansas wound up with a billion dollar surplus if he had cut so many taxes.
Well, Club for Growth isn't very impressed with Huckabee's tax cutting resume either. Look what they have to say on Huck at Tax Hike Mike.
Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee has taken to calling himself a “fiscal conservative,” but who ever heard of a fiscal conservative who raised taxes and spending through the roof while governor of Arkansas? Mike Huckabee is also calling himself “a different kind of Republican,” but that’s just a codeword for a big-government Republican who wants to cover up his tax-and-spend record with folksy talking points and one-liners. Sorry Tax Hike Mike. No dice.
