It was a beautiful thing to watch: A full half-hour of Tim Russert—you know, the guy who scored a Hillary knock-down with one straight question during a recent debate—throwing his hardest hardballs at Mike, who just kept hitting them out of the park on the full range of issues. You can find the whole interview on you tube, via the following link: http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Blogs.View&Blog_id=1007
But the interview was especially extraordinary for pro-lifers.
It was certainly the first time in my life that I have seen or heard a genuine pro-lifer, through and through, who was actually in the running to be elected president and who has a real chance of winning; someone who gave Tim Russert the same answers one of us would have given. All the other candidates who claim to be pro-life have very nuanced and changeable prolife positions that make us wonder how much we can really trust them, so we often have to consult other people we do trust to make a tortured decision as to whether or not we can support them. With Mike Huckabee, whatever our differences on other issues, no pro-lifer could deny, seeing the Meet the Press interview, that he is the real deal on the life issues. Period.
For a brief synopsis on the pro-life segment of the Meet the Press interview, click this link to LifeNews.com: http://www.lifenews.com/nat3563.html
Monday, December 31, 2007
Saturday, December 29, 2007
“Beltway Boys” dis Mike but parrot his Pakistan strategy
Today on the Fox News Channel, “The Beltway Boys”, Mort Kondracke and Fred Barnes, did a segment on the state of the candidates’ standings in the Iowa Caucus polls, followed by a segment on what’s going on in Pakistan.
Largely, it would seem, on the basis of Bob Novak’s anonymous “private corporate poll” (see my previous post), they downgraded their predictions for the GOP Iowa Caucus to a Romney win, with Mike coming in second. They attributed Mike’s apparent slippage to what they view as Mike’s not handling questions re: the Bhutto assassination well, and thus seemingly not qualified for leading the free world. As I also noted in previous posts, Fox News Channel viewers would have no evidence upon which to base such a conclusion, as FNC interviewed all the major GOP candidates about it except Mike! But Mike was actually magnificent in his evaluation of the situation, if you happened to tune in to MSNBC for your “Morning Joe” yesterday.
Back to the Beltway Boys, it was Kondracke who summarized the Pakistani situation. He quoted Bhutto from a personal interview he had had with her, in which she had told him that “Musharraf was playing the US like a violin”. Kondracke then concluded that the US now needs to get tougher with Musharraf to go after the terrorists in Pakistan, or let the US do it.
Now where have we heard that before? Could it be the invisible front-runner Fox News has been avoiding lately? Indeed, the Beltway Boys’ policy conclusion re: Pakistan was almost vertabim Mike Huckabee! Contrast that with the opinion of John McCain, whom the media (including FNC) are fawning over for his “foreign policy experience”-based views on the current crisis. McCain’s strategy is basically to coddle Musharraf even more than the Bush administration has already, for fear of his losing control over Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.
Oooo Kaaayy, so let’s base US foreign policy on our fears, rather than our strengths. Does that sound like a good strategy for the US (or for any nation, for that matter)?
Of course, Ronald Reagan’s approach was always “peace through strength”, and it’s Mike Huckabee—not John McCain—who has a real understanding of what that means in practice. For the sake of US security and world peace, let’s make sure Governor Huckabee is our next President!
Largely, it would seem, on the basis of Bob Novak’s anonymous “private corporate poll” (see my previous post), they downgraded their predictions for the GOP Iowa Caucus to a Romney win, with Mike coming in second. They attributed Mike’s apparent slippage to what they view as Mike’s not handling questions re: the Bhutto assassination well, and thus seemingly not qualified for leading the free world. As I also noted in previous posts, Fox News Channel viewers would have no evidence upon which to base such a conclusion, as FNC interviewed all the major GOP candidates about it except Mike! But Mike was actually magnificent in his evaluation of the situation, if you happened to tune in to MSNBC for your “Morning Joe” yesterday.
Back to the Beltway Boys, it was Kondracke who summarized the Pakistani situation. He quoted Bhutto from a personal interview he had had with her, in which she had told him that “Musharraf was playing the US like a violin”. Kondracke then concluded that the US now needs to get tougher with Musharraf to go after the terrorists in Pakistan, or let the US do it.
Now where have we heard that before? Could it be the invisible front-runner Fox News has been avoiding lately? Indeed, the Beltway Boys’ policy conclusion re: Pakistan was almost vertabim Mike Huckabee! Contrast that with the opinion of John McCain, whom the media (including FNC) are fawning over for his “foreign policy experience”-based views on the current crisis. McCain’s strategy is basically to coddle Musharraf even more than the Bush administration has already, for fear of his losing control over Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.
Oooo Kaaayy, so let’s base US foreign policy on our fears, rather than our strengths. Does that sound like a good strategy for the US (or for any nation, for that matter)?
Of course, Ronald Reagan’s approach was always “peace through strength”, and it’s Mike Huckabee—not John McCain—who has a real understanding of what that means in practice. For the sake of US security and world peace, let’s make sure Governor Huckabee is our next President!
Novak’s Mystery Poll
Veteran Washington insider Robert Novak has been touting—both in his townhall.com blog and on the Fox News Channel--a “private corporate interest” poll that shows Romney in the lead in Iowa, ahead of Mike Huckabee by 4 points at 30 to 26%. I find it quite interesting that in an era in which political polling has become such a competitive industry, that anyone should put any stock in a private ‘no-name’ poll leaked out to the public through a veteran reporter who could be trusted not to reveal his source.
So who is Novak’s source? More importantly, who commissioned the poll and why was it leaked out anonymously?
Conventional wisdom dictates that the first question to ask in solving this mystery is:
Who benefits?
Answer: Obviously, Mitt Romney.
Next question: What organization has the kind of financial resources to conduct such a large survey (15,000 Iowans)?
Answer: Obviously, the Romney campaign.
That leads to another key question: If the Romney campaign commissioned a legitimate poll that showed their own candidate overtaking the front-runner, why would they not shout it from the rooftops with all the credentials of the people who did the polling, rather than trading on the name of widely read leaker?
Answer: It’s not a reliable poll. It’s a poll designed to move public opinion in a certain direction, rather than to provide an accurate reflection of existing opinion. In other words, it’s just a sophisticated form of push polling.
Further evidence of this is the way Novak described the poll himself in his Fox News Channel appearance last night, when he spoke of the results of “the poll, for what it’s worth”. For what it’s worth?! Now isn’t that interesting, that even Novak himself is not willing to say that he either knows or has good reason to believe that the poll was scientifically conducted at all. If it turns out to be a phoney, so what? It’s no skin off Novak’s back. He’s just the messenger.
As Mike Huckabee has said, presidential campaigning is a “full contact sport”. And that includes many tactics that are not what they seem.
So who is Novak’s source? More importantly, who commissioned the poll and why was it leaked out anonymously?
Conventional wisdom dictates that the first question to ask in solving this mystery is:
Who benefits?
Answer: Obviously, Mitt Romney.
Next question: What organization has the kind of financial resources to conduct such a large survey (15,000 Iowans)?
Answer: Obviously, the Romney campaign.
That leads to another key question: If the Romney campaign commissioned a legitimate poll that showed their own candidate overtaking the front-runner, why would they not shout it from the rooftops with all the credentials of the people who did the polling, rather than trading on the name of widely read leaker?
Answer: It’s not a reliable poll. It’s a poll designed to move public opinion in a certain direction, rather than to provide an accurate reflection of existing opinion. In other words, it’s just a sophisticated form of push polling.
Further evidence of this is the way Novak described the poll himself in his Fox News Channel appearance last night, when he spoke of the results of “the poll, for what it’s worth”. For what it’s worth?! Now isn’t that interesting, that even Novak himself is not willing to say that he either knows or has good reason to believe that the poll was scientifically conducted at all. If it turns out to be a phoney, so what? It’s no skin off Novak’s back. He’s just the messenger.
As Mike Huckabee has said, presidential campaigning is a “full contact sport”. And that includes many tactics that are not what they seem.
Friday, December 28, 2007
Florida warm and sunny for Mike
Check out this link to the Miami Herald story about Mike's successful fund-raising efforts in Florida, not to mention the endorsement by Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio of Miami-Dade, representing tremendous support from the Cuban-American community. http://www.miamiherald.com/news/breaking_news/story/358749.html
(Just one oddity to note: although the Miami Herald article talks about Mike's having risen to number 2 in the polls, the last Rasmussen poll I can find (Dec 14) has Mike number 1 for Florida's Jan 29 primary at 27%, 4 points ahead of Mitt Romney and 8 points ahead of Giuliani! (So much for Rudy's Florida "firewall"!)
(Just one oddity to note: although the Miami Herald article talks about Mike's having risen to number 2 in the polls, the last Rasmussen poll I can find (Dec 14) has Mike number 1 for Florida's Jan 29 primary at 27%, 4 points ahead of Mitt Romney and 8 points ahead of Giuliani! (So much for Rudy's Florida "firewall"!)
Mike on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” re: Bhutto Assassination
Mike was fantastic!
The two main questions he was asked were: 1) whether or not he was ready--today--to be commander-in-chief to respond to such crises. He said "That's what Governor's do", and proceeded to list some of the types of crises--school shootings, tornadoes--he had to respond to during 11 years as Arkansas Governor, and
2)what the implications are for US policy toward Pakistan, specifically, whether the US was pushing too hard for a reconciliation between Musharraf and Bhutto. Mike referred back to his September foreign policy speech in which he spoke in detail about US-Pakistan relations. Mike then said how both Musharraf and Bhutto represented moderate, secular elements, and that what the US needed to do was lean on Musharraf to either go after the Taliban and the terrorists or let us do it. He gave the example of the recent call-off of a special ops attack on Bin Laden's top deputy, because we didn't want to offend Musharraf because we didn't get his permission. Mike reminded the audience of the billions of dollars the US has poured into the Musharraf regime and how we needed to use that leverage to go after Bin Laden.
I think Mike really sounded like he had a much better handle on the role of the US and its President than President Bush, who has been intent on using US influence to push democracy on other countries, rather than using it to pursue our legitimate national interests, like going after Bin Laden.
This was a home run if I ever witnessed one in the campaign: Mike used the opportunity to give a valuable lesson in US foreign policy to anyone fortunate enough to watch the show. Impressive!
The two main questions he was asked were: 1) whether or not he was ready--today--to be commander-in-chief to respond to such crises. He said "That's what Governor's do", and proceeded to list some of the types of crises--school shootings, tornadoes--he had to respond to during 11 years as Arkansas Governor, and
2)what the implications are for US policy toward Pakistan, specifically, whether the US was pushing too hard for a reconciliation between Musharraf and Bhutto. Mike referred back to his September foreign policy speech in which he spoke in detail about US-Pakistan relations. Mike then said how both Musharraf and Bhutto represented moderate, secular elements, and that what the US needed to do was lean on Musharraf to either go after the Taliban and the terrorists or let us do it. He gave the example of the recent call-off of a special ops attack on Bin Laden's top deputy, because we didn't want to offend Musharraf because we didn't get his permission. Mike reminded the audience of the billions of dollars the US has poured into the Musharraf regime and how we needed to use that leverage to go after Bin Laden.
I think Mike really sounded like he had a much better handle on the role of the US and its President than President Bush, who has been intent on using US influence to push democracy on other countries, rather than using it to pursue our legitimate national interests, like going after Bin Laden.
This was a home run if I ever witnessed one in the campaign: Mike used the opportunity to give a valuable lesson in US foreign policy to anyone fortunate enough to watch the show. Impressive!
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Fox News Channel on Bhutto Assassination: Everybody gets the Mike except Mike
Tonight on the FNC primetime shows (The O'Reilly Factor, guest-hosted by Laura Ingraham) and Hannity and Colmes (Colmes is there, with Rich Lowry guest hosting for Hannity).
It was wall-to-wall Bhutto assassination coverage.
Laura Ingraham did a long interview with John McCain.
Hannity and Colmes did separate full interviews with: Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, and Mitt Romney.
In concluding the show, Colmes noted how interesting it was to get "the views of all the candidates".
Not surprisingly, they didn't interview any of the Democrats, but it sure was telling that Mike's was the only conspicuous GOP absence. They did have a short clip of Mike--literally a few seconds--expressing sympathy and condolence for Bhutto's family. The not so subtle message: "Gee, what a nice guy to have as a chaplain, but a President?"
But if you check out the mikehuckabee.com website, you’ll find, in Mike’s statement about the Bhutto assassination, perhaps THE best reminder of what we’re up against in the war on terror:
“I believe that we are currently engaged in a world war. Radical Islamic fascists have declared war on our country and our way of life. They have sworn to annihilate each of us who believe in a free society, all in the name of a perversion of religion and an impersonal god. We go to great extremes to save lives, they go to great extremes to take them. This war is not a conventional war, and these terrorists are not a conventional enemy. We must fight the war on terror with the intensity and single-mindedness that it deserves.”
Did somebody say 'gravitas'?
It was wall-to-wall Bhutto assassination coverage.
Laura Ingraham did a long interview with John McCain.
Hannity and Colmes did separate full interviews with: Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, and Mitt Romney.
In concluding the show, Colmes noted how interesting it was to get "the views of all the candidates".
Not surprisingly, they didn't interview any of the Democrats, but it sure was telling that Mike's was the only conspicuous GOP absence. They did have a short clip of Mike--literally a few seconds--expressing sympathy and condolence for Bhutto's family. The not so subtle message: "Gee, what a nice guy to have as a chaplain, but a President?"
But if you check out the mikehuckabee.com website, you’ll find, in Mike’s statement about the Bhutto assassination, perhaps THE best reminder of what we’re up against in the war on terror:
“I believe that we are currently engaged in a world war. Radical Islamic fascists have declared war on our country and our way of life. They have sworn to annihilate each of us who believe in a free society, all in the name of a perversion of religion and an impersonal god. We go to great extremes to save lives, they go to great extremes to take them. This war is not a conventional war, and these terrorists are not a conventional enemy. We must fight the war on terror with the intensity and single-mindedness that it deserves.”
Did somebody say 'gravitas'?
Huckabee leads in AP Poll released 12/27
AP released a poll - conducted December 14-20 tht show's Mike with a slight lead nationally -
Mike Huckabee - 22 percent
Rudy Giuliani - 21 percent
John McCain - 14 percent
Mitt Romney - 13 percent
Fred Thompson - 11 percent
The figures in the November AP poll were:
Giuliani - 27 percent
Thompson - 17 percent
McCain - 15 percent
Romney - 11 percent
Huckabee - 9 percent
A Rasmussen Poll released today had it as:
Huckabee - 20 percent
Giuliani - 18 percent
McCain - 14 percent
Romney - 13 percent
Thompson - 11 percent
The latest AP and Rasmussen figures are very similar - both showing Mike with a small lead over Giuliani. But given the fluidity of the race, Mike - and we - can't rest.
Mike Huckabee - 22 percent
Rudy Giuliani - 21 percent
John McCain - 14 percent
Mitt Romney - 13 percent
Fred Thompson - 11 percent
The figures in the November AP poll were:
Giuliani - 27 percent
Thompson - 17 percent
McCain - 15 percent
Romney - 11 percent
Huckabee - 9 percent
A Rasmussen Poll released today had it as:
Huckabee - 20 percent
Giuliani - 18 percent
McCain - 14 percent
Romney - 13 percent
Thompson - 11 percent
The latest AP and Rasmussen figures are very similar - both showing Mike with a small lead over Giuliani. But given the fluidity of the race, Mike - and we - can't rest.
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
‘Tis the day after Christmas: Beware repackaged polls sold as new
Now that Christmas is over, you can find outdated political news for sale at the Fox News outlet channel. This morning, it was all about John McCain, and how he’s surging in NH and could even win, after a strong showing in Iowa. “It’s a great time to be John McCain” said pollster Scott Rasmussen, who conducts the prestigious daily presidential tracking polls, in a live Fox News Channel in-studio interview.
Just one slight problem, folks: Rasmussen was just repeating the same week-old polling information he had collected December 16-19 and reported December 20. The only polling organization I could find with an actually more recent poll is the American Research Group (ARG), which polled Iowans (though not NH voters, apparently) during December 20-23. The ARG poll showed that in Iowa, Mick Huckabee was still in the lead, while Romney bumped slipping John McCain out of 2nd place. Looks like the media establishment is still pumping up John McCain, in the interest of keeping the contest as tight and contentious as possible.
Just one slight problem, folks: Rasmussen was just repeating the same week-old polling information he had collected December 16-19 and reported December 20. The only polling organization I could find with an actually more recent poll is the American Research Group (ARG), which polled Iowans (though not NH voters, apparently) during December 20-23. The ARG poll showed that in Iowa, Mick Huckabee was still in the lead, while Romney bumped slipping John McCain out of 2nd place. Looks like the media establishment is still pumping up John McCain, in the interest of keeping the contest as tight and contentious as possible.
Newspaper endorsements
We've heard about the Dallas Morning News endorsing Mike Huckabee. That's great.
But more important for January 3, Mike has also picked up on a number of endorsements in Iowa - 6 at this point (as opposed to McCain's 5).
Huckabee_
Adel Dallas Co. News (weekly)
Albia Union-Republican (weekly)
Chariton Leader (weekly)
Iowa City Press-Citizen (daily)
Sheldon N'West Iowa Review (weekly)
Shenandoah Valley News Today (daily)
McCain -
Ames Iowa State Daily
Davenport Quad-City Times (daily)
Des Moines Register (daily)
Iowa City Daily Iowan
Logan Herald-Observer (weekly)
And then there's one for Romney -
Sioux City Journal (daily)
Mike is picking up the small town crowd, while McCain is getting the big city papers.
But more important for January 3, Mike has also picked up on a number of endorsements in Iowa - 6 at this point (as opposed to McCain's 5).
Huckabee_
Adel Dallas Co. News (weekly)
Albia Union-Republican (weekly)
Chariton Leader (weekly)
Iowa City Press-Citizen (daily)
Sheldon N'West Iowa Review (weekly)
Shenandoah Valley News Today (daily)
McCain -
Ames Iowa State Daily
Davenport Quad-City Times (daily)
Des Moines Register (daily)
Iowa City Daily Iowan
Logan Herald-Observer (weekly)
And then there's one for Romney -
Sioux City Journal (daily)
Mike is picking up the small town crowd, while McCain is getting the big city papers.
Monday, December 24, 2007
Hindus for Huckabee
On yesterday’s Townhall.com blog, Phoenix talk show host and author Austin Hill posted a Huckabee hit piece entitled: “Mike Huckabee: ‘Vote For Me, I’m An Evangelical’”. In this article, Hill whines about not being able to recognize his beloved Republican Party “anywhere”. Then he proceeds to fire off one unsubstantiated charge after another, calling Mike “more reminiscent of President Carter”, “anathema to the political conservative movement”, having “a less-than-conservative track record” as Governor of Arkansas, without detailing even one of Mike’s actions or position’s with which he disagrees. These would certainly qualify as “nanny state mud balls” I wrote about it my post the other day.
But then, about a third of the way into his article, Hill gets down to the nitty-gritty hinted at in his title: “By both implicit and explicit means, Huckabee has been conveying that his Evangelical Christianity—his personal faith, his having attended a Bible college, and his status as an ordained Pastor—qualify him to be President!”
Then he accuses Mike of “forc(ing) theological arguments into the political debate.”
Hill’s polemic gets more and more strident. He talks about Mike’s “dangerous mindset (which) precludes the possibility of building consensus with anybody who doesn’t happen to go to the ‘right’ church.”, and he concludes his hit piece with the “hope that there are other conservative Americans who are as disgusted” as he is.
This is pretty vile stuff. And you have to figure that what really put Hill over the top (although he doesn’t even mention that specifically) is the video Christmas message Mike Huckabee put out the last week, which 28-second video has the media going nuts.
As Mike Gallagher said in his Townhall.com post on Dec. 21 (“Huckabee’s Cross”), “Americans who are completely disgusted with the full frontal assault on anything and everything Christian paid attention. They simply could not believe their eyes and ears, that mean-spirited, Christmas-hating pundits and liberal media elitists were actually whining and complaining that someone (perhaps) had the audacity to display a Christian symbol during a Christian message that celebrated Christmas!”
Mike Gallagher then goes on to talk about such visceral anti-Christian reactions to Mike Huckabee’s Christmas video ad moving many undecided Christian voters to support Mike Huckabee.
It’s even more sweeping than that, Mr. Gallagher.
As a New Yorker, my circle of friends and associates is quite ethnically and religiously diverse. One Indian-American Hindu friend of mine has been supporting Mike Huckabee for weeks, attracted particularly by his advocacy of the Fair Tax, and her support of Mike is as strong as ever now.
But another Indian-American Hindu friend of mine reacted even more strongly. “I like Huckabee”, he said, “because I think he’s the most genuine of the candidates”. But the reaction to Mike’s Christmas message really drove him over the top, to volunteering to put his name on the ballot as a Huckabee convention delegate. “This political correctness is outrageous!”, he told me. “How could anyone possibly object to a candidate giving a Christian message in a country in which the overwhelming majority are Christians? All this ‘Happy Holidays’ stuff is really outrageous. We have the same political correctness in India. India is a county in which the overwhelming majority are Hindus, but you’re not allowed to say ‘Happy Diwali’ anymore, you have to say ‘Happy Festival’!”
Mike Gallagher, you’re onto something here, and it’s even bigger than you suggest. Mike Huckabee’s appeal runs wider and deeper than just among Evangelicals and even wider Christianity. That’s one reason Mike will make a great President for all Americans; even you, Austin Hill!
But then, about a third of the way into his article, Hill gets down to the nitty-gritty hinted at in his title: “By both implicit and explicit means, Huckabee has been conveying that his Evangelical Christianity—his personal faith, his having attended a Bible college, and his status as an ordained Pastor—qualify him to be President!”
Then he accuses Mike of “forc(ing) theological arguments into the political debate.”
Hill’s polemic gets more and more strident. He talks about Mike’s “dangerous mindset (which) precludes the possibility of building consensus with anybody who doesn’t happen to go to the ‘right’ church.”, and he concludes his hit piece with the “hope that there are other conservative Americans who are as disgusted” as he is.
This is pretty vile stuff. And you have to figure that what really put Hill over the top (although he doesn’t even mention that specifically) is the video Christmas message Mike Huckabee put out the last week, which 28-second video has the media going nuts.
As Mike Gallagher said in his Townhall.com post on Dec. 21 (“Huckabee’s Cross”), “Americans who are completely disgusted with the full frontal assault on anything and everything Christian paid attention. They simply could not believe their eyes and ears, that mean-spirited, Christmas-hating pundits and liberal media elitists were actually whining and complaining that someone (perhaps) had the audacity to display a Christian symbol during a Christian message that celebrated Christmas!”
Mike Gallagher then goes on to talk about such visceral anti-Christian reactions to Mike Huckabee’s Christmas video ad moving many undecided Christian voters to support Mike Huckabee.
It’s even more sweeping than that, Mr. Gallagher.
As a New Yorker, my circle of friends and associates is quite ethnically and religiously diverse. One Indian-American Hindu friend of mine has been supporting Mike Huckabee for weeks, attracted particularly by his advocacy of the Fair Tax, and her support of Mike is as strong as ever now.
But another Indian-American Hindu friend of mine reacted even more strongly. “I like Huckabee”, he said, “because I think he’s the most genuine of the candidates”. But the reaction to Mike’s Christmas message really drove him over the top, to volunteering to put his name on the ballot as a Huckabee convention delegate. “This political correctness is outrageous!”, he told me. “How could anyone possibly object to a candidate giving a Christian message in a country in which the overwhelming majority are Christians? All this ‘Happy Holidays’ stuff is really outrageous. We have the same political correctness in India. India is a county in which the overwhelming majority are Hindus, but you’re not allowed to say ‘Happy Diwali’ anymore, you have to say ‘Happy Festival’!”
Mike Gallagher, you’re onto something here, and it’s even bigger than you suggest. Mike Huckabee’s appeal runs wider and deeper than just among Evangelicals and even wider Christianity. That’s one reason Mike will make a great President for all Americans; even you, Austin Hill!
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Buffet throws two left jabs at Mike
To the unwitting GOP recipient of Newsmax.com, stories number 1 and 2 on the list of breaking headlines today would seem to reveal some new negatives about Mike Huckabee. In a minute, I’ll get to the fact that they are neither new nor substantive and explain why. But that leaves the question as to why they are there in the first place. The answer is pretty simple really. Newsmax is owned by Warren Buffet, the billionaire businessman who supports the candidacy of one Hillary Rodham Clinton. Ergo, it is in Buffet’s interest to attack the GOP front-runner, thus to keep the intra-party GOP rivalry going as long and as contentiously as possible. I say this at the outset by way of a conflict of interest declaration, since Newsmax.com displays no such courtesy.
The first Newsmax.com headline is entitled “New Revelations about Huckabee and Mormonism”. It then quotes from the December 16 NY Times Magazine article, with Mike saying he “didn’t know much about” Mormonism. Thus does Newsmax.com embark on the “What did he know and when did he know it” version of the ‘gotcha!’ game. The article then harks back to a 1998 Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) at which Mike was the keynote speaker. To quote the Newsmax.com article directly: “At the annual meeting, the SBC distributed copies of a book entitled ‘Confronting the Contradictions Between Mormon Beliefs and True Christianity’”, authored by a high-ranking SBC official. The gist of the rest of the Newsmax.com story is that this book contains many details about Mormon beliefs, and that it is likely that Mike Huckabee got a copy and at least perused it. The implication here is that Mike was somehow being disingenuous with the NY Times when he said he “didn’t know much about Mormonism”, because he probably had some familiarity with the book in question.
For the sake of argument, let us assume that Mike Huckabee read every single word of the SBC book about Mormonism. In fact, let’s go even further and assume Mike even memorized every word of it. But let us also assume that he is not familiar with much else about Mormonism, and that Mike is a fair-minded fellow (Why else would we even consider electing him US President?). So now Mike is asked about Mormonism (not because Mike—as some suggest—is injecting religion into the campaign, but because the media is preoccupied with it), and he is familiar with the details as expounded by a single source (the SBC book) which has a very clear and obvious bias (published by the SBC!). Well, if Mike is the fair-minded guy we expect he is, he sure wouldn’t presume to have any real knowledge of Mormonism—or anything else, for that matter—based on a single, biased source, would he? So the only honest answer Mike could give a journalist is that he “didn’t know much about Mormonism”, right? So where’s the beef in this Newsmax.com story? There isn’t any, except to underscore that Mike is an honest and fair-minded fellow who neither knows nor cares much about his opponents’ religious affiliations.
The number 2 headline story from Newsmax.com today is entitled “Huckabee Flip-flops on Cuba, Immigration”. The facts revealed in this story are not new in any way, and have been fully explained by Mike. But since Newsmax.com raised the issue, I think it’s worth using the opportunity to flesh out the issue of experience in the context of the Presidential race.
The article cites the facts that, as Governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee argued for lifting the trade embargo against Cuba (because it was hurting the business of Arkansas rice farmers), protested against a federal raid to round up illegal aliens working at an Arkansas poultry plant, and advocated in-state tuition for children of illegal aliens. Mike has publicly reversed himself on the issue of the Cuban trade embargo, and adopted a tough plan for dealing with illegal immigration. At least Newsmax.com quoted Mike accurately regarding his new positions: “Rather than seeing it as some huge change, I would call it, rather, the simple reality that I’m running for President of the United States, not for re-election as governor of Arkansas.”
But then the Newsmax.com article repeats an attack by Mike’s GOP rival Fred Thompson, who had accused Mike of “changing his position on the embargo ‘on a dime to appeal to a particular group of people right before an election.’” Easy for Fred to say. As a senator and an actor he never had to be concerned about the economy of a state for which he was responsible. What should a state governor do if the federal government does nothing to stem the tide of illegal immigrants who flock across the border for jobs in the US, and then tries to selectively enforce the immigration laws in his state, hurting businesses in his state? What should a state governor do when illegal immigrants have children in his state’s school system (about which he has no choice), and these students work hard and excel academically? Punish them because of their parents’ immigration status? As Mike said in one of the recent debates in defense of his position, “I think we’re a better country than that.” And what should a state governor do when his state’s farmers are denied access to a nearby market for their crops due to an international embargo?
Fred Thompson has never had to deal with these issues as part of any real life responsibility. So that brings us to the issue of the importance of the experience of being a successful state governor. The way I see it, there are two important aspects to this:
1) It is important to have a president who has the hands-on experience of reaching agreements with (mostly opposition party) legislative bodies (not to mention bureaucracies, the federal government and local governments, labor unions and other interest groups) re: all aspects of state government, from taxes to traffic to education to law-enforcement, and making it all work within the framework of a balanced budget, and
2) It is also crucial to have a president who has the perspective to understand precisely his role and responsibilities in the office to which he has been elected; to understand the difference between being governor of state (or mayor of a city, or CEO of a corporation, for that matter) and President of the United States.
And Mike Huckabee just keeps on demonstrating that he’s the best man for the biggest job.
The first Newsmax.com headline is entitled “New Revelations about Huckabee and Mormonism”. It then quotes from the December 16 NY Times Magazine article, with Mike saying he “didn’t know much about” Mormonism. Thus does Newsmax.com embark on the “What did he know and when did he know it” version of the ‘gotcha!’ game. The article then harks back to a 1998 Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) at which Mike was the keynote speaker. To quote the Newsmax.com article directly: “At the annual meeting, the SBC distributed copies of a book entitled ‘Confronting the Contradictions Between Mormon Beliefs and True Christianity’”, authored by a high-ranking SBC official. The gist of the rest of the Newsmax.com story is that this book contains many details about Mormon beliefs, and that it is likely that Mike Huckabee got a copy and at least perused it. The implication here is that Mike was somehow being disingenuous with the NY Times when he said he “didn’t know much about Mormonism”, because he probably had some familiarity with the book in question.
For the sake of argument, let us assume that Mike Huckabee read every single word of the SBC book about Mormonism. In fact, let’s go even further and assume Mike even memorized every word of it. But let us also assume that he is not familiar with much else about Mormonism, and that Mike is a fair-minded fellow (Why else would we even consider electing him US President?). So now Mike is asked about Mormonism (not because Mike—as some suggest—is injecting religion into the campaign, but because the media is preoccupied with it), and he is familiar with the details as expounded by a single source (the SBC book) which has a very clear and obvious bias (published by the SBC!). Well, if Mike is the fair-minded guy we expect he is, he sure wouldn’t presume to have any real knowledge of Mormonism—or anything else, for that matter—based on a single, biased source, would he? So the only honest answer Mike could give a journalist is that he “didn’t know much about Mormonism”, right? So where’s the beef in this Newsmax.com story? There isn’t any, except to underscore that Mike is an honest and fair-minded fellow who neither knows nor cares much about his opponents’ religious affiliations.
The number 2 headline story from Newsmax.com today is entitled “Huckabee Flip-flops on Cuba, Immigration”. The facts revealed in this story are not new in any way, and have been fully explained by Mike. But since Newsmax.com raised the issue, I think it’s worth using the opportunity to flesh out the issue of experience in the context of the Presidential race.
The article cites the facts that, as Governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee argued for lifting the trade embargo against Cuba (because it was hurting the business of Arkansas rice farmers), protested against a federal raid to round up illegal aliens working at an Arkansas poultry plant, and advocated in-state tuition for children of illegal aliens. Mike has publicly reversed himself on the issue of the Cuban trade embargo, and adopted a tough plan for dealing with illegal immigration. At least Newsmax.com quoted Mike accurately regarding his new positions: “Rather than seeing it as some huge change, I would call it, rather, the simple reality that I’m running for President of the United States, not for re-election as governor of Arkansas.”
But then the Newsmax.com article repeats an attack by Mike’s GOP rival Fred Thompson, who had accused Mike of “changing his position on the embargo ‘on a dime to appeal to a particular group of people right before an election.’” Easy for Fred to say. As a senator and an actor he never had to be concerned about the economy of a state for which he was responsible. What should a state governor do if the federal government does nothing to stem the tide of illegal immigrants who flock across the border for jobs in the US, and then tries to selectively enforce the immigration laws in his state, hurting businesses in his state? What should a state governor do when illegal immigrants have children in his state’s school system (about which he has no choice), and these students work hard and excel academically? Punish them because of their parents’ immigration status? As Mike said in one of the recent debates in defense of his position, “I think we’re a better country than that.” And what should a state governor do when his state’s farmers are denied access to a nearby market for their crops due to an international embargo?
Fred Thompson has never had to deal with these issues as part of any real life responsibility. So that brings us to the issue of the importance of the experience of being a successful state governor. The way I see it, there are two important aspects to this:
1) It is important to have a president who has the hands-on experience of reaching agreements with (mostly opposition party) legislative bodies (not to mention bureaucracies, the federal government and local governments, labor unions and other interest groups) re: all aspects of state government, from taxes to traffic to education to law-enforcement, and making it all work within the framework of a balanced budget, and
2) It is also crucial to have a president who has the perspective to understand precisely his role and responsibilities in the office to which he has been elected; to understand the difference between being governor of state (or mayor of a city, or CEO of a corporation, for that matter) and President of the United States.
And Mike Huckabee just keeps on demonstrating that he’s the best man for the biggest job.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Nanny State Mud Balls
I must confess to being a bit puzzled. After all, isn’t, the most invasive and intrusive arm of the federal big government the IRS? With Mike Huckabee’s Fair Tax plan, the IRS would be abolished, because the Fair Tax would tax consumption instead of income. So why does it seem that Mike Huckabee gets such visceral attacks from the “real conservatives” who say they hate “big government” so much?
Looking at the other GOP presidential candidates, they (with the exception of Giuliani) and their supporters claim to be more conservative than Mike. And of course, the great Rush Limbaugh—no elitist he— “know(s) who the conservatives are and aren’t”. Then how come the IRS is just fine with all of them? (with some notable exceptions, like Neal Boortz—who literally wrote the book on the Fair Tax—and Mark Levin).
I wonder what these “real conservatives” think the founding fathers would think of the IRS. How could the likes of Jefferson and Madison possibly have countenanced a federal government agency that had the power to intrude without limit into the intimate financial details of its citizens, because it needed to find out how much everybody earns, from whom and for what? Is it any wonder that it took a 20th century amendment to the US Constitution (the 16th, ratified in 1913) to create that monster in the first place? I think the founding fathers would be very suspicious of politicians who thought the likes of the IRS was tolerable in any way, especially if they claimed to be the “true conservatives”. Maybe that’s one reason Mike’s message resonates so well with conservative voters. He appreciates that most Americans fear an IRS audit more than they fear getting mugged.
Let’s face it. The Fair Tax would not only serve its named purpose of making the tax system fair, and provide huge benefits for the economy, by for example, reversing the offshore exodus of American capital, but it would also have the enormous benefit of getting the federal government out of our lives in so many ways. Not only would there be no IRS to keep track of our intimate personal financial details, but the institution of the Fair Tax would also end the myriad system of income tax credits and deductions, thereby ending that most precious preoccupation of liberal legislators: manipulating the tax code to engineer social policy, regarding everything from housing to health care to education. Truth is, nothing could possibly do more to reverse the slide toward the nanny state we’ve been on during our entire lifetime, than the enactment of Mike Huckabee’s Fair Tax.
So, beware the verbal volleys launched by the “true conservatives” who think the IRS is just fine, or who think the IRS is a ‘necessary evil’, or who think that in our democracy, the will of the majority could never hit the delete button on the IRS. Beware the rhetoric that would claim the constitutional high ground in the presidential race; those who say they want to restore the original intent of the framers of our Constitution, but cannot countenance ending the tyranny of the IRS.
They’re just slinging nanny state mud balls, and they won’t stick to Mike Huckabee!
Looking at the other GOP presidential candidates, they (with the exception of Giuliani) and their supporters claim to be more conservative than Mike. And of course, the great Rush Limbaugh—no elitist he— “know(s) who the conservatives are and aren’t”. Then how come the IRS is just fine with all of them? (with some notable exceptions, like Neal Boortz—who literally wrote the book on the Fair Tax—and Mark Levin).
I wonder what these “real conservatives” think the founding fathers would think of the IRS. How could the likes of Jefferson and Madison possibly have countenanced a federal government agency that had the power to intrude without limit into the intimate financial details of its citizens, because it needed to find out how much everybody earns, from whom and for what? Is it any wonder that it took a 20th century amendment to the US Constitution (the 16th, ratified in 1913) to create that monster in the first place? I think the founding fathers would be very suspicious of politicians who thought the likes of the IRS was tolerable in any way, especially if they claimed to be the “true conservatives”. Maybe that’s one reason Mike’s message resonates so well with conservative voters. He appreciates that most Americans fear an IRS audit more than they fear getting mugged.
Let’s face it. The Fair Tax would not only serve its named purpose of making the tax system fair, and provide huge benefits for the economy, by for example, reversing the offshore exodus of American capital, but it would also have the enormous benefit of getting the federal government out of our lives in so many ways. Not only would there be no IRS to keep track of our intimate personal financial details, but the institution of the Fair Tax would also end the myriad system of income tax credits and deductions, thereby ending that most precious preoccupation of liberal legislators: manipulating the tax code to engineer social policy, regarding everything from housing to health care to education. Truth is, nothing could possibly do more to reverse the slide toward the nanny state we’ve been on during our entire lifetime, than the enactment of Mike Huckabee’s Fair Tax.
So, beware the verbal volleys launched by the “true conservatives” who think the IRS is just fine, or who think the IRS is a ‘necessary evil’, or who think that in our democracy, the will of the majority could never hit the delete button on the IRS. Beware the rhetoric that would claim the constitutional high ground in the presidential race; those who say they want to restore the original intent of the framers of our Constitution, but cannot countenance ending the tyranny of the IRS.
They’re just slinging nanny state mud balls, and they won’t stick to Mike Huckabee!
Thursday, December 20, 2007
As the race narrows...
It is interesting to note that, as Tom Tancredo has withdrawn his candidacy, Dick Morris (on tonight’s O’Reilly Factor) suggested that the GOP race is boiling down to a contest between Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee. Morris added that Mike is the candidate of the social conservatives, while Romney is the candidate of the “blue blood” GOP establishment.
I wholeheartedly agree with Morris’ assessment. It sure is hard to doubt that the candidate who has outspent Mike by 20-to-one is the establishment candidate. And I think voters on both sides of the aisle are rejecting the well financed, slick establishment campaigns (not to mention all the often dishonest attack ads that issue forth from same).
And in case there was any doubt about the real candidate of social conservatives, it is also interesting that both Mike and pre-eminent conservative radio talk show hostess and author Laura Ingraham had virtually the same thing to say about Britney’s 16-year-old sister’s pregnancy: At least she’s doing the right thing in keeping the baby, rather than having an abortion. Killing an innocent person is never the right way out of a difficult, inconvenient or embarrassing situation. Leave it our man Mike to turn a seemingly trivial question about a wayward pop-culture icon into an opportunity to remind the public about the sanctity of human life. Now that’s how to use the bully pulpit!
And finally, in the mold of O’Reilly’s “most ridiculous item of the day” segment, how about my “most ridiculous question of the week”: Which is more ridiculous; Hillary attacking Obama for something he wrote in kindergarten, or everybody (or so it seems) attacking Mike Huckabee for wishing America a Merry Christmas?
God bless America!
I wholeheartedly agree with Morris’ assessment. It sure is hard to doubt that the candidate who has outspent Mike by 20-to-one is the establishment candidate. And I think voters on both sides of the aisle are rejecting the well financed, slick establishment campaigns (not to mention all the often dishonest attack ads that issue forth from same).
And in case there was any doubt about the real candidate of social conservatives, it is also interesting that both Mike and pre-eminent conservative radio talk show hostess and author Laura Ingraham had virtually the same thing to say about Britney’s 16-year-old sister’s pregnancy: At least she’s doing the right thing in keeping the baby, rather than having an abortion. Killing an innocent person is never the right way out of a difficult, inconvenient or embarrassing situation. Leave it our man Mike to turn a seemingly trivial question about a wayward pop-culture icon into an opportunity to remind the public about the sanctity of human life. Now that’s how to use the bully pulpit!
And finally, in the mold of O’Reilly’s “most ridiculous item of the day” segment, how about my “most ridiculous question of the week”: Which is more ridiculous; Hillary attacking Obama for something he wrote in kindergarten, or everybody (or so it seems) attacking Mike Huckabee for wishing America a Merry Christmas?
God bless America!
Newspeek debunks Romney attack on Mike Huckabee
Newsweek magazine has looked at Governor Romney's latest attack ad on Mike , and found it full of "false and misleading claims."
http://www.newsweek.com/id/80949
Romney is coming across as desperate in the last week, attacking Mike every chance he gets. We just need to keep pointing out the truth - and the positive nature of Mike's campaign.
I'm also happy top see the campaign is getting better about responding to these attacks quickly. Rollins' influence, I suspect.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/80949
Romney is coming across as desperate in the last week, attacking Mike every chance he gets. We just need to keep pointing out the truth - and the positive nature of Mike's campaign.
I'm also happy top see the campaign is getting better about responding to these attacks quickly. Rollins' influence, I suspect.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Mike Huckabee Needs New York Delegates!
Received the following message today from the campaign:
I'm a delegate. You should be one, too! Maybe we can meet at the Convention in September! :)
Dear Supporter,
Thanks to your help, Mike Huckabee has experienced a tremendous rise in polls nationwide and is continuing to build momentum for the Republican primaries. As the campaign moves forward, he needs more help in New York.
In order to be on the ballot in New York, Mike Huckabee must complete his slate of delegates in the state. The deadline is very close, and he still needs to find a number of delegates to make it! There is no time commitment or expense for delegates between now and the Republican National Convention next September, which delegates can attend if Gov. Huckabee wins their vote.
If you might be interested in serving as a delegate for Mike Huckabee, please reply to Jared Morris at jared.morris@explorehuckabee.com. In your reply, please include your home address and congressional district number, if you know it.
Th ank you for your support, and we hope you can help Mike Huckabee as a delegate in New York!
Best regards,
Jared Morris
Ballot Access Coordinator
Huckabee for President, Inc.
jared.morris@explorehuckabee.com
I'm a delegate. You should be one, too! Maybe we can meet at the Convention in September! :)
Quinnipiac Poll: Mike second in New York, and surging
The latest Quinnipiac poll has Mike second in New York - and cutting the sliding Giuliani's lead in half.
The December 17 poll results show Giuliani 34 percent, and Huckabee at 12 percent.
John McCain has 11 percent, Fred Thompson has 7 percent, and Mitt Romney and Ron Paul bot get 5 percent.
Giuliani held a 45 - 12 lead over Thompson in an October 17 poll. Huckabee had only 1 percent in that poll.
So Giuliani dropped 11 points overall, and his lead over Mike shrank from 44 to 22.
Keep getting the word out!
The December 17 poll results show Giuliani 34 percent, and Huckabee at 12 percent.
John McCain has 11 percent, Fred Thompson has 7 percent, and Mitt Romney and Ron Paul bot get 5 percent.
Giuliani held a 45 - 12 lead over Thompson in an October 17 poll. Huckabee had only 1 percent in that poll.
So Giuliani dropped 11 points overall, and his lead over Mike shrank from 44 to 22.
Keep getting the word out!
Huckabee wins O'Reilly "poll"
Although Bill O'Reilly has been tough on him, people who visit O'Reilly's site obviously like Mike Huckabee.
In an unscientific survey, Huckabee eaily beat the other main GOP candidates.
Q: At this point in the campaign, which Republican candidate do you prefer?
Huckabee - 43%
Romney - 32%
Giuliani - 19%
McCain - 6%
Total Votes: 40054
In an unscientific survey, Huckabee eaily beat the other main GOP candidates.
Q: At this point in the campaign, which Republican candidate do you prefer?
Huckabee - 43%
Romney - 32%
Giuliani - 19%
McCain - 6%
Total Votes: 40054
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Huckabee and America's Priorities in the War on Terror
An article by Mike Huckabee about the War on Terror and American foreign policy is on RealClearPolitics today. You can find it here:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/12/americas_priorities_in_the_war.html
He wrote about American foreign policy, securing Iraq, containing Iran, and tough love for Pakistan.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/12/americas_priorities_in_the_war.html
He wrote about American foreign policy, securing Iraq, containing Iran, and tough love for Pakistan.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Governor Huckabee reaches out to Catholics
Mike Huckabee was recently interviewed by Catholic Online. (http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=26206)
He talked about pro-life issues, education (and school choice), Iraq, taxes, immigration, terrorism, and more.
More and more Catholics are joining with evangelicals to support Mike. This will be important in New York, with its large Catholic population.
Don't forget to write letters to your local Catholic newspapers!
He talked about pro-life issues, education (and school choice), Iraq, taxes, immigration, terrorism, and more.
More and more Catholics are joining with evangelicals to support Mike. This will be important in New York, with its large Catholic population.
Don't forget to write letters to your local Catholic newspapers!
Friday, December 14, 2007
Rollins to head campaign; new polls looking good
The man who helped Ronald Reagan win 49 states in 1984 has signed on with Mike Huckabee's campaign as national campaign manager.
Ed Rollins also worked for Presidents Nixon and Ford.
So many Republicans look back with fondness to the Reagan years and his brand of Conservativism, and this addition to the staff just helps to link the Huckabee's campaign to Reagan and those feelings.
Meanwhile, in the latest Rasmussen poll, Huckabee continues to lead Giuliani 23 to 19 nationally despite a slew of unfounded attacks on Mike. He is also leading Romney 39 to 23 in Iowa, Romney and Thompson 25 to 18 in South Carolina, and Romney 27 to 23 in Florida, and is in a statistical tie with Romney (but still ahead 21 to 20) in Michigan.
In states like New York and New Hampshire Huckabee is trailing in recent polls - but he is only really beggining to campaign in New Hampshire, and hasn't done so in New York yet.
For now, getting out his name and the word about him is up to us.
Ed Rollins also worked for Presidents Nixon and Ford.
So many Republicans look back with fondness to the Reagan years and his brand of Conservativism, and this addition to the staff just helps to link the Huckabee's campaign to Reagan and those feelings.
Meanwhile, in the latest Rasmussen poll, Huckabee continues to lead Giuliani 23 to 19 nationally despite a slew of unfounded attacks on Mike. He is also leading Romney 39 to 23 in Iowa, Romney and Thompson 25 to 18 in South Carolina, and Romney 27 to 23 in Florida, and is in a statistical tie with Romney (but still ahead 21 to 20) in Michigan.
In states like New York and New Hampshire Huckabee is trailing in recent polls - but he is only really beggining to campaign in New Hampshire, and hasn't done so in New York yet.
For now, getting out his name and the word about him is up to us.
Monday, December 10, 2007
New Poll: Huckabee second in New York
Although he has yet to campaign in New York, Governor Mike Huckabee has already risen to second in New York in a new poll - and he is rapidly gaining on the leader.
In the survey conducted December 2-8 by California-based Datamar Inc., Huckabee was the choice of 13.6 New York voters.
He now trails only Rudolph Giuiani, who was the choice of 35.7 percent.
But there's more.
In Datamar's November survey, Huckabee had commanded only 7.8 percent of the vote, and was in fifth place. So he has nearly doubled his numbers and vaulted over three other candidates.
The surge is evidently having an affect here.
Meanwhile, in November, Giulini had 38.8 percent. The new poll suggests his suport is slipping. He held a 31.1 point lead over Huckanbee in November. That has closed to 22.1.
And remember, we have barely begun efforts in New York.
Here's the data for the top tier candidates.
December
Giuliani - 35.7
Huckabee - 13.6
McCain - 11.3
Romney - 9.9
Thompson - 7.1
November
Giuliani - 38.8
Huckabee - 7.8
McCain - 9.8
Romney - 11.8
Thompson - 9.9
No other candidate gets more than 3.5 (Paul).
A significant figure in the latest survey is that 16.6 of the surveyed voters are still undecided slightly up from the 16.5 in November. These are the people we have to reach in the coming weeks.
(To see the full poll, go to http://www.datamar.net/pdf/nyrepublicanPPdec07.pdf)
In the survey conducted December 2-8 by California-based Datamar Inc., Huckabee was the choice of 13.6 New York voters.
He now trails only Rudolph Giuiani, who was the choice of 35.7 percent.
But there's more.
In Datamar's November survey, Huckabee had commanded only 7.8 percent of the vote, and was in fifth place. So he has nearly doubled his numbers and vaulted over three other candidates.
The surge is evidently having an affect here.
Meanwhile, in November, Giulini had 38.8 percent. The new poll suggests his suport is slipping. He held a 31.1 point lead over Huckanbee in November. That has closed to 22.1.
And remember, we have barely begun efforts in New York.
Here's the data for the top tier candidates.
December
Giuliani - 35.7
Huckabee - 13.6
McCain - 11.3
Romney - 9.9
Thompson - 7.1
November
Giuliani - 38.8
Huckabee - 7.8
McCain - 9.8
Romney - 11.8
Thompson - 9.9
No other candidate gets more than 3.5 (Paul).
A significant figure in the latest survey is that 16.6 of the surveyed voters are still undecided slightly up from the 16.5 in November. These are the people we have to reach in the coming weeks.
(To see the full poll, go to http://www.datamar.net/pdf/nyrepublicanPPdec07.pdf)
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Cohen's narrow-minded attack on Huckabee
In his December 5 column in the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle ("Huckabee’s moment of shame”), Richard Cohen accused Governor Mike Huckabee of “punting” when asked by ABC’s George Stephanopoulos if Governor Mitt Romney, a Mormon, is a Christian.
He also accused Huckabee of having “obdurate and narrow-minded religious beliefs.”
I suggest that Mr. Cohen has such narrow-minded beliefs, and that he does not understand Christianity or Huckabee.
Huckabee’s told Stephanopoulos, “Mitt Romney has to answer that. ... It's not for me to determine what somebody else's faith is.”
He was stating common Christian beliefs that each person has to account for his own faith, and it is not for other's to judge what lies in a person's heart. Moreover, Huckabee left ministry a long ago to become a public servant. He is running now to be President of a multi-religious United States, not Evangelical-in-Chief.
Further, Huckabee avoids tearing down others – as he declined to do to Rudy Giuliani in the same interview. Huckabee is trying to focus on issues and a vision for America.
People may disagree with him on those issues and that vision. That’s fine. But Cohen going after Huckabee on religious grounds for not going after another candidate on religious grounds strikes me as “narrow-minded.”
Echoing Cohen’s football reference, I think in this case Cohen’s attempted bomb was just an incomplete pass.
(A modified version of the above is being submitted as a letter to the editor.)
He also accused Huckabee of having “obdurate and narrow-minded religious beliefs.”
I suggest that Mr. Cohen has such narrow-minded beliefs, and that he does not understand Christianity or Huckabee.
Huckabee’s told Stephanopoulos, “Mitt Romney has to answer that. ... It's not for me to determine what somebody else's faith is.”
He was stating common Christian beliefs that each person has to account for his own faith, and it is not for other's to judge what lies in a person's heart. Moreover, Huckabee left ministry a long ago to become a public servant. He is running now to be President of a multi-religious United States, not Evangelical-in-Chief.
Further, Huckabee avoids tearing down others – as he declined to do to Rudy Giuliani in the same interview. Huckabee is trying to focus on issues and a vision for America.
People may disagree with him on those issues and that vision. That’s fine. But Cohen going after Huckabee on religious grounds for not going after another candidate on religious grounds strikes me as “narrow-minded.”
Echoing Cohen’s football reference, I think in this case Cohen’s attempted bomb was just an incomplete pass.
(A modified version of the above is being submitted as a letter to the editor.)
Saturday, December 1, 2007
Huckabee on immigration
Now that Mike Huckabee is rising in the polls – leading in at least one poll in Iowa, and second nationally in the most recent Rasmussen Tracking Poll - he is coming under increasing attack.
One target of critics is Immigration. Governor’s Huckabee’s record has been distorted – particularly in terms of “scholarships for illegal immigrants” - and his positions have been ignored or even misrepresented.
Here are some of the things he is actually calling for:
He says our borders must be secure.
He supports the $3 billion the Senate has voted for border security.
He opposes amnesty and sanctuaries for illegal aliens.
He opposes giving driver’s licenses to illegal aliens (as was proposed by Governor Spitzer in New York).
He believes that employers who hire illegal aliens should be punished with fines and penalties.
He opposes the economic integration of North America that would create open borders among the United States, Canada, and Mexico.
So his positions are pretty clear.
As for the issue of illegal immigrants getting tuition assistance in Arkansas, the facts are different than his opponents are implying.
There was a bill in 2005 that would've given children of illegal immigrant the lower in-state tuition rates offered to other Arkansas students. There was also an academic merit-based state scholarship that they would have been able to apply for if they met the criteria.
But the children of Illegal immigrants had to have gone through the Arkansas school system, and had to have the ability to pay instate tuition rates for college education.
Further, the proposed law contained a clause that said those children who accepted the lower tuition would have to file an affidavit stating that they intended to legalize their immigration status.
Thus, if enacted, the law would have affected a limited number of such students, not the large numbers of students Governor Huckabee’s opponents have tried to imply.
The law did not pass anyway.
When challenged at the You Tube Debate about the issue by Mitt Romney, Huckabee replied, "In all due respect, we're a better country than to punish children for what their parents did. We're a better country than that."
For a more complete explanation of his position, go to http://www.mikehuckabee.com
One target of critics is Immigration. Governor’s Huckabee’s record has been distorted – particularly in terms of “scholarships for illegal immigrants” - and his positions have been ignored or even misrepresented.
Here are some of the things he is actually calling for:
He says our borders must be secure.
He supports the $3 billion the Senate has voted for border security.
He opposes amnesty and sanctuaries for illegal aliens.
He opposes giving driver’s licenses to illegal aliens (as was proposed by Governor Spitzer in New York).
He believes that employers who hire illegal aliens should be punished with fines and penalties.
He opposes the economic integration of North America that would create open borders among the United States, Canada, and Mexico.
So his positions are pretty clear.
As for the issue of illegal immigrants getting tuition assistance in Arkansas, the facts are different than his opponents are implying.
There was a bill in 2005 that would've given children of illegal immigrant the lower in-state tuition rates offered to other Arkansas students. There was also an academic merit-based state scholarship that they would have been able to apply for if they met the criteria.
But the children of Illegal immigrants had to have gone through the Arkansas school system, and had to have the ability to pay instate tuition rates for college education.
Further, the proposed law contained a clause that said those children who accepted the lower tuition would have to file an affidavit stating that they intended to legalize their immigration status.
Thus, if enacted, the law would have affected a limited number of such students, not the large numbers of students Governor Huckabee’s opponents have tried to imply.
The law did not pass anyway.
When challenged at the You Tube Debate about the issue by Mitt Romney, Huckabee replied, "In all due respect, we're a better country than to punish children for what their parents did. We're a better country than that."
For a more complete explanation of his position, go to http://www.mikehuckabee.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
