You know why Huck hasn’t spent more? He can’t find enough people to give him the money.
In a primary where the winner is up against the 100 million dollar lady, I just can’t believe some Huckabee guys make it out to be such a good thing that their guy is unable to raise funds.
A small denominator does not logically translate into an effective campaign strategy..
Let us not forget the “unquantifiable costs” of Huck’s persistant free media love or the LOADS of dough that the Fair Tax group paid to bring in thousands of people to the Ames Straw Poll to vote for Huck (the Johnny come lately to the cause).
Actually, the Fair Tax people are out of money and won’t be spending anything on GOTV efforts in the Iowa Caucus. That’s a blow to Huckabee.
Now I’m not going to speculate about a supposed army of illegal Mexicans with Arkansas scholarships doing door to door work in Iowa. I’ll wait for the video footage. This Huckster is an ascendant guy. He’ll knock Rudy out.
Just a guess on why Huckabee hasn’t raised the funds of other candidates:
1. Most people have not perceived him to have a chance of winning. They don’t want to give their money to someone who will lose. You might as well flush it down the toilet and at least you’ll get some entertainment watching it swirl around and around for a little bit. This situation is improving for him, so the donations will start to reflect that, as they have recently. I think he reports having about $3 million cash on hand presently.
2. Huckabee supporters typically fall into a different demographic than other candidate’s supporters. They are more rural, Southern, and typically don’t have a lot of money. They are the types that are very interested in social issues and maybe not so much in taxes or other fiscal issues, although they are probably fiscally conservative too. It’s just not a number one priority. Huckabee doesn’t have a lot of high dollar contributors because a lot of people give him $20 or $50 or something like that.
3. Huckabee rubs the establishment Republicans the wrong way, and that’s putting it nicely. Establishment Republicans aren’t going to raise any money for him, and they will likely give money to someone to attack him. So, that source of money dries up.
That’s my theory on why he has trouble raising money.
No. He only offered a bus ride and a free meal in an air conditioned tent. The Huckster is the one giving out 50 cents per signature. He thinks he can just buy the nomination. The Huckster has no shame.
What is it about the money? Well, I think that money doesn’t mean you have
more votes. It might mean your candidate has more wealthy voters, but not
more votes. The republican party is not up for sale among the social conservatives
who also might be fiscal conservatives. I agree with comment number 6 on all points.
Ron Paul receives a lot of money from a fanatical loud few. Romney has
a lot of money too from the NE and Mormon solidarity. Rudy gets his support
from the NE as well and more celebrity than anything. Huckabee will grow
with time and each success. Huckabee winning or showing strong in the early states
will show that he is electable.
16 – nice assessment except you left out the part about Huckabee being a populist who is incredibly soft on illegal immigration and views American’s desire to uphold the rule of law as the same as slavery.
Huckabee was very clear that believes in Border Security and stoping the
flow of illegal immigration. He also is against farming out good paying
manufacturing jobs oversees for lower wages. I think the issue is over
his character. Does Huckabee have the character to follow through with
his promise to see the wall/fence built both physical and technological as
well as the man power to enforce that wall/fence. Or is Huckabee’s character
one that will make a promise as key as the immigration issue and not make
good on it.
21 – tuition breaks for illegals = solid immigration plan. Ok, sure… No amnesty = we’re all slave holders… Ok, sure… Not fair that illegals pay into SSN with a fake SSN and never get benefits… OK, sure… Do we really need to go down the list?
Sure – Huck’s hearing the uproar so I’m not surprised he’s now singing a different song.
I know. This Huckabee thing is just unreal. Huckabee has done more lying, more obfuscating, more backtracking and backpedaling on his record, then Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani combined. And that’s when he’s not being open about his liberalism (which is alarmingly often).
Is it his religious background that scares you about Huckabee?
It is alright to admit it. After all, some are scared about
Mitt Romney’s Mormonism. The truth is Huckabee is a likeable
guy, so criticism of him gets a little more stretched like on
the immigration issue.
How am I trying to “fool” you? I heard Huck with my own ears around 4:15 EST today on Sean Hannity. In addition, I’ve read what Huck states on his website and I’ve heard what he has said elsewhere. He is very strong on immigration, like it or not.
Jeff,
Huck is not “singing a different song.” He has been saying his position consistently throughout his campaign.
I did not hear the initial portion so I cannot say. Where I picked it up they had just begun talking about attacks from others and then it moved into immigration. Sean pressed Huck on the matter, asking if he was agreeable to requiring illegals to leave the country to become legal immigrants, to which Huck agreed. Huck did say that he believed the process for legal immigration takes too long today, which is true.
I don’t know about Jeff, but I read C.S. Lewis, N.T. Wright, G.K. Chesterton, or Gary Habermas weekly. I love that Huckabee is strongly religious. It’s his liberalism that bothers me. I have a similar problem with Jimmy Carter.
“How am I trying to “fool†you? I heard Huck with my own ears around 4:15 EST today on Sean Hannity. In addition, I’ve read what Huck states on his website and I’ve heard what he has said elsewhere. He is very strong on immigration, like it or not.”
Let me rephrase that. Huckabee can’t fool me. I’m sure you’re not attempting to fool me. No doubt you believe Huckabee when he claims he’s strong on immigration. To that, I can simply refer you to a number of strong anti-illegal immigration groups. I defy you to find one that isn’t horrified by Huckabee’s record, and past rhetoric.
Illegal Immigration is tying up our resources in the prisons, on the health
care industry, and on border security. First thing needed to be done is to
follow through with the building of that wall/fence which is already passed
into law. I’m not sure McCain or Rudy will follow through with the building
up of that wall/fence.
Didn’t Huckabee support the ealry release of a convicted rapist who turned aroud a murdered someone in Missouri? I know I saw an article on it the other day. Oh, and it appears that Giuliani’s scandal from the other day is not going away.
Note: I’ve said my piece on Mike Huckabee and don’t plan on posting this on the front page unless I get annoyed, and because I don’t like to dwell on candidates weaknesses, but Matthew or someone else is free to post it if they get the feeling that it needs to be addressed. This ran in the Washington Times today
Immigration group: Huckabee a ‘disaster’
By Stephen Dinan
November 30, 2007
Groups that support a crackdown on illegal aliens haven’t settled on their champion in the race for the White House, but there’s little doubt which Republican scares them most — former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.
“He was an absolute disaster on immigration as governor,” said Roy Beck, president of NumbersUSA, a group that played a major role in rallying the phone calls that helped defeat this year’s Senate immigration bill. “Every time there was any enforcement in his state, he took the side of the illegal aliens.”
As Mr. Huckabee rises in the polls, his opponents are beginning to take shots at him on immigration. Just as problematic for the former Arkansas governor, however, is that the independent interest groups that track the issue are also giving him the once-over, and don’t like what they see.
“Huckabee is the guy who scares the heck out of me,” said Peter Gadiel, president of 9-11 Families for a Secure America, a group instrumental in fighting for the REAL ID Act that sets federal standards for driver’s licenses.
Some leaders said Mr. Huckabee reminds them of President Bush, who pushed for legalization of illegal aliens and a new supply of foreign guest workers, despite his base calling for better border security and enforcement.
“I would say that Huckabee comes from the same perspective on the issue that George W. Bush came from – that out of a strong sense of compassion, he tries to identify with someone who comes to the United States, even if they came illegally,” said Steven A. Camarota, research director for the Center for Immigration Studies.
Mr. Huckabee yesterday defended his record, but he said if voters are looking for the toughest guy, he’s not their man.
The fence is not the entirity of the solution to illegal immigration. It also requires shutting down the illegal immigration magnets, in the form of cities that provide sanctuary for illegal workers, and states that provide social security benefits and subsidized tuition.
Huckabee’s comparison of the enforcement of immigration laws to slavery laws says it all.
Yes he did, in part based upon the testimony of a DNA expert that the available DNA evidence did not match the convicted man. Even so, it was a terrible tragedy.
I don’t see the liberalism that you refer to with Huckabee in relation
to any of the other candidates except Fred Thompson. As for Fred, I like
him and I do agree with him on most issues social,fiscal, and issues of
national security. Fred just enter into this race late and isn’t spurring
any excitement. Fred looked awake in the last debate compared to the other
debates he participated in, but he didn’t capitalize on anything to stand
out. Huckabee did and does. That is why Huckabee is growing in support and
Thompson is struggling to gain support.
I think Reagan was a generally strong president, who ushered in, through his rhetoric, a national interest in limited government. His actions, though sometimes flawed, usually reflected that. You’re free to compare Huckabee to Reagan if you’d like; that argument gains no traction with me. Ronald Reagan spent the 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s absolutely within the conservative movement. He read NR weekly. He read conservative masterpieces like the Road to Serfdom and The Abolition of Man. And his rhetoric reflected one central principle; government is the problem.
That he sometimes failed to live this can be attributed to his era; it took the presidency of a Ronald Reagan, to make the ideals of a Ronald Reagan possible. He made the country safe for limited government, and limited government arguments. Born into (as a politician) this newly conservative era, Mike Huckabee repeatedly raised taxes, increased spending tremendously, and now continually rails against wall street, CEO’s and the Club for Growth.
On immigration, I have nothing to good to say about either Reagan or Huckabee, so you won’t win any points there. But, I’ll note that immigration has reached a much larger crescendo in our era, and Mike Huckabee still doesn’t get it (as evinced by his record and pre-November rhetoric).
You cannot compare one’s policies as a governor to one’s as president. As a governor one has to work within the system provided by the federal government. As they have entirely failed to address the issue what Huckabee and the other candidates have done has been within the confines of that. Huckabee has clearly stated his position on how the issues should be resolved at the federal level, making your entirely case a comparison of apples and oranges.
Perhaps you could tell me now your thoughts on Reagan. Would you compare Reagan’s moves a governor to raise taxes and allow for abortion to his presidency? Was he liberal or conservative? Remember, he supported amnesty which Huckabee opposes.
Here is one article about Huckabee’s steps to release the convicted rapist early. The criminal turned around and murdered somebody in a neighboring state.
You apparently are not fully aware of Reagan’s history of raising taxes as a governor are you? How about his early position on abortion? How about his position on amnesty?
Wow. You Romboosters are far too modest today! None of you have proudly pointed out your candidate’s abilities to self-finance, whereas Huck has to rely on a bunch of grubby donors.
But as you guys have told us, Mitt can repay his supporters out of petty cash, telling them, “Go screw yourselves! I bought this infernal campaign with my own money! No one can tell me what to do now!”
I’m not saying that addressing employers who hire illegal immigrants should
get a pass, and I understand that there are locations in the nation that
entice illegal immigrants to live in their areas. What I am saying is that
stopping illegal immigration will first need to take place at secure our
borders.
I think the fact that some of the biggest anti-illegal immigration groups are openly opposing Huckabee is the biggest statement. They are third=party groups looking for a guys strong on illiegale immigration, and they are running scared from him.
Huckabee’s rise in the polls has got me thinking about the possibility of him being president and I’m not excited (unless the alternative is Rudy). Why don’t I like him? Well, the reason was a bit of a shocker to me as I’m consider myself a Christian, but Huckabee reminds me too much of Jesus. The key issue being his compassion.
Huckabee is a true love your enemy, turn the other cheek, do good to them that despitefully use you, mercy not justice kind of Christian. And he lets these views guide his public policy decisions. I believe our society must by guided by justice, not mercy, and Huckabee extends mercy at every turn. From letting rapists go free to giving illegal’s amnesty.
I want a justice system that is fair and enforced. I fear Huckabee would instead work to replace it with a deranged form of feel-sorry-for-the-sinner merci system, as he strikes me as entirely incapable of “tough” love.
Read my argument. I’m fully aware that Reagan raised taxes, and had a less then perfect record on abortion. But, he raised taxes in an era when no one even CONSIDERED not raising taxes. It was simply understood that one raised taxes; limited government didn’t exist. Placed against that backdrop, Reagan’s record was really quite strong, and it counts for an awful lot that he argued for conservatism. Also, during the 60’s social conservatism was a political chimera. That Reagan could come to regret his actions, before the movement gained political heft, is remarkable.
Comparing Mike Huckabee to Ronald Reagan is like comparing Reagan to Woodrow Wilson, who’s record on fiscal issues might be considered relatively reasonable by modern lights. Because, Wilson existed in an era where limited Government was such a strong force, even he couldn’t fully botch it. Mike Huckabee grew of age (politically) in an era that had been made safe for conservatism; and he decided he preferred liberalism. That’s all I need to know.
Richard P, I think you are on to something. Mike is not really strong on any issue, and maybe it’s part of his character to be always forgiving and to turn the other cheek.
I think it has been made plainly clear on more than one occasion that Huck had no choice but to raise taxes. He had already cut as much out of the budget as possible, yet he had a failing infrastructure, he had a court ordered mandate to improve schools and he had an imbalanced budget with no room for additional cuts without cutting in to essential services. What would you have done in said situation?
I actually don’t fault Rudy or Mike on immigration. I’m perhaps a bit naive but it’s the federal government’s job to deport illegal aliens and prevent their entry.
If the National Government won’t do that than states are left with limited equally bad options.
Do they force illegals underground and deal with the larger resulting social and criminal problems?
Do they give illegals some sense of security? At what price?
I’m uncomfortable with the decisions Mike and Rudy made but I’m not sure they had any good choices. The real action needs to be taken in Washington to seal the border and begin employment enforcement.
Maybe I am overdoing it, but MIke has to start talking strongly about certain issues. We’ve seen too much of him giving in to taxes, giving in to children of illegal aliends, giving in to criminals, etc.
So he authorized executions? He also successfully lobbied for a rapist to go free. And he’s implied that I’m not a true Christian because I want to send illegals home – a classic liberal guilt tripping technique.
The best quality that Ronald Reagan and Mike Huckabee share is their
ability to communicate. They both are articulate and both have a
sense of humor. They both understood the need to have an excited
social conservative base that appeals to a sensible fiscal conservative
base.
I thought Huckabee’s answer in the debate on Wednesday about execution
was great.
uncle bernie from weekend at bernie’s would get 30% vote in iowa if he was the only evangelical running against a mormon. that is the sole explanation for the numbers.
Are you aware of why he did that for the rapist? Not that it was the correct decision, but in view of what he had in front of him I cannot entirely blame him. But the very fact that he did carry out executions demonstrates that your concern is unjustified. He carries out the law. In fact he plainly articulated as much yesterday on Hardball.
Ah yes. Huckabee had no choice but to raise taxes. Gotcha. He’d already cut as much out of the budget as possible. Wonderful. So I guess budget’s just HAVE to expand at 3 times the rate of inflation? Funny how 40+ states managed to expand their budgets at a lesser rate. There’s always a choice. Huckabee made clear what sort of choice he favored.
Actually he was required to balance the budget per the state constitution. As the only other place he had to cut spending was in essential services, he did have no choice.
And beyond the congress, as I have already pointed out, certain things were required by the court (education) to have additional spending applied to them.
EGS: The real action needs to be taken in Washington to seal the border and begin employment enforcement.
Mitt recognized this fact as recently as ‘05/’06 when he welcomed comprehensive immigration reform at the federal level.
Now, of course, he’s changed his direction faster than he threw Reagan under the bus in ‘94 — before exhuming his corpse just this year. Or maybe not. When it comes to the “Eleventh Commandment,” it’s back under the bus for you, Ronnie!
I don’t consider Huckabee’s inability to raise vast sums of money a virtue, but apparently it doesn’t matter as much in this election as everyone supposed when they were calling for a $100 million primary. Either that, or Romney really stinks as a candidate because he outspend Huck 21:1 in Iowa and is running behind, and is even with Huck nationally.
You guys gotta admit that this is really embarrassing for Romney. Huckabee may stink as a fundraiser, but as a candidate, he can garner support equal in size (and more intense) than Romney’s with 5% of his money. What’s that say about Romney?
If you are not for Huckabee, then who are you for and why? Because it
is obvious that you won’t accept the response that Huckabee has given
concerning the issues of taxes and immigration. Not that any of the other
candidates sound all that good on these issues or on social issues.
The reason Huck had to only spend $327K is because he has been consistent on Abortion and an Evangelical. This falls right in the sweet spot of a nice size Iowa voting block. Couple that with the fact that Huck is a pretty affable personality which helps tremendously in politics.
Romney on the other hand is behind Huck in all three areas which I guess it takes over 7 times the money to compensate. Don’t know what to make of that.
Considering the MSM has fallen in love with Huck maybe that should make conservatives pause
No, I’m not. Arkansas has a majority Democratic legislature, but any student of political history is well aware that Arkansas Democrats aren’t real Democrats. Alot of Southern states are controlled by Democrats at the state level, due to lingering post-New Deal allegiances. Nearby Louisiana has a majority Dem legislature as well, and previously had even larger majorities (including a veritable lock on all the statewide offices before this election cycle). Arkansas’s legislature is considerably more conservative NJ’s, for instance, even though NJ’s looks more conservative on paper. This is like political history 101.
I’m not a Paulite, but I find it interesting the way his supporters are dismissed for flooding online polls and whatnot when other candidates have supporters doing that. Nothing illegal, just sleazy.
Excellent point MWS. Why is it that Huckabee is even considered if Romney
is such a strong candidate in the polls and considering the money being spent.
Iowa is not about being bought, it is about a candidate that you can trust
to represent the best character of the nation.
“Actually he was required to balance the budget per the state constitution. As the only other place he had to cut spending was in essential services, he did have no choice.”
Nonsense. 38 states have strict balanced budget provisions, 32 of them are constitutional amendments. How is it that the Governor’s of these states managed to balance budgets, and still maintain a better record then Huckabee?
In relation to comment 74. There is nothing like party solidarity over
a individuals political view point. Democrats sometimes vote against
a Republican for the mere fact that they are Democrats and the other is
a Republican. In other words Democrats often favor party over principle.
Matthew’s right. We in Tennessee have just elected our first GOP controlled state legislature since the Civil War, and it’s likely to fall back into Dem hands again.
I think Dick Morris’ column makes an important point on this issue: “A recent column by Bob Novak excoriated Huckabee for a “47 percent increase in state tax burden.” But during Huckabee’s years in office, total state tax burden — all 50 states combined — rose by twice as much: 98 percent, increasing from $743 billion in 1993 to $1.47 trillion in 2005.” – http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/11/huckabee_is_a_fiscal_conservat.html
Bill Clinton ran as a liberal in his first gubernatorial race. He won on charisma, governed atrociously, and watched his wife’s style bring him to defeat 2 years later. He then moved sharply to the right, and was able to win again after a 2 year hiatus. But, you’re not going to win points with me by arguing that Bill Clinton’s an example of an incredibly liberal Arkansan. I’d easily choose Clinton on fiscal matters, over Huckabee. Without blinking.
Consider the source. Did Morris write that from his exile in Uganda or wherever he is? If anything, having Morris in your corner slimes your candidate. I can’t believe Huckabee actually had him work for him. That guy is the scum of the earth.
Mark,
Morris is a professional slime artist. He is the classic example of someone who glosses over numbers and can not be trusted as a reliable source. Find someone with a little credibility to make your argument.
Choose Bill Clinton over Mike Huckabee. You’ve got to be kidding. Anyone but
Bill Clinton or his wife for that matter. No good comes from siding with Bill
Clinton and then talk about conservatism.
Technically, 49 states have balanced budget provisions, but only 38 or so have strict provisions. I’m extremely skeptical about Morris’s article vis-a-vis overall state tax burden increases (the rest of the article is simply total nonsense). According to the taxfoundation, Arkansas went from the 30th highest taxed state, to the 13th during Huckabee’s tenure. In order for that stat to be accurate, either the 12 states below Ark must have increased their taxes beyond all reason, or the 37 states above Ark must have increased their taxes not at all. Regardless, moving from 30th to 13th, when Arkansas’s relative tax burden hardly increased at all during the preceding 20 or so years (including during Clinton’s governorship) isn’t something to brag about.
Mark, there was nothing stopping him from cutting taxes elsewhere. You say he couldn’t have because the only thing left were essential sevices. Yah, that’s what the democrats always say. Huckabee voluntarily increased taxes, period! There is not a lot more to say on this.
I have no idea if I’d actually chose Bill Clinton over Huckabee, on the totality of their positions. I obviously prefer Huckabee on social issues, and judges. But, I’d seriously consider Bill in such a matchup. I doubt I’d vote for either Hillary or Bill, if faced with Bill/Huck or Hill/Huck matchups, because I try not to vote for radical social liberals. But, I can’t say with any confidence I’d vote for Huckabee.
Of course we have to examine the situation. One cannot simply cite numbers as you are guilty of doing. One must examine the condition of the state when Huckabee took office and determine what was necessary in order for the state to operate properly. What was the condition of roads? What of law enforcement? What of education? Was more money after all possible spending was cut necessary?
I got to go. Last statment for me is this… Huckabee is surging not just in
Iowa and there has to be a reason for that and calling him liberal isn’t going
to stop him from surging in states like Okalahoma, Florida, South Carolina, and
(Yes I will say it) in New Hampshire.
Ben,
Morris’ point of view sways with whichever way the political winds blow him. That’s like asking Karl Rove if he thinks W. Bush is a true conservative.
I understand that. But, what Huckabee’s supporters have failed to do, is provide any reason to believe the state of Arkansas was, relatively speaking, in dire shape. Granted that they needed roads and education, for the sake of argument, how is this different from any number of other fiscal crises states face? It’s the traditional liberal argument to claim that spending and tax increases are justified, because the state needed spending and tax increases. In fact, if there’s an argument that better sums up fiscal liberalism, I haven’t seen it. I’d also categorically reject the idea that Huckabee “cut all possible spending”. It is not so. Spending doesn’t naturally increase at 3 times the rate of inflation. If it has, you’ve neglected to trim a good deal of fat.
There may be a lot of spinning from Huckabee supporters about taxes and immigration,
but the bottom line is that people who have been conservative on these issues for
years are not buying it which does not bode well.
On the matter of schools, the fact that the state supreme court issued an order on the matter substantiates my claim.
The issue is the condition that these things were in at the time and so what additional spending was required to address them. It is on record that in 01 Huckabee cut spending by $143 million.
On the matter of one $377 million tax hike in ‘04 for education that went beyond what he desired, he did not put his signature on it. It passed in the House 99-0, so even if he did veto it what good would it have done? Nothing.
These are just a couple of examples. I’m sure I could dig up many more interesting points, but hopefully it will give some pause before attacking him without proper research.
The higher spending/taxes in Arkansas were related to Arkansas’s Medicaid burden (25% of the population is enrolled), attempts to improve education and roads. If you factor out those things the budget was unchanged from year to year under Mike Huckabee.
Medicaid spending grew 240% from 1996 to 2006 in Arkansas. That was faster than the national rate of 195%. I think that explains to a large degree the tight spot Huckabee found himself in.
Anyone living in Arkansas will tell you how Huckabee attempted to cut spending and how he passed tax cuts as soon as revenues allowed it.
As I stated yesterday, the arguement from Mitt haters when he wins several early states will immediately be that he bought the wins. Lame really, because when you raise money, and have money, you are suppose to spend money. GWB was great as raising money and I never suggested he bought his wins as president. Huck has spent so little because he hasnt raised much. Romney has raised more YTD than even Rudy. He is doing so well right now in IA because a lot more people think this is a Baptist Preacher vs Mormon, rather than Romney vs Huck (on their records as governor). The country is starting to become educated on Huck’s liberal record on some issues, and following IA (win or lose)- HE IS DONE! Someone make an arguement please on another state he has a chance at carrying when he has little funds, resources, and organization. Especially against Mitt and Rudy.
With those results
1. Romney would begin to look unbeatable
2. Huck’s IA story would remain just an IA story like candidates in the past
3. Rudy would get hammered by the MSM for 2 3rd place finishes in a row, his poll numbers everywhere will dip some.
4. Thompson drops out and Romney gets most of his support
5. McCain drops out too, and many go to Rudy (while some go to Romney)
That brings us to the real 2 man show where Rudy wins NY and NJ but fades away, Romney wins over the SoCon’s, and carries MI, NV, and SC too. Florida will be Rudy’s last stand!
Let us review one of the Club for Growth attacks against Huckabee:
“Immediately upon taking office, Governor Huckabee signed a sales tax hike in 1996 to fund the Games and Fishing Commission and the Department of Parks and Tourism.”
While this is true there is an essential point missing. The people of Arknasas voted on this tax and *they* approved it.
Rett, have you forgetten the magic that was Fred? He roared to rank #1 for a while without SPENDING A PENNY only to be imploded. I am starting to think that those evangelicals are jumping gun only because they are trying very hard not to look at some candidates.
Eric (#6) Historically, evangelicals are among those who are the biggest contributors of the campaigns. If Huckabee is drawing many of them as claimed by many, then he should be rained on with money. No, I think those evangelicals are looking for life preserve right now and are waiting to see if Huckabee floats well (no reference to his previous weight intended — sorry).
“While this is true there is an essential point missing. The people of Arknasas voted on this tax and *they* approved it.”
Yeah, because Mike Huckabee took a hugely publicized trip down some river, demanding that all Arkansans vote for the tax increase. He framed it as practically a moral duty. It passed by less then 1% of the vote.
Actually you are entirely wrong about what happened. The amendment was placed on the 1996 ballot by the 1995 General Assembly. Huckabee became Governor in July of 1996. Prior to this a “campaign for the passage of the amendment was in high gear showing likely success.” (Keith Sutton, Carol Griffee, Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, (University of Arkansas Press, 1997) p. 137) For a time the Supreme Court took the amendment off of the ballot but 65% of voters voted in favor anyway in protest. (ibid).
It was not that Huckabee “framed it as practically a moral duty” that made it pass, but “preelection surveys consistently showed voters favoring the amendment.” (ibid, 138) Support later went down due to “a wholly fabricated link between the amendment and an alleged United Nations plot.” (ibid)
“At the end of the day it’s still a two horse race – just may be a few different ways we get there.”
The company line from October isn’t going to work now. The guy the Romney campaign is desperately trying to discount is ahead in Iowa, even with Romney nationally, is second in Florida, within a point of second in New Hampshire, and within the MoE of the lead in South Carolina.
Oh yeah, and all of these numbers are still rising. You guys need to stop whistling past the graveyard and start recognizing that simply repeating this “two man race” tripe isn’t going to make it so. Nobody believes your “a vote for Huckabee is a vote for Rudy” crap anymore. Huck is viable. Get over it.
On the other hand, as long as Mitt! remains delusional about a two man race, he’ll just keep cat fighting with Rudy, and that’s certainly good for Huckabee.
After South Carolina it will be a two man race, and at this point it could be Huck/Romney, Huck/Guiliani, or Romney/Guiliani. Things will have to change for McCain and Thompson.
November 30th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Rett,
You know why Huck hasn’t spent more? He can’t find enough people to give him the money.
In a primary where the winner is up against the 100 million dollar lady, I just can’t believe some Huckabee guys make it out to be such a good thing that their guy is unable to raise funds.
November 30th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Rett, trying to figure out exactly why YOU are posting this video.
Interesting how nobody is attacking McCain.
November 30th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Exactly Murphy.
A small denominator does not logically translate into an effective campaign strategy..
Let us not forget the “unquantifiable costs” of Huck’s persistant free media love or the LOADS of dough that the Fair Tax group paid to bring in thousands of people to the Ames Straw Poll to vote for Huck (the Johnny come lately to the cause).
Actually, the Fair Tax people are out of money and won’t be spending anything on GOTV efforts in the Iowa Caucus. That’s a blow to Huckabee.
November 30th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Huck spends little but spends wisely. See the link:
http://mittreport.com/hucks_buying_signatures.html
Now I’m not going to speculate about a supposed army of illegal Mexicans with Arkansas scholarships doing door to door work in Iowa. I’ll wait for the video footage. This Huckster is an ascendant guy. He’ll knock Rudy out.
November 30th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
#4 – wasn’t it Romney that paid for his Iowa straw poll votes????
November 30th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
Just a guess on why Huckabee hasn’t raised the funds of other candidates:
1. Most people have not perceived him to have a chance of winning. They don’t want to give their money to someone who will lose. You might as well flush it down the toilet and at least you’ll get some entertainment watching it swirl around and around for a little bit. This situation is improving for him, so the donations will start to reflect that, as they have recently. I think he reports having about $3 million cash on hand presently.
2. Huckabee supporters typically fall into a different demographic than other candidate’s supporters. They are more rural, Southern, and typically don’t have a lot of money. They are the types that are very interested in social issues and maybe not so much in taxes or other fiscal issues, although they are probably fiscally conservative too. It’s just not a number one priority. Huckabee doesn’t have a lot of high dollar contributors because a lot of people give him $20 or $50 or something like that.
3. Huckabee rubs the establishment Republicans the wrong way, and that’s putting it nicely. Establishment Republicans aren’t going to raise any money for him, and they will likely give money to someone to attack him. So, that source of money dries up.
That’s my theory on why he has trouble raising money.
November 30th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
Team Romney ‘Fine’ With Second Place? Team Huckabee Laughs
November 30th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Okay, UAR, how much did he pay?
November 30th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
#5
No. He only offered a bus ride and a free meal in an air conditioned tent. The Huckster is the one giving out 50 cents per signature. He thinks he can just buy the nomination. The Huckster has no shame.
November 30th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
#8
http://delawarewatch.blogspot.com/2007/08/romney-wins-iowa-straw-poll-he-paid-for.html
November 30th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
What is it about the money? Well, I think that money doesn’t mean you have
more votes. It might mean your candidate has more wealthy voters, but not
more votes. The republican party is not up for sale among the social conservatives
who also might be fiscal conservatives. I agree with comment number 6 on all points.
November 30th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
the biggest questions are who contributes to Ron Paul??? and what does he plan to do with it?
November 30th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
That is $6,673,000 Huck could not raise…… and
Remember, Mitt is NE based, former Mass. Gov., Mormon & the MSM see him as the biggest threat to Rudy or Hill.
The Huckster is from Ark., an Evangelical, & the MSM give him a FREE-Lovefest (How much is that worth).
November 30th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Ron Paul Tops $10 Million
November 30th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
#14 that is amazing!
November 30th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
Ron Paul receives a lot of money from a fanatical loud few. Romney has
a lot of money too from the NE and Mormon solidarity. Rudy gets his support
from the NE as well and more celebrity than anything. Huckabee will grow
with time and each success. Huckabee winning or showing strong in the early states
will show that he is electable.
November 30th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
#5 – straw vote is simply that – a straw vote.
Paying to get signatures as part of a governmental process as Huck is doing in VA to be on the ballot is something else completely.
November 30th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Huck’s Campaign is about Iowa, Beginning and End…..
And it will be the Latter….
The Huck-a-Bust is coming….
November 30th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
#14 see #6 bullet point #1
November 30th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
16 – nice assessment except you left out the part about Huckabee being a populist who is incredibly soft on illegal immigration and views American’s desire to uphold the rule of law as the same as slavery.
November 30th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Huck is not soft on illegals. He was on Hannity today and plainly articulated his views on immigration, which were solid.
November 30th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Huckabee was very clear that believes in Border Security and stoping the
flow of illegal immigration. He also is against farming out good paying
manufacturing jobs oversees for lower wages. I think the issue is over
his character. Does Huckabee have the character to follow through with
his promise to see the wall/fence built both physical and technological as
well as the man power to enforce that wall/fence. Or is Huckabee’s character
one that will make a promise as key as the immigration issue and not make
good on it.
November 30th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
Mark,
You can’t fool us. Immigration is just another issue where Huck is virtually identical to Hillary Clinton.
November 30th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
21 – tuition breaks for illegals = solid immigration plan. Ok, sure… No amnesty = we’re all slave holders… Ok, sure… Not fair that illegals pay into SSN with a fake SSN and never get benefits… OK, sure… Do we really need to go down the list?
Sure – Huck’s hearing the uproar so I’m not surprised he’s now singing a different song.
November 30th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
I like Hannity’s show. I wish I could of heard his interview of Huckabee
today. What else was established in the interview?
November 30th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
If I were voting for a Pastor in Chief, I might consider Huck. But we’re not and I’m not.
November 30th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Jeff,
I know. This Huckabee thing is just unreal. Huckabee has done more lying, more obfuscating, more backtracking and backpedaling on his record, then Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani combined. And that’s when he’s not being open about his liberalism (which is alarmingly often).
November 30th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
Jeff,
Is it his religious background that scares you about Huckabee?
It is alright to admit it. After all, some are scared about
Mitt Romney’s Mormonism. The truth is Huckabee is a likeable
guy, so criticism of him gets a little more stretched like on
the immigration issue.
November 30th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
wow Matthew – tell us how you really feel
November 30th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
Matthew,
How am I trying to “fool” you? I heard Huck with my own ears around 4:15 EST today on Sean Hannity. In addition, I’ve read what Huck states on his website and I’ve heard what he has said elsewhere. He is very strong on immigration, like it or not.
Jeff,
Huck is not “singing a different song.” He has been saying his position consistently throughout his campaign.
November 30th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Huckabee is not a liberal anymore than Rudy Giuliani is a conservative.
November 30th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Benjamin,
I did not hear the initial portion so I cannot say. Where I picked it up they had just begun talking about attacks from others and then it moved into immigration. Sean pressed Huck on the matter, asking if he was agreeable to requiring illegals to leave the country to become legal immigrants, to which Huck agreed. Huck did say that he believed the process for legal immigration takes too long today, which is true.
November 30th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
I agree with Mark. Huckabee has been very consistent in his message
on all the issues. And Huckabee is not soft on illegal immigration.
November 30th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Ben,
I don’t know about Jeff, but I read C.S. Lewis, N.T. Wright, G.K. Chesterton, or Gary Habermas weekly. I love that Huckabee is strongly religious. It’s his liberalism that bothers me. I have a similar problem with Jimmy Carter.
November 30th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Matthew E. Miller,
Can you please share your thoughts on Reagan?
November 30th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
“How am I trying to “fool†you? I heard Huck with my own ears around 4:15 EST today on Sean Hannity. In addition, I’ve read what Huck states on his website and I’ve heard what he has said elsewhere. He is very strong on immigration, like it or not.”
Let me rephrase that. Huckabee can’t fool me. I’m sure you’re not attempting to fool me. No doubt you believe Huckabee when he claims he’s strong on immigration. To that, I can simply refer you to a number of strong anti-illegal immigration groups. I defy you to find one that isn’t horrified by Huckabee’s record, and past rhetoric.
November 30th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
Illegal Immigration is tying up our resources in the prisons, on the health
care industry, and on border security. First thing needed to be done is to
follow through with the building of that wall/fence which is already passed
into law. I’m not sure McCain or Rudy will follow through with the building
up of that wall/fence.
November 30th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
Didn’t Huckabee support the ealry release of a convicted rapist who turned aroud a murdered someone in Missouri? I know I saw an article on it the other day. Oh, and it appears that Giuliani’s scandal from the other day is not going away.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/11/30/giuliani-ducks-questions-at-campaign-stop/
November 30th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Note: I’ve said my piece on Mike Huckabee and don’t plan on posting this on the front page unless I get annoyed, and because I don’t like to dwell on candidates weaknesses, but Matthew or someone else is free to post it if they get the feeling that it needs to be addressed. This ran in the Washington Times today
Huckabee is being attacked by immigration foes:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071130/NATION/111300094/1001
Immigration group: Huckabee a ‘disaster’
By Stephen Dinan
November 30, 2007
November 30th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Benjamin,
The fence is not the entirity of the solution to illegal immigration. It also requires shutting down the illegal immigration magnets, in the form of cities that provide sanctuary for illegal workers, and states that provide social security benefits and subsidized tuition.
Huckabee’s comparison of the enforcement of immigration laws to slavery laws says it all.
November 30th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
Greg,
Yes he did, in part based upon the testimony of a DNA expert that the available DNA evidence did not match the convicted man. Even so, it was a terrible tragedy.
November 30th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
I don’t see the liberalism that you refer to with Huckabee in relation
to any of the other candidates except Fred Thompson. As for Fred, I like
him and I do agree with him on most issues social,fiscal, and issues of
national security. Fred just enter into this race late and isn’t spurring
any excitement. Fred looked awake in the last debate compared to the other
debates he participated in, but he didn’t capitalize on anything to stand
out. Huckabee did and does. That is why Huckabee is growing in support and
Thompson is struggling to gain support.
November 30th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Mark,
I think Reagan was a generally strong president, who ushered in, through his rhetoric, a national interest in limited government. His actions, though sometimes flawed, usually reflected that. You’re free to compare Huckabee to Reagan if you’d like; that argument gains no traction with me. Ronald Reagan spent the 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s absolutely within the conservative movement. He read NR weekly. He read conservative masterpieces like the Road to Serfdom and The Abolition of Man. And his rhetoric reflected one central principle; government is the problem.
That he sometimes failed to live this can be attributed to his era; it took the presidency of a Ronald Reagan, to make the ideals of a Ronald Reagan possible. He made the country safe for limited government, and limited government arguments. Born into (as a politician) this newly conservative era, Mike Huckabee repeatedly raised taxes, increased spending tremendously, and now continually rails against wall street, CEO’s and the Club for Growth.
On immigration, I have nothing to good to say about either Reagan or Huckabee, so you won’t win any points there. But, I’ll note that immigration has reached a much larger crescendo in our era, and Mike Huckabee still doesn’t get it (as evinced by his record and pre-November rhetoric).
November 30th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Matthew E. Miller,
You cannot compare one’s policies as a governor to one’s as president. As a governor one has to work within the system provided by the federal government. As they have entirely failed to address the issue what Huckabee and the other candidates have done has been within the confines of that. Huckabee has clearly stated his position on how the issues should be resolved at the federal level, making your entirely case a comparison of apples and oranges.
Perhaps you could tell me now your thoughts on Reagan. Would you compare Reagan’s moves a governor to raise taxes and allow for abortion to his presidency? Was he liberal or conservative? Remember, he supported amnesty which Huckabee opposes.
November 30th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
Here is one article about Huckabee’s steps to release the convicted rapist early. The criminal turned around and murdered somebody in a neighboring state.
http://www.arktimes.com/Articles/ArticleViewer.aspx?ArticleID=154e1aad-fd18-4efd-8d80-b5dab8559419
November 30th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Matthew,
You apparently are not fully aware of Reagan’s history of raising taxes as a governor are you? How about his early position on abortion? How about his position on amnesty?
November 30th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
Wow. You Romboosters are far too modest today! None of you have proudly pointed out your candidate’s abilities to self-finance, whereas Huck has to rely on a bunch of grubby donors.
But as you guys have told us, Mitt can repay his supporters out of petty cash, telling them, “Go screw yourselves! I bought this infernal campaign with my own money! No one can tell me what to do now!”
November 30th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
I’m not saying that addressing employers who hire illegal immigrants should
get a pass, and I understand that there are locations in the nation that
entice illegal immigrants to live in their areas. What I am saying is that
stopping illegal immigration will first need to take place at secure our
borders.
November 30th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
Greg,
Let us be balanced. Even though it was a mistake let us see more of what lead up to it.
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0110,harkavy,22841,1.html
November 30th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
I think the fact that some of the biggest anti-illegal immigration groups are openly opposing Huckabee is the biggest statement. They are third=party groups looking for a guys strong on illiegale immigration, and they are running scared from him.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
Huckabee’s rise in the polls has got me thinking about the possibility of him being president and I’m not excited (unless the alternative is Rudy). Why don’t I like him? Well, the reason was a bit of a shocker to me as I’m consider myself a Christian, but Huckabee reminds me too much of Jesus. The key issue being his compassion.
Huckabee is a true love your enemy, turn the other cheek, do good to them that despitefully use you, mercy not justice kind of Christian. And he lets these views guide his public policy decisions. I believe our society must by guided by justice, not mercy, and Huckabee extends mercy at every turn. From letting rapists go free to giving illegal’s amnesty.
I want a justice system that is fair and enforced. I fear Huckabee would instead work to replace it with a deranged form of feel-sorry-for-the-sinner merci system, as he strikes me as entirely incapable of “tough” love.
Enough of the compassionate conservatism already!
November 30th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
MarkG, nice class-warfare rhetoric.
Benjamin, border enforcement is certainly required. It’s everything beyond that that I doubt Huckabee on.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Mark,
Read my argument. I’m fully aware that Reagan raised taxes, and had a less then perfect record on abortion. But, he raised taxes in an era when no one even CONSIDERED not raising taxes. It was simply understood that one raised taxes; limited government didn’t exist. Placed against that backdrop, Reagan’s record was really quite strong, and it counts for an awful lot that he argued for conservatism. Also, during the 60’s social conservatism was a political chimera. That Reagan could come to regret his actions, before the movement gained political heft, is remarkable.
Comparing Mike Huckabee to Ronald Reagan is like comparing Reagan to Woodrow Wilson, who’s record on fiscal issues might be considered relatively reasonable by modern lights. Because, Wilson existed in an era where limited Government was such a strong force, even he couldn’t fully botch it. Mike Huckabee grew of age (politically) in an era that had been made safe for conservatism; and he decided he preferred liberalism. That’s all I need to know.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Richard,
How can you claim as much when Huckabee authorized executions while Governor of Ark.?
November 30th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Richard P, I think you are on to something. Mike is not really strong on any issue, and maybe it’s part of his character to be always forgiving and to turn the other cheek.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Matthew,
I think it has been made plainly clear on more than one occasion that Huck had no choice but to raise taxes. He had already cut as much out of the budget as possible, yet he had a failing infrastructure, he had a court ordered mandate to improve schools and he had an imbalanced budget with no room for additional cuts without cutting in to essential services. What would you have done in said situation?
November 30th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
I actually don’t fault Rudy or Mike on immigration. I’m perhaps a bit naive but it’s the federal government’s job to deport illegal aliens and prevent their entry.
If the National Government won’t do that than states are left with limited equally bad options.
Do they force illegals underground and deal with the larger resulting social and criminal problems?
Do they give illegals some sense of security? At what price?
I’m uncomfortable with the decisions Mike and Rudy made but I’m not sure they had any good choices. The real action needs to be taken in Washington to seal the border and begin employment enforcement.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:06 pm
Great news for Huck not so good for Mitt.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:06 pm
Maybe I am overdoing it, but MIke has to start talking strongly about certain issues. We’ve seen too much of him giving in to taxes, giving in to children of illegal aliends, giving in to criminals, etc.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
So he authorized executions? He also successfully lobbied for a rapist to go free. And he’s implied that I’m not a true Christian because I want to send illegals home – a classic liberal guilt tripping technique.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
The best quality that Ronald Reagan and Mike Huckabee share is their
ability to communicate. They both are articulate and both have a
sense of humor. They both understood the need to have an excited
social conservative base that appeals to a sensible fiscal conservative
base.
I thought Huckabee’s answer in the debate on Wednesday about execution
was great.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
uncle bernie from weekend at bernie’s would get 30% vote in iowa if he was the only evangelical running against a mormon. that is the sole explanation for the numbers.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
“I think it has been made plainly clear on more than one occasion that Huck had no choice but to raise taxes.”
No, you are wrong. He was under no obligation, and to say such is a lie on Huckabee’s part. Period!
November 30th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
Richard,
Are you aware of why he did that for the rapist? Not that it was the correct decision, but in view of what he had in front of him I cannot entirely blame him. But the very fact that he did carry out executions demonstrates that your concern is unjustified. He carries out the law. In fact he plainly articulated as much yesterday on Hardball.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
Mark,
Ah yes. Huckabee had no choice but to raise taxes. Gotcha. He’d already cut as much out of the budget as possible. Wonderful. So I guess budget’s just HAVE to expand at 3 times the rate of inflation? Funny how 40+ states managed to expand their budgets at a lesser rate. There’s always a choice. Huckabee made clear what sort of choice he favored.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
Richard,
Actually he was required to balance the budget per the state constitution. As the only other place he had to cut spending was in essential services, he did have no choice.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Matthew,
You’re failing to consider the congress that he had to deal with.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
And beyond the congress, as I have already pointed out, certain things were required by the court (education) to have additional spending applied to them.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
EGS: The real action needs to be taken in Washington to seal the border and begin employment enforcement.
Mitt recognized this fact as recently as ‘05/’06 when he welcomed comprehensive immigration reform at the federal level.
Now, of course, he’s changed his direction faster than he threw Reagan under the bus in ‘94 — before exhuming his corpse just this year. Or maybe not. When it comes to the “Eleventh Commandment,” it’s back under the bus for you, Ronnie!
November 30th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
[...] tip Race42008 on Iowa Huckabee vs Romney [...]
November 30th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
Rombots,
I don’t consider Huckabee’s inability to raise vast sums of money a virtue, but apparently it doesn’t matter as much in this election as everyone supposed when they were calling for a $100 million primary. Either that, or Romney really stinks as a candidate because he outspend Huck 21:1 in Iowa and is running behind, and is even with Huck nationally.
You guys gotta admit that this is really embarrassing for Romney. Huckabee may stink as a fundraiser, but as a candidate, he can garner support equal in size (and more intense) than Romney’s with 5% of his money. What’s that say about Romney?
November 30th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
Mathew,
If you are not for Huckabee, then who are you for and why? Because it
is obvious that you won’t accept the response that Huckabee has given
concerning the issues of taxes and immigration. Not that any of the other
candidates sound all that good on these issues or on social issues.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
The reason Huck had to only spend $327K is because he has been consistent on Abortion and an Evangelical. This falls right in the sweet spot of a nice size Iowa voting block. Couple that with the fact that Huck is a pretty affable personality which helps tremendously in politics.
Romney on the other hand is behind Huck in all three areas which I guess it takes over 7 times the money to compensate. Don’t know what to make of that.
Considering the MSM has fallen in love with Huck maybe that should make conservatives pause
November 30th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
Mark,
No, I’m not. Arkansas has a majority Democratic legislature, but any student of political history is well aware that Arkansas Democrats aren’t real Democrats. Alot of Southern states are controlled by Democrats at the state level, due to lingering post-New Deal allegiances. Nearby Louisiana has a majority Dem legislature as well, and previously had even larger majorities (including a veritable lock on all the statewide offices before this election cycle). Arkansas’s legislature is considerably more conservative NJ’s, for instance, even though NJ’s looks more conservative on paper. This is like political history 101.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Ah, yes. And here’s Mitt Romney spending his money wisely:
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/123721.html
I’m not a Paulite, but I find it interesting the way his supporters are dismissed for flooding online polls and whatnot when other candidates have supporters doing that. Nothing illegal, just sleazy.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Excellent point MWS. Why is it that Huckabee is even considered if Romney
is such a strong candidate in the polls and considering the money being spent.
Iowa is not about being bought, it is about a candidate that you can trust
to represent the best character of the nation.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Mark, he always had a choice.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
Romney knocked Giuliani & McCain out of Iowa. Huckabee’s just benefited from their failure.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
Matthew,
So Bill and Hillary Clinton aren’t real democrats eh? Well they are socialists I guess.. that is worse! pah… lease.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
Mark,
“Actually he was required to balance the budget per the state constitution. As the only other place he had to cut spending was in essential services, he did have no choice.”
Nonsense. 38 states have strict balanced budget provisions, 32 of them are constitutional amendments. How is it that the Governor’s of these states managed to balance budgets, and still maintain a better record then Huckabee?
November 30th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
Mathew,
In relation to comment 74. There is nothing like party solidarity over
a individuals political view point. Democrats sometimes vote against
a Republican for the mere fact that they are Democrats and the other is
a Republican. In other words Democrats often favor party over principle.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
Richard,
Perhaps you should address the issue rather than blindly maintaining that thought.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
Matthew’s right. We in Tennessee have just elected our first GOP controlled state legislature since the Civil War, and it’s likely to fall back into Dem hands again.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
Matthew,
I do not know for a fact that they all did. Have you seen actual numbers? I haven’t.
However, let us consider a few issues that they may not have faced.
1) Court order requiring increased spending.
2) Democratic congress.
3) Worn infrastructure.
I think Dick Morris’ column makes an important point on this issue: “A recent column by Bob Novak excoriated Huckabee for a “47 percent increase in state tax burden.” But during Huckabee’s years in office, total state tax burden — all 50 states combined — rose by twice as much: 98 percent, increasing from $743 billion in 1993 to $1.47 trillion in 2005.” – http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/11/huckabee_is_a_fiscal_conservat.html
November 30th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Mark,
Bill Clinton ran as a liberal in his first gubernatorial race. He won on charisma, governed atrociously, and watched his wife’s style bring him to defeat 2 years later. He then moved sharply to the right, and was able to win again after a 2 year hiatus. But, you’re not going to win points with me by arguing that Bill Clinton’s an example of an incredibly liberal Arkansan. I’d easily choose Clinton on fiscal matters, over Huckabee. Without blinking.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
Oh good grief, Mark…
Consider the source. Did Morris write that from his exile in Uganda or wherever he is? If anything, having Morris in your corner slimes your candidate. I can’t believe Huckabee actually had him work for him. That guy is the scum of the earth.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
Tommy,
Ad hominem does not address the issue. Morris made a point, like him or not.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Mark,
Morris is a professional slime artist. He is the classic example of someone who glosses over numbers and can not be trusted as a reliable source. Find someone with a little credibility to make your argument.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Matthew,
I do not see how that refutes my point.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Choose Bill Clinton over Mike Huckabee. You’ve got to be kidding. Anyone but
Bill Clinton or his wife for that matter. No good comes from siding with Bill
Clinton and then talk about conservatism.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
Tommy,
More ad hominem.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
Mark,
Yes, I’ve seen the numbers. http://www.ncsl.org/programs/fiscal/balbuda.htm#t1
Technically, 49 states have balanced budget provisions, but only 38 or so have strict provisions. I’m extremely skeptical about Morris’s article vis-a-vis overall state tax burden increases (the rest of the article is simply total nonsense). According to the taxfoundation, Arkansas went from the 30th highest taxed state, to the 13th during Huckabee’s tenure. In order for that stat to be accurate, either the 12 states below Ark must have increased their taxes beyond all reason, or the 37 states above Ark must have increased their taxes not at all. Regardless, moving from 30th to 13th, when Arkansas’s relative tax burden hardly increased at all during the preceding 20 or so years (including during Clinton’s governorship) isn’t something to brag about.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
Mark, there was nothing stopping him from cutting taxes elsewhere. You say he couldn’t have because the only thing left were essential sevices. Yah, that’s what the democrats always say. Huckabee voluntarily increased taxes, period! There is not a lot more to say on this.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
I’m not a big fan of Dick Morris, but calling him a slime artist doesn’t mean
he can’t provide point of view that has merit.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
Richard,
So basically you have no idea.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
Benjamin,
I have no idea if I’d actually chose Bill Clinton over Huckabee, on the totality of their positions. I obviously prefer Huckabee on social issues, and judges. But, I’d seriously consider Bill in such a matchup. I doubt I’d vote for either Hillary or Bill, if faced with Bill/Huck or Hill/Huck matchups, because I try not to vote for radical social liberals. But, I can’t say with any confidence I’d vote for Huckabee.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
Matthew,
Of course we have to examine the situation. One cannot simply cite numbers as you are guilty of doing. One must examine the condition of the state when Huckabee took office and determine what was necessary in order for the state to operate properly. What was the condition of roads? What of law enforcement? What of education? Was more money after all possible spending was cut necessary?
November 30th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
I got to go. Last statment for me is this… Huckabee is surging not just in
Iowa and there has to be a reason for that and calling him liberal isn’t going
to stop him from surging in states like Okalahoma, Florida, South Carolina, and
(Yes I will say it) in New Hampshire.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
Ben,
Morris’ point of view sways with whichever way the political winds blow him. That’s like asking Karl Rove if he thinks W. Bush is a true conservative.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
Mark,
I understand that. But, what Huckabee’s supporters have failed to do, is provide any reason to believe the state of Arkansas was, relatively speaking, in dire shape. Granted that they needed roads and education, for the sake of argument, how is this different from any number of other fiscal crises states face? It’s the traditional liberal argument to claim that spending and tax increases are justified, because the state needed spending and tax increases. In fact, if there’s an argument that better sums up fiscal liberalism, I haven’t seen it. I’d also categorically reject the idea that Huckabee “cut all possible spending”. It is not so. Spending doesn’t naturally increase at 3 times the rate of inflation. If it has, you’ve neglected to trim a good deal of fat.
November 30th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
There may be a lot of spinning from Huckabee supporters about taxes and immigration,
but the bottom line is that people who have been conservative on these issues for
years are not buying it which does not bode well.
November 30th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
Matthew,
One the road situation, this link substantiates my claim: http://www.tfhrc.gov/focus/nov01/arkansas.htm
On the matter of schools, the fact that the state supreme court issued an order on the matter substantiates my claim.
The issue is the condition that these things were in at the time and so what additional spending was required to address them. It is on record that in 01 Huckabee cut spending by $143 million.
On the matter of one $377 million tax hike in ‘04 for education that went beyond what he desired, he did not put his signature on it. It passed in the House 99-0, so even if he did veto it what good would it have done? Nothing.
These are just a couple of examples. I’m sure I could dig up many more interesting points, but hopefully it will give some pause before attacking him without proper research.
November 30th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
The higher spending/taxes in Arkansas were related to Arkansas’s Medicaid burden (25% of the population is enrolled), attempts to improve education and roads. If you factor out those things the budget was unchanged from year to year under Mike Huckabee.
Medicaid spending grew 240% from 1996 to 2006 in Arkansas. That was faster than the national rate of 195%. I think that explains to a large degree the tight spot Huckabee found himself in.
Anyone living in Arkansas will tell you how Huckabee attempted to cut spending and how he passed tax cuts as soon as revenues allowed it.
November 30th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
As I stated yesterday, the arguement from Mitt haters when he wins several early states will immediately be that he bought the wins. Lame really, because when you raise money, and have money, you are suppose to spend money. GWB was great as raising money and I never suggested he bought his wins as president. Huck has spent so little because he hasnt raised much. Romney has raised more YTD than even Rudy. He is doing so well right now in IA because a lot more people think this is a Baptist Preacher vs Mormon, rather than Romney vs Huck (on their records as governor). The country is starting to become educated on Huck’s liberal record on some issues, and following IA (win or lose)- HE IS DONE! Someone make an arguement please on another state he has a chance at carrying when he has little funds, resources, and organization. Especially against Mitt and Rudy.
November 30th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
My prediction-
IA- Romney 34%, Huck 30%, Rudy 13%, Thompson 11%, others with less than 10%
NH- Romney 32%, McCain 19%, Rudy 17%, Paul 12%, Huck 10%, Thompson 8%
With those results
1. Romney would begin to look unbeatable
2. Huck’s IA story would remain just an IA story like candidates in the past
3. Rudy would get hammered by the MSM for 2 3rd place finishes in a row, his poll numbers everywhere will dip some.
4. Thompson drops out and Romney gets most of his support
5. McCain drops out too, and many go to Rudy (while some go to Romney)
That brings us to the real 2 man show where Rudy wins NY and NJ but fades away, Romney wins over the SoCon’s, and carries MI, NV, and SC too. Florida will be Rudy’s last stand!
November 30th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
Let us review one of the Club for Growth attacks against Huckabee:
“Immediately upon taking office, Governor Huckabee signed a sales tax hike in 1996 to fund the Games and Fishing Commission and the Department of Parks and Tourism.”
While this is true there is an essential point missing. The people of Arknasas voted on this tax and *they* approved it.
November 30th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
Rett, have you forgetten the magic that was Fred? He roared to rank #1 for a while without SPENDING A PENNY only to be imploded. I am starting to think that those evangelicals are jumping gun only because they are trying very hard not to look at some candidates.
November 30th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
Eric (#6) Historically, evangelicals are among those who are the biggest contributors of the campaigns. If Huckabee is drawing many of them as claimed by many, then he should be rained on with money. No, I think those evangelicals are looking for life preserve right now and are waiting to see if Huckabee floats well (no reference to his previous weight intended — sorry).
November 30th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
Well he has raised $2 million dollars online this month with about the same offline.
November 30th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Mark,
“While this is true there is an essential point missing. The people of Arknasas voted on this tax and *they* approved it.”
Yeah, because Mike Huckabee took a hugely publicized trip down some river, demanding that all Arkansans vote for the tax increase. He framed it as practically a moral duty. It passed by less then 1% of the vote.
November 30th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
Matthew,
Actually you are entirely wrong about what happened. The amendment was placed on the 1996 ballot by the 1995 General Assembly. Huckabee became Governor in July of 1996. Prior to this a “campaign for the passage of the amendment was in high gear showing likely success.” (Keith Sutton, Carol Griffee, Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, (University of Arkansas Press, 1997) p. 137) For a time the Supreme Court took the amendment off of the ballot but 65% of voters voted in favor anyway in protest. (ibid).
It was not that Huckabee “framed it as practically a moral duty” that made it pass, but “preelection surveys consistently showed voters favoring the amendment.” (ibid, 138) Support later went down due to “a wholly fabricated link between the amendment and an alleged United Nations plot.” (ibid)
November 30th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
In my last post I forgot to put the name of the reference work in . It is “Arkansas Wildlife: A History”.
December 1st, 2007 at 8:09 am
Agree almost vetbatim Husky.
At the end of the day it’s still a two horse race – just may be a few different ways we get there.
December 1st, 2007 at 9:00 am
EGS,
“Well he has raised $2 million dollars online this month with about the same offline.”
I’ve been tracking the online contributions. Did the campaign say something about offline contributions? $4 million in one month would be great.
December 1st, 2007 at 9:07 am
Heath,
“At the end of the day it’s still a two horse race – just may be a few different ways we get there.”
The company line from October isn’t going to work now. The guy the Romney campaign is desperately trying to discount is ahead in Iowa, even with Romney nationally, is second in Florida, within a point of second in New Hampshire, and within the MoE of the lead in South Carolina.
Oh yeah, and all of these numbers are still rising. You guys need to stop whistling past the graveyard and start recognizing that simply repeating this “two man race” tripe isn’t going to make it so. Nobody believes your “a vote for Huckabee is a vote for Rudy” crap anymore. Huck is viable. Get over it.
On the other hand, as long as Mitt! remains delusional about a two man race, he’ll just keep cat fighting with Rudy, and that’s certainly good for Huckabee.
After South Carolina it will be a two man race, and at this point it could be Huck/Romney, Huck/Guiliani, or Romney/Guiliani. Things will have to change for McCain and Thompson.