The past week has been very good for John McCain’s chances in New Hampshire and nationally. First, he won what is perhaps the most influential newspaper endorsement of the election season, that of the New Hampshire Union Leader. This will actually move votes. Last night he participated in a highly successful townhall forum that was broadcast live over MTV and MySpace from Southern New Hampshire University. Then this morning Sen. McCain and Sen. Lieberman took to the pages of the Union Leader to implore Congress to pass the war funding bill that is currently stalled there. If that wasn’t enough, McCain has dispatched two senior aides from the campaign’s Washington DC headquarters to reinforce the on-the-ground organization in New Hampshire.
In order for him to win in the state, Romney must be taken down a notch. That would be accomplished with a win by Mike Huckabee in Iowa. In addition to that, McCain’s showing depends on large part on whether independents participate in the GOP or Democratic primary. McCain has regained a good portion of independent support he had this time last year. If McCain were to win New Hampshire, it would be the story of the year. The one time frontrunner who saw his campaign collapse due to independents leaving his campaign because of the Iraq War and conservative support evaporating due to his position on Comprehensive Immigration Reform, all the while having his campaign roiled by internal feuding and massive overspending. His campaign was given its Last Rites by the media and promptly buried. As Charlie Cook famously said in July:
“Let’s have a moment of silence. The physicians have left the room, and now it’s the executors of the will taking over. This isn’t about strategizing or organizing or messaging, it’s now about paying off the bills and sort of winding down.”
Fast forward 5 months and not only is McCain still in the race, but he is well positioned to win in New Hampshire and is being called “the dark horse to win the GOP nomination.” Not to mention that poll after poll shows him to be the most electable Republican running. Not bad for a dead man, if you ask me.
Once as good as dead, the GOP’s chances next year of holding the White House against a fully-operational Clinton machine are looking up. Recent polls suggest that the Republican field sports not one, not two, but fully three candidates who could deny Hillary Rodham her coronation as Empress of the West. Still, only one of these candidates wins a decisive victory over Mrs. Clinton, while the other two promise a nailbiter. But that’s eons better than where we were last summer. Let’s turn to some state general election polling, posted in a user-friendly format by the ever-vigilant Dave Wissing.
General election matchups coming out of three states and from two different polling organizations paint a very clear picture of the coming race against the Clintons. While Sen. McCain remains the strongest candidate to beat Hillary, both Rudy Giuliani and now Mike Huckabee promise a race with Clinton that’s too close to call. But both fall short of McCain’s performance due to the apparent defection of either fiscal or social conservatives (and possibly moderate and independent voters with those tendencies as well). First, note Rudy’s strength in the West, bested by only McCain:
PRESIDENT – COLORADO
Giuliani 44%
Hillary 40%Huckabee 42%
Hillary 41%McCain 44%
Hillary 40%PRESIDENT – ARIZONA
Giuliani 47%
Hillary 38%McCain 57%
Hillary 34%
Note that McCain outpolls Rudy in Arizona and beats Hillary by the same margin in Colorado. Meanwhile, Huckabee puts Colorado at risk, winning by only a single point. Now let’s turn to the Midwestern state of Ohio:
PRESIDENT – OHIO
Hillary 48%
Giuliani 44%Hillary 47%
Huckabee 45%McCain 51%
Hillary 43%
In Ohio, Hillary beats Giuliani, with Huckabee running stronger than the Mayor against Mrs. Clinton. Again, McCain creams Hillary and does better than either of his fellow Republicans.
This data demonstrates that Giuliani and Huckabee have opposite problems. Rudy’s brand of Republicanism does well among fiscally conservative, socially liberal voters in the West, but he underperforms Bush 2004 in the Midwest, probably because he is losing voters who only vote GOP for cultural reasons. Similarly, Huckabee gives the Democrats a run for their money in the Midwest due to his strength among socially conservative, fiscally populist voters, but Western voters who only vote GOP because of economics abandon the ticket in a Hillary/Huckabee race. This means that a Huckabee/Hillary race would likely go down to the wire, with the outcome dependent on which way the wind was blowing on Election Day. Both the purple states in the Midwest and in the West would be too close to call. Rudy, on the other hand, would likely keep the Southwest solid, but would start with a deficit in the Midwest and would have to either make that deficit up or replace states like Ohio with states like Pennsylvania. Again, anything could happen in such a race.
Meanwhile, McCain comes out of the gate winning all of the aforementioned states, likely by being an acceptable choice to both fiscal and social conservatives, as well as broad swaths of independents and centrists. If McCain were the nominee, he would probably beat Hillary fairly comfortably next November, winning the red states from 2004 and adding some of the purple states in the Midwest to the GOP column. This is interesting, as McCain often fancies himself a Teddy Roosevelt, while President Bush has often been likened to William McKinley by Karl Rove. McKinley won two elections with largely the same group of states in 1896 and 1900. In 1904, TR won most of the McKinley states, but was able to expand McKinley’s electoral map to encompass lots of western states that McKinley could never quite flip. It’s interesting that McCain would basically do the same for the GOP in 2008: win the red states, plus the light blue states from 2004.
Finally, all of this shows that the GOP’s fortunes are on the upswing. In 2006, we were taken down by a trio of corruption, incompetence, and a series of issues that united Democrats and independents against Republicans. Well, the corruption was tossed out the door with the GOP congressional leadership. The incompetence will leave with President Bush. And the issues that united everyone against us are either shifting in our favor (Iraq, stem cells) or are no longer salient (marriage amendment). The result is that, while 2006 was the Dems’ 1994, 2008 may be our 1996, where we win the presidency, perhaps even fairly comfortably, and where we recapture a House seat or two and hold GOP losses in the Senate to a couple of seats. Given where we were and where we are, I would be very happy with that outcome.
FDT will be on your local PBS station on Charlie Rose tonight/early morning. If you suffer from insomnia, check him out…
This piece by John Podhoretz mirrors my own instincts about the state of the GOP race right now. Here’s J-Pod:
Bill Kristol says flatly that if Mike Huckabee does as well in December as he did in November, he will win the Republican nomination for president. Two polls have Huckabee holding the lead in Iowa over Mitt Romney, and one national tracking poll now has him tied for the lead with a sinking Rudy Giuliani. What is going on here? How could this have happened?
Simple: Don’t think of Mike Huckabee as Mike Huckabee. Think of Mike Huckabee as Fred Thompson. Huckabee is filling the role Fred Thompson entered the race in September to fill. He is the socially conservative Southern pro-life candidate with a silver tongue and a pleasingly low-key affect. It was Fred Thompson who was supposed to overtake Mitt Romney in Iowa, and it was Fred Thompson who was supposed to be a force to reckon with in national polls in December. But as a candidate, Thompson has proved to have all the spark of a wet firecracker, and as John McIntyre points out, “What we have developing is Huckabee stepping in and filling the void in the GOP field that was available to Thompson in the summer.” Somebody was going to occupy that Thompson space.
The question was whether one of the three top-tier candidates – Giuliani, Romney, or McCain – would manage to convince that portion of the Republican base to make common cause with him. The answer, it seems, is no.
I said two weeks ago that the Republican race was down to two men, Giuliani and Romney. I still believe that is the case, because while Huckabee’s surge has given voice to an important segmentof the GOP’s electoral pie – pro-life evangelical Christians primarily – his candidacy does not offer much, if anything, to any mainstream Republican voter who is not part of that segment. Huckabee has a record of supporting tax increases, and his major domestic policy plank is his advocacy of a wild notion called the “Fair Tax” that would replace all imposts with a national sales tax. He has little of moment to say about the war on terror, the war in Iraq, or the war against Islamic totalitarianism.
If the Republican party is still a party of policy, then Huckabee stands somewhat apart (with the exception of his stand on abortion) from the policies that have been supported by the vast majority of GOP voters and that polling tells us still unite Republicans today. Let’s say Huckabee manages to take a substantial swath of the Religious Right vote for himself – 60 percent or so. That will still leavae 75 to 80 percent of Republican voters in play – especially since there is that huge 21-state primary on February 5 dominated by the Northeast and West, which are dominated by more secular GOP voters. In a two-man showdown between Giuliani and Romney for those voters, the victor will get enough support to secure the nomination.
I can, however, see one other scenario. Say Giuliani melts down this month, owing to more revelations about the intersection of his private life and his public duties. Or Romney melts down, in part because Huckabee’s rise means he will lose Iowa and therefore make it impossible for him to win every early state and thereby “slingshot” his way into the nomination. Huckabee won’t be there to pick up the pieces, because he speaks to a different electorate.
But John McCain will….
Paul Mirengoff makes the case that Governor Huckabee is not a serious choice for those concerned with national security.
My main objection to Huckabee — the reason why he’s my fifth choice out of five — is that I lack confidence in his ability to fight terrorism. It’s not just that he lacks experience in this realm, though that’s certainly the case. The real problem is that he’s too moralistic (which is not the same thing as moral). My first clue came when he said during an early debate that we need to remain in Iraq because “we broke it.” Not because we need to defeat al Qaeda; not because we need to limit Iranian influence or avoid a devastating defeat at the hands of terrorists; but because we injured this formerly peaceful state. Huckabee’s exaltation of moralism (in this case dubious) over policy calculation was difficult to miss.
Now we learn (but are surprised) that Huckabee opposes waterboarding and would close the Guantanamo Bay detention center. Huckabee reached this conclusion after meeting with a group of retired generals (the usual suspects, I assume) who are lobbying candidates to oppose Bush administration interrogation and detention policies.
I suspect that Huckabee required little lobbying. Waterboarding and long-term detention aren’t very “Christian”; they merely keep terrorists out of action and, in special circumstances enable us to find out where we’re going to be attacked next and/or where we can find those who are planning the next attacks. But if Huckabee actually did reach his position based on the views of a handful of generals, and without consulting the people actually charged with protecting this country from terrorists, then he’s even less qualified to be president than I suspect.
Statement by Governor Romney:
“Today, I fired a landscaping company that I learned was employing people who are not permitted to work here in the United States. After this same issue arose last year, I gave the company a second chance with very specific conditions. They were instructed to make sure people working for the company were of legal status. We personally met with the company in order to inform them about the importance of this matter. The owner of the company guaranteed us, in very certain terms, that the company would be in total compliance with the law going forward.
“The company’s failure to comply with the law is disappointing and inexcusable, and I believe it is important I take this action.”
- Governor Romney
Letter of termination:
Governor Mitt Romney
December 4, 2007
Mr. Ricardo Saenz
Community Lawn Service
174 Shurtleff St.
Chelsea, MA 02150
Dear Mr. Saenz:
Today I learned that employees of your company, who were assigned to work on my property, are not permitted to work in the United States. Given your company’s disregard for the clear instructions provided on this issue last year, I am forced to terminate my contract with your company, effective immediately. My family will no longer utilize your services and all scheduled visits are cancelled as of today.
I am disappointed that our relationship must end on this note, but we simply cannot tolerate your inability to ensure that your employees are legally permitted to work in the United States. Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Mitt Romney
- Rudy Giuliani 23% (32%)
- Mike Huckabee 17% (7%)
- Fred Thompson 14% (15%)
- John McCain 11% (13%)
- Mitt Romney 9% (11%)
- Ron Paul 5% (2%)
- Duncan Hunter 3% (2%)
Who has the best chance of beating the Democratic candidate?
- Rudy Giuliani 38%
- Mitt Romney 11%
- John McCain 10%
- Mike Huckabee 6%
- Fred Thompson 6%
Survey of 428 likely Republican primary voters was conducted November 30-December 3. The margin of error is +/- 5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted October 19-22 are in parentheses.
General Election Match-Ups
- Hillary Clinton 46% (47%)
- Rudy Giuliani 42% (41%)
- Barack Obama 44% (43%)
- Rudy Giuliani 39% (40%)
- Hillary Clinton 47% (49%)
- Mitt Romney 39% (34%)
- Barack Obama 45% (42%)
- Mitt Romney 33% (32%)
Survey of 1,245 registered voters was conducted November 30-December 3. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted October 19-22 are in parentheses.
Huck vows to stay positive…
In the midst of the nasty micro-attacks swirling around the Republicans’ newly minted Iowa front-runner, Huckabee says that he’s going to take the high road.
Sort of.
“A couple of the other campaigns have been relentless in their attacks toward me,” he said. “And I have not responded in kind.”
Huckabee contrasted his campaign’s approach with Thompson’s, which he said exhibits its most activity in its prolific anti-Huckabee press statements. “There were six of them before ten o’clock on Sunday,” he added mischeviously, before laying down a characteristic zinger.
“Most of us were in church, he was cranking out press releases.”
Today, Huckabee painted himself as the high-minded victim of petty attacks from his rivals, saying that he doesn’t want to be elected just because he “disabled” the other candidates by negativity in the race. In that vein, he continued to condemn push-polling calls allegedly made on his behalf, and said that he’s “fine with” Mitt Romney’s threat to enlist the aid of the Iowa Attorney General to investigate the group conducting them.
The Arkansas governor made the remarks at a press conference announcing the support of over thirty religious leaders, as well of Tim LaHaye — the author of faith-based book series “Left Behind — and LaHaye’s wife, the founder of conservative group Concerned Women for America.
That line about church and press releases is funny…
John McIntyre confirms what a very astute yet hopelessly Democratic friend of mine predicted a week ago: that McCain and Huckabee would soon begin to inch their way up among Republican primary voters. Sayeth McIntyre:
A quick glance at the RCP chart below and it looks likely that the Romney vs. Giuliani squabbling has taken its toll on both campaigns. Obviously, there are other factors involved with each campaign (with Giuliani the NYPD/girlfriend brouhaha and with Romney the rise of Huckabee, particularly the former Arkansas governor passing him in Iowa). But even with those negatives I suspect the voters have been very much turned off by the recent nastiness between Giuliani and Romney.
Huckabee has been one clear beneficiary and he just today passed Romney in the RCP National Average, dropping the former Massachusetts Governor all the way to 5th (which is effectively last). And John McCain, the guy who was anointed the media front runner a year ago and then left for dead over the summer, has quietly moved back into 2nd place in the RCP National Average for the first time since June 11th and is now the candidate I would call the dark horse to win the GOP nomination.
McCain and Huckabee are on upward trajectories. Thompson, Romney, and Rudy are all losing support. Rudy is at his lowest point in the RCP average in four months. The Rudy/Romney ongoing spat is reminiscent of Dean/Gephardt in 2004 and may have similar results. Meanwhile, McCain continues his stealth climb upward while Huckabee is getting all the buzz. McCain is in a good position because, since nobody takes him seriously, everyone will be caught off guard when he wins New Hampshire.
But back to my Democratic friend. After convincing him that he wouldn’t offend me if he revealed to me his views on the various GOP candidates after watching last week’s debate, my friend boldly predicted a McCain/Huckabee race when the dust settles. I asked what stood out about the two of them, to which he responded that McCain and Huckabee were the only ones on stage who seemed to believe anything that they were saying. I assume he was excluding longshots like Tom Tancredo or Ron Paul, who also certainly seem to mean what they say.
Put more simply, my friend may end up being a good barometer for primary voters who are just tuning in to the race. The first thing that these voters see is Rudy and Romney lobbing grenades at each other, with each attempting to wiggle his way out of charges of past liberalism, again, like a kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Voters being re-introduced to McCain and introduced to Huckabee, however, are getting a taste of authenticity from each. Query: are voters so turned off by the partisanship of the Bush years that they want someone authentic to be president, even if they don’t agree with him on everything? This could also explain why Obama seems to be gaining on Hillary, the antithesis of authenticity. If Huckabee wins Iowa and McCain wins New Hampshire, we could be looking at a very different race as of January 9th, 2008.
There is a lot of misinformation spreading about the newswires about Huckabee’s involvement in the Wayne DuMond affair. When it is mentioned, Huckabee’s defenders say that the governor had no involvement in the process, while his detractors say that he was solely responsible for the whole thing. Some on the right even tried to put the blame on Clinton before DuMond was released, saying that DuMond was really innocent (See this article that appeared in the New York Post in 1999).
It’s time to examine what happened. (more…)
- Hillary Clinton 48% (47%)
- Rudy Giuliani 44% (48%)
- Rudy Giuliani 46% (52%)
- Barack Obama 43% (39%)
- John McCain 51%
- Hillary Clinton 43%
- John McCain 51%
- Barack Obama 40%
- Hillary Clinton 51% (52%)
- Mitt Romney 41% (42%)
- Barack Obama 45% (45%)
- Mitt Romney 42% (46%)
- Hillary Clinton 47%
- Mike Huckabee 45%
- Mike Huckabee 44%
- Barack Obama 41%
Survey of 643 registered voters was conducted December 3. The margin of error is +/- 3.9 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted September 14-16 are in parentheses. In the 2004 election, President Bush defeated Senator Kerry in Ohio, 51-49%.
Earlier today I received an email in response to the story about Marlene Elwell using Iowa Christian Alliance equipment to spread negative attacks about Mike Huckabee…Here is what Steve had to say in response to allegations that he had allowed this to happen…
Marlene Elwell, a pro-life activist from Michigan, is a friend of mine. Upon Marlene’s request I gave her permission to make phone calls from the ICA office. I have no absolutely no knowledge of what she was talking about or what she said on the phone.
Here is the email I recieved this morning…
Mr Hatcher:
You have received many comments from bloggers about your story, “More
Iowa Shenanigans?” Sir, I am the individual that called into the Jan
Mickelson broadcast. In the email that Steve Scheffler sent to the
public stating, “I have absolutely no knowledge of what she was talking
about” in reference to Marlene Elwell is untrue. Mr Scheffler attended
the meeting Saturday where he and Marlene Elwell spoke highly of Mitt
Romney and said Huckabee is a spoiler, among other things. This is not
a hoax. While attendance was very limited due to bad weather, I have
other witnesses…an Iowa state representative (who endorses Romney and
is a Mormon) and a 73 year old, Christian Conservative activist who came
as a Huckabee supporter and left the meeting unsure of her support for
Huckabee.I am an old dog that does not know how to blog, so if you wish to reach
me…please call my cell (515) XXX-XXXXStacey Cargill
West Des Moines, IA
First Read has taken the story and run with it…
Enter this email that Scheffler sent to the ICA mailing list yesterday. “It has come to my attention that an individual called into [Iowa radio host] Jan Mickelson’s program this morning,” he writes. “The caller said that Marlene Elwell was using the Iowa Christian Alliance telephones for the purpose of encouraging people not to support Mike Huckabee.” (Elwell is a pro-life activist and a former McCain staffer who was fired in the campaign’s early shakeup. Scheffler describes her as a longtime friend.)
The email continues: “Upon Marlene’s request I gave her permission to make phone calls from the ICA office… I have absolutely no knowledge of what she was talking about or what she said on the phone.”
More: “Iowa Christian Alliance is not involved in any activity against Mike Huckabee… Marlene Elwell has been told that she can not use our offices and telephones for any purpose in the future.”
Elwell says that the caller’s claim is “absolutely wrong.” She says that although she has been making calls to “get the lay of the land,” she argued that “most of the people I’ve talked to in Iowa have been people that I know.” And she insists that she did not use ICA phone lines for any of those calls.
But the woman who phoned in to Mickelson’s show disagrees. Stacey Cargill of West Des Moines says that Elwell — whom she has known for about a year — called her on Friday to invite her to an ICA meeting the next day featuring Jim Bopp. During that call, Cargill says, Elwell called Huckabee a “spoiler” and said that she was working to “slow down Huckabee’s momentum.” Cargill says that the call came from an ICA extension, according to her telephone’s caller ID.
When Cargill attended the meeting on Saturday morning, Bopp had cancelled his visit due to the weekend ice storm. But Scheffler and Elwell were both there to talk politics with the small group that battled the snow. Cargill says — and another source confirms — that although the two were adamant that ICA did not endorse candidates, Scheffler spoke highly of Romney and said that Huckabee will not be able to win the Republican nomination. Skeptical of their motives, Cargill decided to tell her story on Mickelson’s conservative WHO-Radio talk show yesterday.
Cargill is a self-described supporter of John McCain.
Reached for comment this morning, Scheffler reiterated that the ICA would “never ever condone” the use of its phones for the alleged calls, and he expressed regret at unknowingly enabling Elwell to possibly pursue an “unstated mission” at the organization’s expense. He added that although there may have been words exchanged between members of his organization about Huckabee’s unelectability, “they certainly haven’t parted my lips.”
“Why would we take potshots at a guy who is with us by and large on the issues?” he asked.
A spokesman for the Romney campaign said that there is “no coordination whatsoever” between Romney and the ICA on any efforts to undermine Huckabee’s campaign.
The question becomes what should happen to Steve Scheffler…?…He denies knowledge but more than one eyewitness have confirmed that he did know Elwell would be making Anti-Huck calls…Personally…I feel he should step down…
Summary: The next U.S. president will face three key foreign policy challenges: setting a course for victory in the terrorists’ war on global order, strengthening the international system the terrorists seek to destroy, and extending the system’s benefits. With a stronger defense, a determined diplomacy, and greater U.S. economic and cultural influence, the next president can start to build a lasting, realistic peace.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Extending the International System’s Benefits
Most of the problems in the world today arise from places where the state system is broken or has never functioned. Much of the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America remains mired in poverty, corruption, anarchy, and terror. But there is nothing inevitable about this. For all these troubled cases, there are many more success stories that deserve to be celebrated. The number of functioning democracies in the world has tripled since the 1970s. The poverty rate in the developing world has been cut by roughly one-third since the end of the Cold War. Millions of people have been liberated from oppression and fear. Progress is not only possible, it is real. And it must continue to be real.
America has a clear interest in helping to establish good governance throughout the world. Democracy is a noble ideal, and promoting it abroad is the right long-term goal of U.S. policy. But democracy cannot be achieved rapidly or sustained unless it is built on sound legal, institutional, and cultural foundations. It can only work if people have a reasonable degree of safety and security. Elections are necessary but not sufficient to establish genuine democracy. Aspiring dictators sometimes win elections, and elected leaders sometimes govern badly and threaten their neighbors. History demonstrates that democracy usually follows good governance, not the reverse. U.S. assistance can do much to set nations on the road to democracy, but we must be realistic about how much we can accomplish alone and how long it will take to achieve lasting progress.
The election of Hamas in the Palestinian-controlled territories is a case in point. The problem there is not the lack of statehood but corrupt and unaccountable governance. The Palestinian people need decent governance first, as a prerequisite for statehood. Too much emphasis has been placed on brokering negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians — negotiations that bring up the same issues again and again. It is not in the interest of the United States, at a time when it is being threatened by Islamist terrorists, to assist the creation of another state that will support terrorism. Palestinian statehood will have to be earned through sustained good governance, a clear commitment to fighting terrorism, and a willingness to live in peace with Israel. America’s commitment to Israel’s security is a permanent feature of our foreign policy.
The next president must champion human rights and speak out when they are violated. America should continue to use its influence to bring attention to individual abuses and use a full range of inducements and pressures to try to end them. Securing the rights of men, women, and children everywhere should be a core commitment of any country that counts itself as part of the civilized world. Whether with friends, allies, or adversaries, democracy will always be an issue in our relations and part of the conversation. And so the better a country’s record on good governance, human rights, and democratic development, the better its relations with the United States will be. Those countries that want our help in moving toward these ideals will have it.
-Rudolph W. Giuliani
_____________________________________________________________________________
Editor’s Note: This essay originally appeared in the September/October edition of Foreign Affairs, a publication of the Council on Foreign Relations, who retain all rights. It is republished here with the CFR’s consent. Race42008 obtained permission to reprint the essay as a seven-part series which will be published daily from Monday, November 26th, through Friday November 30th, concluding December 4th & December 5th.
Here is a complete video of Mike Huckabee’s speech in Des Moines to the Pastors & Pews Conference. It runs about 40 minutes.
Read what ABC News reports here…
A mysterious group calling itself Iowans for Some Semblance of Christian Decency has begun waging a campaign against former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, insinuating that not only is the Republican presidential candidate not a true conservative, he’s not a real Christian.
In fliers put under the doors of reporters at the Marriott in Des Moines, where Huckabee was staying Monday night, the organization, whose members are unknown, lays out its interpretation of how the former Baptist minister’s views run contrary to the Bible.
Huckabee’s support of educational opportunities for the children of illegal immigrants is portrayed, for instance, as “justification for violating the 8th commandment (stealing from U.S. citizens).” A lighthearted video clip where he pretends to talk to the Lord (watch HERE) is portrayed as “sacrilegious mocking of God for political gain.”
The flier also raises the controversial case of Wayne Dumond, a convicted rapist whom Huckabee publicly suggested should be freed from prison. After Dumond was freed by the parole board, whose members later said they had been influenced by Huckabee, Dumond sexually assaulted and murdered a woman named Carol Sue Shields. Dumond died in prison in Missouri in 2005.
Read the full flier HERE.
The Huckabee campaign could not immediately be reached for comment.
Mike Huckabee, in Iowa, said that he supports closing Guantanamo Bay and is opposed to waterboarding. From the Washington Post:
After the Iowa poll showed that Republican voters like him but found him much less “presidential” and “electable” than Romney, Huckabee sought to build his foreign policy credentials, meeting with a group of retired generals who are in Des Moines to urge the 2008 candidates to commit to opposing torture. After the meeting, Huckabee joined Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in declaring his opposition to the interrogation procedure known as “waterboarding,” and said he would support closing the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a contrast with the other leading Republicans.
Now, I’m not going to attack or defend Huckabee on these issues, but I do think that this is significant because it is a break from the conventional position of most GOPers.
Is he correct?
Here are my personal feelings on these matters: I’m undecided on waterboarding. I can see the problems it may cause, but I am not sure of the whole matter. I do not, and will not, support closing Gitmo.
As a follow-up to yesterday’s report on Rudy Giuliani’s comments on school choice, The Club for Growth has given Rudy kudos for his comments:
Club for Growth PAC Praises Giuliani on School Choice
Washington – The Club for Growth PAC praised Rudy Giuliani for promoting school choice yesterday in North Carolina and calling for less government involvement in the country’s education system.
Giuliani deemed the American education system “a massive government monopoly of the worst kind.” Instead of increased federal involvement, Giuliani called for school choice, saying “the power has to be put in the hands of the parents to select the schools.”
“Giuliani’s call for competition and choice in education is a refreshing contrast to the Democratic candidates and certain Republicans who advocate a huge federal government role in education,” said Club for Growth President Pat Toomey. Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul are the only Republican candidates who oppose private school choice. Huckabee is even pushing for a federally mandated and funded arts and music curriculum.
In contrast, Giuliani refused to kowtow to the education monopoly. When asked how school choice would help reach out to public school teachers during the FOX News GOP debate, Giuliani said, “Well, I love teachers, but I really care about the kids more.”
“Mayor Giuliani understands that more federal involvement is the problem, not the solution,” Mr. Toomey said. “In New York City, Giuliani fought for private school choice against the liberal establishment and is showing the same mettle on the national stage.”
- Mitt Romney 25%
- Mike Huckabee 24%
- Rudy Giuliani 14%
- Fred Thompson 12%
- John McCain 5%
- Ron Paul 5%
- Tom Tancredo 3%
Second Choice
- Rudy Giuliani 19%
- Mitt Romney 16%
- Fred Thompson 15%
- Mike Huckabee 11%
- John McCain 8%
- Ron Paul 6%
- Duncan Hunter 4%
- Tom Tancredo 4%
Regardless of who you may support for the Republican nomination, who do you think would do the best job of protecting the nation from terrorism?
- Rudy Giuliani 26%
- Mitt Romney 14%
- John McCain 12%
- Mike Huckabee 10%
- Fred Thompson 9%
- Ron Paul 4%
- Tom Tancredo 4%
Regardless of who you may support for the Republican nomination, who do you think would do the best job of making wise decisions about what to do in Iraq?
- Mitt Romney 20%
- Rudy Giuliani 19%
- John McCain 15%
- Mike Huckabee 11%
- Fred Thompson 8%
- Ron Paul 4%
Survey of 264 likely Republican caucus-goers was conducted November 7-25. The margin of error is +/- 7 percentage points.
David French, co-founder of Evangelicals for Mitt (currently serving as a JAG in Iraq) sent this letter to Jonah Goldberg concerning the silly responses he received to his question: “What’s so bad about Mormonism?”
Dear Jonah,
Greetings from Iraq. As I sit here just a few miles from the Iranian border, I have reliable email and internet access for the first time in more than a month. I eagerly went to the Corner to get my fix and saw your question to readers about the real effects of a Mormon president. In my civilian life (I’m a mobilized reservist), I’m a co-founder of Evangelicals for Mitt (www.evangelicalsformitt.org ) and a regular contributor to NRO’s own Phi Beta Cons. Obviously, since I’m now deployed, my political activities are nonexistent. But I did want to say something in response to the emailers who argue that a Mormon president would somehow lead people astray because he would be a great marketing asset for the LDS church.
I’m hardly surprised that you have gotten this response. This, in fact, is the single most common objection we’ve received in the almost 18 full months that we’ve been operating our Evangelicals for Mitt website. In my mind, this line of reasoning is more responsible than any other for the religious-based objections to Mitt Romney’s candidacy. It is also so theologically and intellectually flawed that it almost makes me want to weep.
Do religions really stand or fall based on the attractiveness of their most famous adherents? Or does God perhaps have a say (I would say the decisive say) in the process? I presume that your correspondents would never stay in a Marriott hotel, fly Jetblue, or root for the 49ers when Steve Young was throwing touchdown passes to Jerry Rice. Because, after all, they don’t want to endorse anyone or anything that brings credibility to the LDS church. I suppose God stands helplessly by as religions compete for souls by offering up a series of accomplished, attractive politicians and celebrities. (“I see your Steve Young and raise you a Kurt Warner.”)
In fact, as we know from the Bible, God more often uses the “least of these.” The King of Kings came not as a prince but a carpenter and allowed himself to be executed between two petty criminals. His apostles did not run Roman provinces but were instead chased across an empire, met in caves, and were sometimes torn apart in arenas for public amusement. And yet Christianity has endured and flourished. Why? Because – perhaps, just perhaps – God is in control.
So when I see Christians say that the eternal souls of men are in danger because a Mormon of genuine integrity and real accomplishment is running for president, I wonder who (or what) they have faith in: the sovereignty of a loving God who holds the nations in his hands, or the persuasive power of a Mormon missionary who can add one more celebrity to the list of famous LDSers (“we’re right because Gladys Knight, Danny Ainge, Dale Murphy, Harry Reid, and – yes – Mitt Romney say so!”)
All the best,
David
Dean Barnett had this to say about Huckabee as a candidate…
SO WHAT WOULD a Huckabee nomination mean for the Republican party? First, the good news. Huckabee, as we’ve all discovered, is quite good at seeking office. As a Romney guy, it pains me to say this, but Huckabee may well be our strongest potential nominee. All of the others have well documented weaknesses as wholesale and retail politicians. Huckabee doesn’t.
What’s more, Huckabee is the one Republican with a chance of having some crossover appeal to people who are traditionally unlikely to vote for Republicans. As the nominee, he would rebrand a party badly in need of rebranding.
- Rudy Giuliani 32% (39%)
- John McCain 18% (13%)
- Mike Huckabee 14%
- Mitt Romney 14% (14%)
- Fred Thompson 13% (18%)
- Other 6% (12%)
- Undecided 3% (6%)
Survey of 505 Likely Republican Primary Voters was conducted November 30-December 2. The margin of error is +/- 4.4 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted October 12-14 are in parentheses.
- Rudy Giuliani 19%
- Mitt Romney 19%
- Fred Thompson 18%
- John McCain 13%
- Mike Huckabee 10%
- Ron Paul 6%
Second Choice
- Rudy Giuliani 22%
- Mitt Romney 19%
- John McCain 14%
- Fred Thompson 10%
- Ron Paul 4%
- Mike Huckabee 3%
Regardless of who you may support for the Republican nomination, who do you think would do the best job of protecting the nation from terrorism?
- Rudy Giuliani 29%
- John McCain 19%
- Fred Thompson 12%
- Mitt Romney 10%
- Mike Huckabee 5%
Regardless of who you may support for the Republican nomination, who do you think would do the best job of making wise decisions about what to do in Iraq?
- John McCain 22%
- Rudy Giuliani 20%
- Fred Thompson 13%
- Mitt Romney 13%
- Mike Huckabee 6%
Survey of 468 likely Republican voters was conducted November 7-25. The margin of error is +/- 5.5 percentage points.
- Rudy Giuliani 18%
- Mike Huckabee 18%
- John McCain 14%
- Fred Thompson 13%
- Mitt Romney 12%
- Ron Paul 7%
Survey includes approximately 600 Likely Republican Primary Voters. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points.
- Rudy Giuliani 49%
- Hillary Clinton 36%
- Fred Thompson 47%
- Hillary Clinton 35%
- John McCain 55%
- Hillary Clinton 32%
- Mitt Romney 47%
- Hillary Clinton 35%
- Mike Huckabee 47%
- Hillary Clinton 38%
Favorability Rating
- John McCain 61%
- Rudy Giuliani 57%
- Mike Huckabee 50%
- Mitt Romney 47%
- Hillary Clinton 41%
Survey of 500 Likely Voters was conducted November 28. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points. In the 2004 election, President Bush defeated Senator Kerry in Kansas, 62-37%.
- Rudy Giuliani 47% (48%)
- Hillary Clinton 38% (39%)
- John McCain 57% (52%)
- Hillary Clinton 34% (40%)
- Mitt Romney 45%
- Hillary Clinton 41%
Survey of 500 Likely Voters was conducted November 28. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted October 3 are in parentheses. In the 2004 election, President Bush defeated Senator Kerry in Arizona, 55-44%.
For the last month or two I have made it a point not to spend front page posts knocking other candidates. I think it’s good for the site, and also it has something to do with the fact that I realized that every candidate on the ticket right now is a pretty good candidate. I would say Huckabee is one of those as well. He’s got some faults, which are a problem, but I think it would be fun to watch him debate Hillary or whomever the Dems pick. But there is one problem I shall write about as long as it remains an under handed attack on the candidate I support, and that’s Huckabee’s near insistence that he is chosen by God to win. And don’t tell me it’s not there or it’s some general hope that God will bless him because the facts just don’t support that interpretation.
Today more came out on Huckbee’s speech at Liberty University:
When Liberty University Chancellor Jerry Falwell Jr. introduced Republican presidential candidate Gov. Mike Huckabee at Wednesday’s convocation, he said Huckabee told university leaders during a visit here last year that “if this candidacy really took off it would have to be a God thing.”
It seems God has done His thing.
…And, while the research continues to show Huckabee climbing in the polls, he said the “God thing” will continue to amaze those on the outside.
In a brief question-and-answer period after his talk, one student asked Huckabee what he can attribute the surge in success to. Huckabee replied: “There’s only one explanation for it and it’s not a human one. It’s the same power that felt that … two fish and five loaves could feed a crowd of 5,000 people. … There literally are thousands of people across this country who are praying that little would become much and it has.”
OK, lets review this. If Huckabee wins, it would be directly attributed to God’s help, and I am assuming that God’s help follows His will. The assumption with the title of this peice (“More on God’s Chosen Candidate”) I am assuming that if it’s God’s will that you win, and God helps you, it reasons that God has chosen you above the others.Hence you are “chosen.”
This is a major problem. A serious one. Huckabee’s assertion that somehow God has chosen him to take a small yet significant lead in Iowa is a real slap in the face to those who actually believe different than him. Contrary to his own belief system, most people don’t believe God’s political hand rests on the shoulders of Populist Baptist Candidates. The implications that God is performing miracles stinks of a political hubris that drives many away from the GOP. Frankly when Huckabee’s current hurdle is to overcome Mitt Romney, his assertions of God’s will in his campaign is a direct assault on not only Mitt Romney but also on the faith I believe whole heartedly to be true. How can I ever take a candidate seriously who is implying to me that his campaign is a surrogate battle between he Baptists and the Mormons? And if God is helping and has chosen Huckabee, does that mean by supporting another candidate I am fighting against God? And what if Huckabee loses to Romney, does that mean God changed his mind and now supports Mormon candidates over Baptist ones? Or does it mean that whoever outperforms Huckabee is actually stronger then God?
Look the accusation has been made on this site and countless others that Mitt Romney will attempt to make Mormonism the state religion. Nothing could be further from the truth. If that was the case, I would never support him, because Mormon doctrine itself teaches against that and I would be morally opposed to it. Yet if Romney was to say anything near to what Huckabee is claiming, he would be done in the blink of an eye. The MSM is so far refusing to take this story up, they are happy to see Huckabee rise, his candidacy has literally become a tool of the left.
When I was a kid in Sunday School a teacher told me that in their opinion it was wrong to pray for a win against a worthy opponent such as in a Football game or such- her reasoning she gave is the same I give here. To claim God’s help in defeating another worthy opponent is not only a sole claim to knowing the mind of God, and in many ways to his love and support, but it’s a deep religious hubris that has absolutely no place in the teaching of Jesus Christ.
News round-up for the event build up in bullet format:
Rudy Giuliani
Fred Thompson
John McCain
Mitt Romney
Mike Huckabee
General Race 4 2008 News
Hillary Clinton
