A couple things to watch for in the results from Michigan tonight...besides of course who wins:
1) How does Mike Huckabee do among non-Evangelicals? Even while utilizing a late-starting campaign, Huckabee hit the trail pretty hard in Michigan and had a chance to get his message of economic populism out. Reaching out to economically distressed voters in a potential swing state is supposed to be one of his strengths once he gets outside his Evangelical base. Can he actually turn that supposed appeal into votes?
2) How does John McCain do among conservatives and/or ID'd Republicans? Despite the great potential he has for becoming the establishment candidate, particularly if he can pull off wins in Michigan and South Carolina, his success thus far has been largely predicated on strong showings among moderates and liberals voting in GOP contests. That will have to change for him to be the nominee.
If Mitt Romney wins tonight the race remains rather muddled heading into Nevada and South Carolina on Saturday. If McCain, or the more long shot Huckabee, pulls Michigan out then the question will become to what degree is either man expanding his base, particularly among non-Evangelical conservatives? The first candidate to do so, absent a Romney win, probably wins the nomination.
In the meantime, here's a footnote on momentum. We've talked about the importance of momentum and the media coverage that can drive it. Some Giuliani supporters have insisted his leads in larger, later primary states will hold up in the face of other candidates winning early contests. Other observers have insisted there is little bounce for Republicans coming out of the early states.
Well, could someone explain then why John McCain - not exactly a loved figure among a number of rank-and-file conservatives - has opened up a sizable lead in national polls after a couple weeks of pretty darn good press coverage? More importantly, perhaps, he's opened up what looks like a lead in Giuliani's Florida firewall and may be inching past Mike Huckabee - who is under fire from Fred Thompson - in South Carolina. He's even grabbing the top spot in polls from February 5th states like California.
Whether all that holds up is another matter. This crazy campaign cycle is obviously unpredictable and each state contest seems to throw a new dynamic into the mix. But it's a great illustration of how important momentum and media coverage can be.
Let's see if any candidate can grab some more before the week is out.
Posted by Eric Earling at January 15, 2008 07:28 AM | Email ThisWhat I find to be interesting would be if "Uncommitted" can beat Hillary. Now that would definately be a good laugh and something she doesn't need going into Nevada.
My Michigan prediction: Romney (barely), McCain, and then Huckabee (close -- i.e., w/in 5-10 pts). So let's put it at: Romney 35, McCain 34, and Huckabee 29, with 2% going to the rest.
Posted by: tc on January 15, 2008 07:40 AMYep, that's pretty much the only way the left can win. You can't sell people on your pathetic ideas so you try to work on getting a weak opposing candidate on the ballot. That's great for America. Thank you very much.
Posted by: REBEL on January 15, 2008 07:47 AMIn war time one would think you need a leader with Military experience to be your Comander in Chief. Last two Presidents did not have proper military experience and they pretty much screwed every war/military skirmish we've been in since Bush Sr. left office.
I also think Dino's chances will be impacted by who is the Pres nominee. If the GOP ticket is carrying Washington for President, I don't see how Gregoire wins.
Posted by: besquared on January 15, 2008 08:20 AMHuckabee's 'economic populism' as you put it, isn't important in this state where Romney and McCain are only talking economics. Romney/Paul split the democratic vote, buoying both. There is a chance Thompson goes to 11, if he does then Romney falls more.
Posted by: Doug on January 15, 2008 08:31 AMJust got back from a Fred Thompson breakfast/radio townhall event in Spartanburg, SC. Thompson is getting a lot of interest at his events in SC--they are looking for a larger venue for their planned Friday night rally.
All of you Ron Paul supporters that aren't off the deep end on Paul's war rhetoric should consider Fred Thompson--he is a Federalist, a Constitutionalist and a small government conservative. He is the most Libertarian leaning candidate who actually has a chance, although he HAS to do something great in SC to move forward in the polls. Go Fred!
Posted by: Bill H on January 15, 2008 08:37 AMDoesn't matter, they're all potential terrorists as far as the GOP is concerned.
I heard a Romney speech, Yuckie, and I think it applies to all Republicans. He is encouraging the moderate Muslims (yes, Yuckie, contrary to the Democrats, there are moderates) to help eliminate the Jihadists (yes, Yuckie, there is a difference).
Bill H., I am terrified that we will wake up on February 5 and have buyers' remorse. That means McCain, Huckabee and yes, even Thompson. Thompson is one of my favorites, Bill, but I don't think he has been vetted yet as the front-runner and if his numbers rise, there may not be opportunity to do so before the primaries are decided due to the front-loading of all the primaries.
Bring your A and B games, Yuckie, and we will take you serious.
Posted by: swatter on January 15, 2008 09:02 AMI can't say that for Huckabee who I view as a Jimy Carter.
But, hey, McCain really, really looks old, doesn't he? Saw him on the tube last night. He was crotchety, as usual (trait I like in him) but he was moving like a 72 year old not in the peak of shape as Reagan was.
Posted by: swatter on January 15, 2008 09:08 AMI think you are understating the importance of what happens today. McCain is now leading EVERYWHERE in the most recent polls, and has opened up a big lead nationally, which is the critical barometer for what will happen on Feb. 5. McCain is the clear frontrunner as of this morning.
Michigan looks too close to call, but if McCain wins we may have our nominee.
Now, can he unite a very divided Party?
Posted by: Chris Vance on January 15, 2008 09:09 AMIa---------------Huckabee
WY and MI--------Romney
NH---------------McCain
SC---------------Thompson
FL---------------Giuliani
Not sure who takes NV...
February 5 may not decide anything and we could be looking at a brokered convention. That would give a lot of time to vet all of the potential candidates since, unlike some, I DO think the candidate would be chosen out of these 5 and not some outside candidate--as some Newt Gingrich supporters are hoping for. I think if Thompson shows some strength, he could be a consensus candidate at the convention.
I don't see Huckabee garnering a consensus, unless he is paired together as Giuliani's VP. I have trouble seeing how McCain gains consensus, unless he wins a lot more primaries and thus has a whole bunch of delegates. I think Giuliani would need Huckabee's social conservatives to have a chance. That leaves Romney and Thompson.
It's going to be very interesting, although less so if McCain pulls off Michigan...
Posted by: Bill H on January 15, 2008 09:18 AMThis is a critical point: the nominee is being chosen by voters, not party bosses or lobbyists. If McCain wins it will be because Republican Primary voters all across the country chose him. If we can't unite behind our nominee - whomever that is - than we deserve to be the minority Party.
BTW, polls today show McCain is the ONLY R who can win in November.
Posted by: Chris Vance on January 15, 2008 09:43 AMWe don't need that type in Washington or Washington DC!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Norm on January 15, 2008 09:48 AMWhat the polls show today is meaningless, and I will not support McCain.
Posted by: Hinton on January 15, 2008 09:48 AMI was tempted to pick the flip-flopper who seems to be a competent businessman at least, but what matters most to me is winning. There might be some true believers who refuse to vote McCain in the general election, but he's the only candidate that will pick up support from independent voters and Democrats.
McCain will win (it won't even be close if HillBill gets his way - the 2008 electoral map will look like 1984) and he'll be better than any of the D's. At this point, that's enough for me. Fortunately, I doubt I'll have to even hold my nose and caucus for him next month since I predict he'll have it in the bag after Feb 5.
Posted by: ShillBull on January 15, 2008 10:02 AMMr. Vance, you seem to rely heavily on the MSM polls. It is documented those are popularity polls since they can vary so much from one day to another.
Democrats sure like him, don't they? And they sure hope he is the nominee against Clinton, don't they? And they sure got you fooled that they will vote for him in November, don't they? Please don't be fooled.
Democrats are Democrats, no matter the flavor.
Posted by: swatter on January 15, 2008 10:10 AMThen the Dems. win easily in November. Ted Kennedy McCain is not a Republican, and I will never, ever vote for the guy. I'd rather have the GOP united in congress against Hillary or Obama than have McCain doing the deeds of Ted Kennedy in the White House.
A McCain or Huckabee nomination = the death of the GOP. Do you want the GOP to die Chris? If so, keep supporting that Democrat, John McCain.
I'm not going to post all of the beatings, broken bones and mistreatment McCain got as a prisoner of war ("McCain was sent to a prisoner-of-war camp in Hanoi in December 1967, into a cell with two other Americans who did not expect him to live a week") but I'll say this. I'm well into my 50's and I wake up every day with stiff bones and pain. I can't sprint up the stairs like I did when I was 45 but some days I can. And all I've done is lead an active life - I was never beaten to an inch of my life multiple times and had my arms and legs broken during interrogation. Neither did Reagan. It takes a toll.
Lighten up on the guy. He has a reason for the limp: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain
Vance.
You should know most of all that McCain has been on a love fest with the MSN and if you think they will stand behind him if he get's the nood. Well your a bigger fool then what I've been told about you. McCian is real weak on the border, now he wants the Gov to follow the global warming nuts.
The ONLY good thing is the war & support. O-yes spending. Well having the gov tax for GW, sounds more a Lib/Dem idea to me.
B.S.! McCain can't win, because real Republicans will never vote for him! I will never, ever vote for him. The only reason McCain is doing well is Democrats supporting him in open primaries. Maybe McCain should become a Democrat.
Posted by: AP on January 15, 2008 10:25 AMIn order for a conservative to be elected President they have to also carry the independent vote. In the past there have been two ways to do it, First, you can be the great communicator - someone like an Obama (or Reagan) that can get away with talking in generalities of hope and the future, Second, you have to be more likeable and trustful than the opponent.
Of the candidates we have Huckabee is the only one that satisfies the first - and he isn't the most conservative. Thompson can satisfy the trustful part of the Second, but that is it. Romney can't satisfy any parts of those. That is why when it's time for the General, the Republicans are going to have to go with McCain or Rudy first. They will have to pick a Huckabee as a VP to bring out that part of the base.
I would prefer Newt to be the nominee, but that's not happening.
Swatter, the electorate isn't either Republican or Democrat. There are tens of millions of voters out there who don't read political blogs because they have already identified with a party. 40% of the electorate come November is easily moveable based on the candidates. If the Republicans throw out someone that cannot move half of that group, then we lose.
Posted by: Doug on January 15, 2008 10:31 AMGo ahead, sit out the general, you sound like a Paultard.
Posted by: Doug on January 15, 2008 10:37 AMThere was a war for the hearts and minds of America. John McCain was on one side. Hillary Clinton was on the other. That war never stopped.
No telling how the primary season turns out, at least not yet. But I sense poetic justice if Clinton and McCain actually square off: the 60s radical who despised the military and wants to turn Amerika left and the miltary man who defended her right to do so, but has a different vision of America.
Posted by: Bob R on January 15, 2008 10:45 AMClearly you don't see the benefits from satellites, modern body amour, GPS missiles, modern fighting techniques. If those things had been available 65 years ago I'm sure FDR would have fought a very different war with a lot more people coming home. As a vet you should show more respect for your brothers in arms (dead or alive). FDR (with follow up by Truman won that war). Can't say the same for Bush Jr, went in weak, got thumped, and then finally starts making progress when he ramped up to what the Generals told him to in the 1st place.
Eisenhower did well, except he acted like a big ol' liberal when it came to social spending.
I am not a Paulite. Fred Thompson is the guy In support the most. McCain is an inferior candidate, which is why we need to cleanse the GOP of him by running a real Republican in Arizona in the GOP Senate primary. I will never, ever vote for John McCain.
BTW, I won't sit out, I will just vote third party for Pres. Rossi, etc. still will have my support, but Rossi will lose too if we nominate a bum like McCain who won't fire up the base. The GOP will get crushed all around if we nominate Ted Kennedy McCain or tax & Pardon Huckabee.
From talking with lefties (I live in Olympia, there are too many of them down here), they like Fred Thompson! Let's nominate a real conservative who can pick off Dem. votes instead of a Democrat like McCain, who will only stab us in the back again, and again, and again.
I will never, ever vote for Ted Kennedy McCain.
Posted by: AP on January 15, 2008 10:55 AMAnd this is just the tip of the McCain iceberg. Folks, we have to write off Ted Kennedy McCain for good. The sooner, the better.
Posted by: AP on January 15, 2008 11:12 AMGo Willard! Go Hickabee!
Posted by: Where's Willard? on January 15, 2008 11:24 AMBut some of them are so far off the reservation, they are practically Democrats! Sorry, I won't vote for Ted Kennedy McCain or Tax & Pardon Huckabee. I am sick of statists killing off the GOP. We lost in 2006 because of this, we will lose again in 2008 if we do it again. The Democrats are the statist party. Trying to be another statist party will only turn the true GOP base off from politics. We hate govt. and politics enough already, so it is easy to say screw it, and not vote. That's why it is essential to nominate a true conservative.
Rossi wins if we nominate a guy we can get excited about like Fred Thompson. It is essential for the state GOP that a Presidential candidate be able to attract more Republicans to the polls. McCain can't do that, in fact, he does the opposite.
Do you like being the minority party Chirs? I don't. It is time to stop being Democrat-lite and start being Republican again so more Republicans actually come out and vote.
Posted by: AP on January 15, 2008 11:29 AMI hate to say this but Fred doesn't fire up the base, either, none of the candidates do. Newt is likely the only one that could have. The final ticket will be built to consolidate up the base. Even if McCain's on top, the VP will be someone that addresses other failings.
All the single issue anti-immigration voters will NOT be voting for the democrat in the election, that's for sure. And I don't see the RNC coming out this year and trying to prop up immigration as the number one issue when half of the Republicans are supportive of Shamnesty and half are opposed to it.
When you have an electorate that will vote 30% Dem, 30% Rep, with 40% floating, you can't run a candidate that picks off Dem votes but doesn't appeal to the independents. An Obama/Fred fight would only be close if the campaigning got ugly. I think any Republican except for Romney and Huckabee can beat Hillary unless Bloomberg got in.
However, there is a possibility with the candidates that can get the indy vote (McCain and Rudy) to actually keep the Democrats from making gains in the House and Senate. If the Independents vote for more Republicans because of the head of the ticket, it might be enough to take back Congress. However, anytime you take away from the other's base, you don't add votes to other people in your party, that's usually voting for a specific candidate so there is no coattail effect.
The Republicans will have to win a good share of the independent vote, even more than half in purple and blue states, in order to win this time as there will be a little bit more Republican defections than Democrats this time around.
Posted by: Doug on January 15, 2008 11:32 AMI certainly agree with you on all of the major candidates except Thompson. Giuliani ticks off Social Conservatives, Huckabee can't carry Economic or National Security Conservatives, Romney is not trusted by a lot of people because of the changes in his positions between Massachusetts campaigns and the presidential campaign. McCain is not trusted by a WHOLE HOST of Conservatives because of [campaign financing, immigration, Bush tax-cuts, global warming--for some, even going way back to the Keating 5!). Thompson, however, carries all legs of the Reagan stool and could be a consensus candidate for the party.
For myself, I would be ok with Giuliani or Romney also, but I know that others have issues with them, just as I have issues with McCain (especially) and Huckabee.
Have you listened to what he has to say?
Here are some samples -
Thompson on the United Nations:
I’m never particularly surprised when the United Nations seems to oppose human freedom rather than promote it. At least a third of its member nations aren’t democratic themselves. Many that claim to be, are only barely so.
An organization that treats democracies and dictators equally cannot be expected to be a pure force for good. When Fidel Castro and Kim Jong Il have as much say in U.N. matters as the entire populations of Poland and New Zealand, you’re going to have problems.
One was the Oil-for-Food scandal. We ought to remember that the U.N. let Saddam steal tens of billions of dollars — money meant to be spent on food and medicine for his own people. Much of that money was used to pay off U.N. officials and buy support for Saddam’s regime.
Still, people keep telling me that the U.N. is a force for good — and I’d like to believe it. The world could use an organization capable of dealing with international problems like slavery. According to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, an estimated 600,000 to 800,000 people are sold across national borders annually. More are enslaved within nations. Most are women; about half are children, and the majority are sexually abused.
That’s why accusations made by former U.S. ambassador John Miller are so disturbing. Miller accuses the United Nations of promoting human trafficking by failing to punish U.N. officials and peacekeepers who have engaged in the trade.
Often, the offenders trade U.N. food and aid to desperate people for personal gain. Such incidents and the weak response to them, Miller says, cripple U.N. efforts to end human trafficking.
U.N. officials disagree, of course. They say they’ve instituted reforms; but we’ve heard this sort of thing for over 50 years. I didn’t see many resignations or firings over Oil-for-Food, so I think I’ll wait for some evidence.
Thompson on immigration:
• No Amnesty: Amnesty undermines U.S. law and policy, rewards bad behavior, and is unfair to the millions of immigrants who follow the law and are awaiting legal entry into the United States.
• Enforce Existing Federal Laws: Enforce the laws Congress has already enacted to prevent illegal aliens from unlawfully benefiting from their presence in the country including:
A. End Sanctuary Cities by cutting off discretionary federal grant funds as appropriate to any community that, by law, ordinance, executive order, or other formal policy directs its public officials not to comply with the provisions of 8 USC 1373 and 8 USC 1644, which prohibit any state or local government from restricting in any way communications with the Department of Homeland Security “regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of an alien in the United States.”
B. Deny discretionary Federal education grants as appropriate to public universities that violate federal law by offering in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens without also offering identical benefits to United States citizens, regardless of whether or not they live in the state, as required by 8 USC 1623.
C. Deny discretionary Federal grants as appropriate to states and local governments that violate federal law by offering public benefits to illegal aliens, as prohibited by 8 USC 1621(a).
• Increased Border Security: Doubling Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents handling interior enforcement, increasing the Border Patrol to at least 25,000 agents, and increasing detention space to incarcerate illegal aliens we arrest rather than letting them go with a promise to show up later for legal proceedings against them.
• Attrition through Enforcement: Reduce the number of illegal aliens through increased enforcement against unauthorized alien workers and their employers. Without illegal employment opportunities available, fewer illegal aliens will attempt to enter the country, and many of those illegally in the country now likely will return home. This course of action offers a reasonable alternative to the false choices currently proposed to deal with the 12 million or more aliens already in the U.S. illegally: either arrest and deport them all, or give them all amnesty.
• Maximize Legal Immigration Program Efficiency: Reduce the backlogs and streamline the process for immigrants and employers who seek to follow the law. Also, simplify and expedite the application processes for temporary visas. Caps for any category of temporary work visa would be increased as appropriate, if it could be demonstrated that there are no Americans capable and willing to do the jobs.
• Modernize Immigration Law/Policy: Change the nature of our legal immigration system to welcome immigrants who can be economic contributors to our country and are willing to learn the English language and reduce the scope of chain migration by giving family preference in the allocation of lawful permanent resident status only to spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens, and no one else (no siblings, no parents, no adult children, etc.).
• English as Official Language: Make English the official language of the U.S. to promote assimilation and legal immigrants’ success, and require English proficiency in order for any foreign person to be granted lawful permanent resident status.
• Preference for American Military Service: Place those foreign persons who are lawfully present in the country and who serve honorably in the Armed Forces of the United States on a faster, surer track to U.S. citizenship.
I think it was probably the press coverage. I think as political junkies we sometimes forget that most voters form their political opinions based on the snippets they get from NBC news or other organs of the leftist media. They also have tissue thin convictions. The McCain supporter of this week might next week be a Romney, or Rudy supporter.
Yesterday, Medved had McCain supporter,(and fellow Vietman prisoner of war), Orson Swindle on for an hour. Swindle began his commentary by laying into Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity as "right wingers". What does that tell all of us on the conservative side? Likely everything we need to know about John McCain and his supporters.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 15, 2008 11:43 AMWe need to attract Republicans and other anti-statists. McCain can't do that. McCain = Democrat landslide. The sooner we write off McCain, the better. McCain = disaster to the GOP. Heck, he already has been with all of the bad legislation from his career in the Senate. I don't like McCain in the US Senate, I really don't want him in the White House. After Bush stabbing us in the back, I really don't want another "Maverick" or statistlite Republican in the White House. I'd rather go back to the post '94 Clinton years.
To win in 2008, we need a guy like Thompson who can attract the base, not a clown like McCain who turns off most of the base.
Posted by: AP on January 15, 2008 11:47 AMCheers,
TC
republicans should be throwing up all over themselves for have enabled this theological takeover of the party.
Posted by: dinesh on January 15, 2008 11:50 AMrepublicans should be throwing up all over themselves for have enabled this theological takeover of the party."
I'm no Huckabee fan but I can't let this kind of silly comment pass by unchallenged.
How specifically does Huckabee intend to amend the Constitution to reflect "god's word"?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 15, 2008 11:55 AMMcCain had the same injuries 8 years ago and he didn't look old. And the eight years has taken quite a toll on his physical presence, while his mind is the same.
But, years in a POW camp does not qualify you for president status; it qualifies you as an American hero. McCain is a real hero and he has the scars to prove it; however, that does not qualify you for president.
Posted by: swatter on January 15, 2008 11:55 AM50 percent of Republicans believe that the Bush/McCain type immigration plan (actually getting fines paid by the illegals as per the law, then increasing the number of legal workers, as well as securing the border) is the best way to go.
50 percent of Republicans are opposed to that type of plan.
Of the total there are 23% of the republican voters that are single issue immigration voters. Of that 23% a little more than half are single issue anti-immigration voters that take the position that Fred Thompson is relating.
12% of the Republicans is hardly the base. What is interesting is that immigration is not just a Republican issue, you can see nearly similar numbers across the political spectrum.
Hence, when the candidates or blogs spew anti-immigration rhetoric, saying it's the base of the Republican party, they are fooling themselves and others, trying to make it an "if you say it enough times it becomes true" issue. Anti-immigration is just as strong with Dems' and Independents as well - 10-12% of all voters are single issue anti-immigrant voters.
Granted, most of the country wants better border security down south, the actual solution to the 'amnesty' question will fall along the lines of what McCain and Bush are saying. Heck, even at the last debate we saw Romney softening his stance.
My suggestion - leave immigration out - it really doesn't matter which nominee you have it's going to be treated in the exact same manner.
1. Fred Thompson
2. Rudy Giuliani (even though I don't care much for Huckabee, he could be the VP candidate if it helps retain social conservatives)
3. Mitt Romney
I agree with some of what AP says about putting McCain in office. It makes it harder for R's in Congress to vote against his statist/liberal proposals--proposals that they could unite against if it was proposed by a Democrat. Had there not been a massive grassroots outcry against the Immigration proposal that both McCain and Bush backed, it would have been shoved down our throats.
You miss the point if you don't understand that there are a lot of people that so distrust McCain that they might be willing to see a Democrat in the Whitehouse for 4 years rather than see McCain in there "representing" Republicans.
Posted by: Bill H on January 15, 2008 12:02 PMYeah Fred is the laziest candidate of them all, I'll be surprised if he makes it to Super Tuesday. As for Newt he in lower on Family Values scale than Guiliani and thats saying a lot. Serving divorce papers to your wife on her deathbed, that's pretty low. Lower than marrying your 2nd cousin.
1. Huck-A-Bee
2. Mitt
3. Thompson
4. McCain
Oh my, did I say three (3)...ooops
Posted by: HillBill on January 15, 2008 12:10 PM"Lower than marrying your 2nd cousin." I didn't know Bill and Hillary were cousins!?
Posted by: Bill H on January 15, 2008 12:12 PM1. Fred Thompson
2. Mitt Romney
3. Mike Huckabee/John McCain (reluctant tie)
Here's my predictions for Michigan. Top 6.
1. Mitt Romney
2. John McCain
3. Mike Huckabee
4. Rudy Giuliani
5. Fred Thompson
6. Ron Paul
In the end though I will get behind whoever the voters of the party select.
Posted by: RBW on January 15, 2008 12:13 PMWhat has he done for the American people since leaving the Senate? What did he do in the Senate? Why is he running at all?
He's the pure hype candidate with no money/support/effort to show for all the pre-hype surrounding his campaign.
Look at his performance in Iowa, shake hands for 1/2 hour....take nap for two...shake hands for hour...hide in bus for rest of the day. If he can;t campaign for more than an hour how the hell do you expect him to handle the duties of a 24/7 Office job.
What have YOU done for the American people in your whole life except for making silly, rather than constructive, comments on this blog. I haven't ever seen you make a constructive or thought provoking comment. You just make either silly comments or take a point of view that no reasonable person would take to try to start arguments. I'm not playing...
Posted by: Bill H on January 15, 2008 12:47 PMOh darn...I was trying so hard to impress you. ;)
I'm not playing...
I'm sure you can find more productive things to do with your day than arguing with some anonymous person on the internet. I know I can, but again seems more like you can't engage in a serious discussion about your candidates credentials. Seems rather fickle of you.
republicans should be throwing up all over themselves for have enabled this theological takeover of the party."
I'm no Huckabee fan but I can't let this kind of silly comment pass by unchallenged.
How specifically does Huckabee intend to amend the Constitution to reflect "god's word"?
Sure enough, Huckabee did imply yesterday that the constitution needs to reflect "god's word". I don't know what he meant by that but it seems to be to be a very ill-considered gaffe. I had no idea he'd said something like that. My fault for not doing my homework before shooting my mouth off. And by the way it makes me even more convinced that Huckabee is not someone I could ever support.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 15, 2008 01:10 PMQuit repeating leftist media myths. Get a hold of Fred's Iowa schedule for a clue. He is in SC right now campaigning in front of overflow crowds.
If Fred is a lazy lightweight, why isn't your lefty mainstream media cheering him on instead of Ted Kennedy McCain?
Posted by: AP on January 15, 2008 01:13 PMI spoke with one of his campaign people that said they have had to change some of their venues because they are getting greater crowds than they had anticipated. They are choosing a new venue for their rally on Friday night to accomodate more people. At the restaurant this morning, they weren't even encouraging a lot of people to attend (they had an event last night just about 15 minutes south of Spartanburg) since it was a radio townhall. The restaurant was actually a little vague on when he was going to be there--I think they were afraid they might be swamped (and they were!).
Posted by: Bill H on January 15, 2008 01:26 PMBecause in every poll taken Fred barley breaks out of the single digits. Press doesn't like losers. For example no one is focusing on Kucinich, in fact they're trying to get rid of him in the Nevada debate. He's left of a mjority of leftists, so the MSM seems to want him out of the picture.
Fred's polling a 5% in Michigan...at 10.5% in South Carolina. If he moved up like Huck-a-nut did after Iowa then the Media would pay more attention to poor ol' Fred. Like Ron Paul, no one cares about the fringe candidates.
Gotta love them Jeeb-us freaks.
Huckabee has been going huckabust in the last week or so since Fred has turned up the heat (down from the mid-30's to 19 in Rasmussen's poll). He'll likely fall further with a distant 3rd place in Michigan.
Romney has been flat in SC for some time and will probably get a bit of a boost in SC from a win in Michigan.
With McCain and Huckabee moving down (IF--it is a big if--Romney beats McCain in MI), Romney and Thompson will be the beneficiaries. Thompson could be the biggest beneficiary since he has been moving up nicely in Rasmussen's polls since the first of the year (from 11% to 16% in the last week).
A lot of if's and maybe's here, but if Romney beats McCain in MI, I think that helps both Thompson (in SC) and Giuliani (in FL) and makes the nomination completely wide-open. If McCain wins MI--not so much...
Posted by: Bill H on January 15, 2008 02:23 PMI dunno, you hear all the cheering...the American Right are lapping it up. Just a matter of time before Ralph Reed throws his endorsement behind Huck-a-nut. It's looking more and more likely too since Reeds boy Guiliani is sitting around in the single digits.
On the other hand, you have the direction that Governor Huckabee would take us in. He would be a Christian leader, but he would also bring about liberal economic policies, liberal foreign policies.
He believes we have an arrogant foreign policy and the tradition of, blame America first.
He believes that Guantanamo should be closed down and those enemy combatants brought here to the United States to find their way into the court system eventually.
He believes in taxpayer-funded programs for illegals, as he did in Arkansas.
He has the endorsement of the National Education Association, and the NEA said it was because of his opposition to vouchers.
He said he would sign a bill that would ban smoking nationwide. So much for federalism. So much for states' rights. So much for individual rights.
That's not the model of the Reagan coalition, that's the model of the Democratic Party?"
I don't recall Huckabee addressing any of the points Thompson made. He did make some less than convincing statements about how he had cut taxes as governor of Arkansas.
When I look at that politically correct lightbulb icon next to "energy independence" on Huckabee's website it scares the heck out of me. It tells me more about him than any speech he might make. The man is just another so-called Republican that can't wait to knuckle under to the overwhelming weight of the liberal media, Al Gore, and the secular progressive garbage that we conservatives are bombarded with every day of our lives. I don't think Huckabee stands for conservative principles. I think he just wants to be president and he'll pander to as many interest groups as he can to get there. And those groups Huckabee panders to includes religious conservatives, and the climate change hysterics.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 15, 2008 03:04 PMIf you want proof of my powers of prediction- read it here: http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/15/early-exit-polls-romney-leading/
Posted by: swatter on January 15, 2008 03:23 PMI don't know, I was watching the same debate as you and I thought Huckabee did a pretty good job of dealing with Thompson's pokes. He did explain how Reagan pretty much did the exact same things as far as taxing and spending as governor and he did an absolutely astounishing job of explaining to us why Senators don't belong in the Presidency.
When he explained how someone had to fix the roads because the feds weren't doing it, that had to earn the vote of EVERYONE on Sound Politics - oh yeah, nobody here has a problem with the roads in Puget Sound - God forbid having a governor who actually solves the problems instead of passing the buck.
Who signed the federal laws during the war on drugs - was that Reagan? I don't know, sounds a bit similar, just a different topic than smoking.
To me it sounds like Huckabee as Governor was quite similar to Reagan as Gov. What is interesting is how far RIGHT of Reagan a lot of commentators are in the blogs. We poo-poo Reagan's 'faults' his amnesty for illegals, his massive spending, etc. and instead try to convince ourselves that Reagan was more conservative than he actually was.
If you want to compare these folks to Newt, that's a different story, but Rudy, McCain and Huckabee aren't that off in relation to Reagan, and the country would be far better off with them in the White House than Obamallary.
Posted by: Doug on January 15, 2008 03:46 PMI can't name a single conservative that doesn't criticise Reagan for his amnesty for illegal aliens. I also can't name a single presidential administration that didn't propose increased spending. And imagine if Bush or Reagan cut domestic spending? Would we not hear from the left that they were "against children"? Would we not hear that Republicans were "against the poor". We hear enough of that no matter how much a Republican Administration spends from the Democrats' press handmaidens. Or haven't you ever noticed, Doug?
Romney 34%
McCain 29%
Huckabee 16%
Weird numbers. I'd have thought low turnout would have helped Huckabee as well as Romney. Of course, exit polls aren't so much better than poll-polls. It's good fodder, though.
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on January 15, 2008 04:16 PMRomney 35
McCain 29
Huckabee 15
Paul 10
Giuliani 4
Once again, Rush is right. I will never, ever vote for Ted Kennedy McCain or Tax & Pardon Huckabee.
Cato,
Fred Thompson is not a fringe candidate. The media wants to keep him down, and been doing a good job at that. The folks following the race know the Fred is the GOP's best hope.
Posted by: AP on January 15, 2008 05:11 PMI think that conservative might well be Rudy.
Yeah, I believe Mitt Romney has impeccable conservate credentials. I hate even thinking that Romney is unelectable because the biased liberal press can't wait to hammer him because he happens to be a Mormon. I do believe however that is the case.
The same "tolerant, progressive" leftists that think homosexual marriage is ok can't wait to suggest that somehow Romney might favor bigamy. The left can't write about Romney without mentioning that he's a Mormon. It's part of the sick game these disgusting, frustrated, 1960's socialist "progressive" phonies play day after day, year after year.
It's embarrasing to be part of the baby boom generation.
Anyone that believes leftists are not filled with prejudices they will employ at a moments notice if it is to their political advantage simply hasn't been paying attention.
That is good for Thompson and Giuliani--oh yeah and Romney too! South Carolina should be a lot of fun!
Posted by: Bill H on January 15, 2008 05:48 PMSay what? In what way is Rudy conservative? Near as I can tell the only thing the sorry SOB is about conserving is his own personal power. He's a Republican Hillary, but with three broken marriages under his belt instead of just one.
Posted by: ShillBull on January 15, 2008 06:40 PMBut I agree, it should be VERY interesting...
Posted by: Bill H on January 15, 2008 06:49 PMThompson campaign manager's statement on Michigan:
..Mike Huckabee's campaign to be John McCain's Vice President has hit a snag. He has gone from the mid-thirties in Iowa to 11% in New Hampshire and now about 15% in Michigan.
On higher taxes and looser immigration, Huckabee has been done his best these past few weeks to mimic McCain. But this is nothing new. In fact, while John McCain was leading the Senate charge to grant amnesty for illegal immigrants, Mike Huckabee was one of the loudest cheerleaders. And at the same time McCain was voting against the Bush tax cuts, Huckabee was in Arkansas increasing taxes some 21 times.
As for Mitt Romney, he has been all over the map on virtually every issue important to conservative voters...
Actually one candidate does fire up the base. The base that was created in the Goldwater campaign that helped get reagan elected.
The candidate... Ron Paul.
Posted by: Lysander on January 15, 2008 08:09 PMMichigan is relatively meaningless. South Carolina will be more significant.
Posted by: KS on January 15, 2008 08:51 PMAlso, look at the national polls. Paul is the 1st choice candidate of about 5-7% of Republican primary voters (and I am probably being generous with that range), but is the 2nd or 3rd choice of very few. On the other hand, Thompson is in the top 3 of choices of a LOT of voters. That is why Thompson still has a chance in this primary election, but Paul has none.
Posted by: Bill H on January 16, 2008 04:58 AMRomney = 39
McCain = 30
Huck = 16
If Bloomberg steps in, it just more problems for the libs/Dem. Not the Rep.
Just what the dem party needs is another kook!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on January 16, 2008 08:47 AMBloomberg is a BIG time LIB. Which if he did jump in the race would only pull lib votes.
He came to NY as a rep, but the proof shows he's just a lib with the way he runs NY.
Sorry it was that hard for you to see.
But what the heck, if he wants to throw away some of his bucks. Go for it!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on January 16, 2008 10:13 AM