A discussion about what it means to be a Republican.
by Conservatives United
1) Republican Brokered Conventions result in wins!
Abraham Lincoln – 3rd Ballot - Won Presidency
Rutherford Hayes – 7th Ballot - Won Presidency
James Garfield - 36th Ballot - Won Presidency
Warning Harding – 10th Ballot – Won Presidency
Dwight D. Eisenhower – “2nd Ballot” – Won Presidency
2) McCain has to win 467 more delegates (44% of remaining delegates) to secure the nomination. Huckabee needs 639 delegates (57% of remaining delegates) to force a Brokered Convention.
3) A Brokered Convention gives conservatives a voice. A Brokered Convention gives Mike Huckabee a voice. A Brokered Convention gives Mitt Romney a voice. A Brokered Convention keeps media attention on the Republican party for the next 6 months for free! If we just roll over and go to sleep the media will almost solely focus on the Democratic contest.
4) In 1968 Reagan stayed in the race and came in 3rd at the convention with 182 delegates. In 1976 Reagan stayed in the race all the way to the convention and prevented Ford from getting to 1130 delegates. Ford cut a deal that secured enough delegates before the 1st Ballot but Reagan did not bow out until Ford had crossed the finish line.
Reagan’s Revolution says: “Reagan came into the 1976 North Carolina primary having lost the first five consecutive primaries to Ford. The national party establishment was against Reagan, the media started to write him off, and his campaign was broke and in debt. Needless to say, the pressure to drop out of the race was nearly overwhelming.”
Even though Reagan won in NC it was soon statistically impossible for Reagan to win. He still stayed in. He said conservatives have a problem with Ford and until he gets 1130 I will press on.
5) Conservatives Unite! There is still time! Win the Red States and we go to the convention for a discussion about what it means to be a Republican.
Hope this brings encouragement and hope. Spread the word. It is not over!
Showing posts with label John McCain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John McCain. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Monday, February 11, 2008
Why Huck Fights On
February 7, 2008 by Doug Wead
So why is Mike Huckabee staying in the race for president? What does he hope to gain? What is he seeing that the rest of us don’t see?
Ahhhh, it is the last question that answers the first two. Huckabee is reading different numbers on his chances and so far, his numbers are proving the more accurate. The cable networks and their pundits who keep telling him to drop out of the race are reading the numbers of evangelical voters in a given contest. Huck, who is afterall in a different business than entertainment news, is reading the “born again” numbers and it has made all the difference in the world.Here is how it works. A young couple and their family has been attending a Nazarene Church for the last six years. They like it, they are comfortable, they support the values, they will vote for a candidate who lines up. At the exit poll they are asked by a cable news network if they are an evangelical?
Well, they aren’t sure; this is a term that has been imposed from without, a catchall with negative connotations. In 2000, John McCain called evangelicals “agents of intolerance.” They don’t give to television evangelists. They are just Nazarene, or maybe their church is Southern Baptist, or Assemblies of God or some other “community church.” A huge percentage of evangelicals still do not know that they are, in fact, part of “the evangelical group.”
Huckabee is working with Gallup numbers, the only truly reliable numbers on religion. It is what we worked with in our successful 1988 campaign for George Herbert Walker Bush, who won 81% of evangelicals nationwide. Gallup’s numbers could be trusted then because they offered a definition inside the question itself. And because they offered a point of reference. (They had been publishing their surveys of religion for years.) And because no special interest drove their polling, it was strictly a curious socio-cultural snapshot of America.
Here was Gallup’s question…
“Are you a born again Christian, that is, have you had a turning point in your life in which you committed yourself to Jesus Christ?”
In 1984, as we looked ahead and planned the GHW Bush presidential run, 39% of the American public said “Yes” to that question. Today the number is closer to 42%.
In 1992, Gallup finally added an addendum to the above question to make it clear…
“And / or, are you an evangelical?”
To all of the above that Nazarene couple would have answered yes.
This year, Evangelicals have watched with bemusement and then horror as the cable news networks have hashed and rehashed who they are, what they believe and why they vote the way they vote. One would think that having an evangelical or two also commenting would be good marketing. Can you imagine networks full of whites talking on and on about Black voters with nary a word from the Black community itself? Well, you got it with evangelicals.
And the same arrogance led to their pointless, irrelevant polls. It led to them believe that Huckabee’s diminished evangelical pool could not support wins in the South on Super Tuesday, for example. But while they saw 28% of the voters in a given state as evangelical, Huckabee knew that twice that many were born again Christians who would support him.We encountered a similar problem in the 1988 cycle. CBS News had exit polls showing that 17% of the nation were fundamentalist Christians. This was a period in which national ignorance of religion in the media was so widespread that we couldn’t get the media to see the difference between fundamentalists, in the John Rice tradition, Jerry Falwell, for example, and the larger evangelical movement. The difference was huge. For example, our Gallup polls, including an excellent purloined survey that had been commissioned by Robert Schuller, showed that only 2% of the nation considered themselves as Fundamentalists, while the 39% claimed to be born again.So where did CBS get its 17%? Most of the public was far more informed about religion than the elitists in media who covered it. Some people answered no to CBS, even though they were born again Christians, some thought, well, I am not a fundamentalist but I think they are really wanting to know if I am born again. They said, yes. Others thought, maybe they are getting it mixed up with evangelicals, and so CBS came up with a bogus, irrelevant number that represented nothing more than a grasp in the dark.
For a brief period, the national news media had a perfect window into this world through John Ellis, a cousin of the Bush family who ran the polling division at NBC. The computer programming pioneer, Roman Godzich, who would later become famous for introducing news on the internet, had set up the NBC system. And we, evangelicals at the Bush campaign, were backtracking to NBC, to help them ask the right questions. The secular media thought our campaign was out of its mind for its early courting of evangelicals. But we got our work done, most of it by 1986, and we were moving into mainstream waters completely by the last year, unscathed by media antipathy toward our Christian allies.
This week, as frantic conservatives tried to drive Huckabee out of the contest, he saw numbers twice as big as theirs. He, alone paid attention to how evangelicals were cutting in Iowa in the last three days when the estrangement between Mormons and Evangelicals surfaced. He knew that if he dropped out, his supporters would not go to Romney. The race would be over. He knew that the bogus attacks on his conservative credentials would not phase his base. (Huckabee’s most liberal moment as governor of Arkansas was raising cigarette taxes in state. Evangelicals don’t care about “sin taxes.” They cared more about Romney’s support of gay civil unions and pro choice in Massachusetts.)
So why does Huckabee stay in the race?
Because in their rush to destroy his chances they have frightened the whole evangelical movement, maybe even awakened parts of it and united parts of it that Huckabee had not been able to reach. MSNBC openly sneered at him, for no apparent reason other than his faith. CNN marginalized him, excluding him from a debate when he was only 1 point separate from Mitt Romney in national polls. FOX News led its Super Tuesday morning program with Karen Hanratty’s anti-Huckabee rant, “Thank God he won’t be the nominee. I don’t care what he does.” Evangelicals themselves feel under attack.
But Huckabee’s numbers proved prescient, the networks bogus. And he is still reading those numbers and must follow them to their end conclusion in Virginia and elsewhere. Now he has become something more. He represents a huge segment of the nation that is feeling excluded, ripped, vilified and powerless. The media hostility and pushing and shoving is awakening the giant. Too late to win the nomination but not too late to bargain at the table of a beleaguered candidate.
This week the media elites, in their great ignorance of evangelicals, will announce that the negotiation have begun at C-PAC between Movement Conservatives and the nominee, John McCain. But C-PAC will represent only the Catholic talking heads and institutions inside the beltway. The negotiations will not be over. Any bargaining with evangelicals will now have to pass through the hands of Governor Mike Huckabee.
So why is Mike Huckabee staying in the race for president? What does he hope to gain? What is he seeing that the rest of us don’t see?
Ahhhh, it is the last question that answers the first two. Huckabee is reading different numbers on his chances and so far, his numbers are proving the more accurate. The cable networks and their pundits who keep telling him to drop out of the race are reading the numbers of evangelical voters in a given contest. Huck, who is afterall in a different business than entertainment news, is reading the “born again” numbers and it has made all the difference in the world.Here is how it works. A young couple and their family has been attending a Nazarene Church for the last six years. They like it, they are comfortable, they support the values, they will vote for a candidate who lines up. At the exit poll they are asked by a cable news network if they are an evangelical?
Well, they aren’t sure; this is a term that has been imposed from without, a catchall with negative connotations. In 2000, John McCain called evangelicals “agents of intolerance.” They don’t give to television evangelists. They are just Nazarene, or maybe their church is Southern Baptist, or Assemblies of God or some other “community church.” A huge percentage of evangelicals still do not know that they are, in fact, part of “the evangelical group.”
Huckabee is working with Gallup numbers, the only truly reliable numbers on religion. It is what we worked with in our successful 1988 campaign for George Herbert Walker Bush, who won 81% of evangelicals nationwide. Gallup’s numbers could be trusted then because they offered a definition inside the question itself. And because they offered a point of reference. (They had been publishing their surveys of religion for years.) And because no special interest drove their polling, it was strictly a curious socio-cultural snapshot of America.
Here was Gallup’s question…
“Are you a born again Christian, that is, have you had a turning point in your life in which you committed yourself to Jesus Christ?”
In 1984, as we looked ahead and planned the GHW Bush presidential run, 39% of the American public said “Yes” to that question. Today the number is closer to 42%.
In 1992, Gallup finally added an addendum to the above question to make it clear…
“And / or, are you an evangelical?”
To all of the above that Nazarene couple would have answered yes.
This year, Evangelicals have watched with bemusement and then horror as the cable news networks have hashed and rehashed who they are, what they believe and why they vote the way they vote. One would think that having an evangelical or two also commenting would be good marketing. Can you imagine networks full of whites talking on and on about Black voters with nary a word from the Black community itself? Well, you got it with evangelicals.
And the same arrogance led to their pointless, irrelevant polls. It led to them believe that Huckabee’s diminished evangelical pool could not support wins in the South on Super Tuesday, for example. But while they saw 28% of the voters in a given state as evangelical, Huckabee knew that twice that many were born again Christians who would support him.We encountered a similar problem in the 1988 cycle. CBS News had exit polls showing that 17% of the nation were fundamentalist Christians. This was a period in which national ignorance of religion in the media was so widespread that we couldn’t get the media to see the difference between fundamentalists, in the John Rice tradition, Jerry Falwell, for example, and the larger evangelical movement. The difference was huge. For example, our Gallup polls, including an excellent purloined survey that had been commissioned by Robert Schuller, showed that only 2% of the nation considered themselves as Fundamentalists, while the 39% claimed to be born again.So where did CBS get its 17%? Most of the public was far more informed about religion than the elitists in media who covered it. Some people answered no to CBS, even though they were born again Christians, some thought, well, I am not a fundamentalist but I think they are really wanting to know if I am born again. They said, yes. Others thought, maybe they are getting it mixed up with evangelicals, and so CBS came up with a bogus, irrelevant number that represented nothing more than a grasp in the dark.
For a brief period, the national news media had a perfect window into this world through John Ellis, a cousin of the Bush family who ran the polling division at NBC. The computer programming pioneer, Roman Godzich, who would later become famous for introducing news on the internet, had set up the NBC system. And we, evangelicals at the Bush campaign, were backtracking to NBC, to help them ask the right questions. The secular media thought our campaign was out of its mind for its early courting of evangelicals. But we got our work done, most of it by 1986, and we were moving into mainstream waters completely by the last year, unscathed by media antipathy toward our Christian allies.
This week, as frantic conservatives tried to drive Huckabee out of the contest, he saw numbers twice as big as theirs. He, alone paid attention to how evangelicals were cutting in Iowa in the last three days when the estrangement between Mormons and Evangelicals surfaced. He knew that if he dropped out, his supporters would not go to Romney. The race would be over. He knew that the bogus attacks on his conservative credentials would not phase his base. (Huckabee’s most liberal moment as governor of Arkansas was raising cigarette taxes in state. Evangelicals don’t care about “sin taxes.” They cared more about Romney’s support of gay civil unions and pro choice in Massachusetts.)
So why does Huckabee stay in the race?
Because in their rush to destroy his chances they have frightened the whole evangelical movement, maybe even awakened parts of it and united parts of it that Huckabee had not been able to reach. MSNBC openly sneered at him, for no apparent reason other than his faith. CNN marginalized him, excluding him from a debate when he was only 1 point separate from Mitt Romney in national polls. FOX News led its Super Tuesday morning program with Karen Hanratty’s anti-Huckabee rant, “Thank God he won’t be the nominee. I don’t care what he does.” Evangelicals themselves feel under attack.
But Huckabee’s numbers proved prescient, the networks bogus. And he is still reading those numbers and must follow them to their end conclusion in Virginia and elsewhere. Now he has become something more. He represents a huge segment of the nation that is feeling excluded, ripped, vilified and powerless. The media hostility and pushing and shoving is awakening the giant. Too late to win the nomination but not too late to bargain at the table of a beleaguered candidate.
This week the media elites, in their great ignorance of evangelicals, will announce that the negotiation have begun at C-PAC between Movement Conservatives and the nominee, John McCain. But C-PAC will represent only the Catholic talking heads and institutions inside the beltway. The negotiations will not be over. Any bargaining with evangelicals will now have to pass through the hands of Governor Mike Huckabee.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Oops! I Did It Again...
Remember that email I blogged about between Sean Hannity and myself? Seems that Gary Bauer (who I CC'd) want's to weigh in. I received his response today.For the sake of bringing you up to speed (in case you missed the first one) let me remind you that when Sean Hannity came out and endorsed Mitt Romney - I received an email from a frustrated friend in Ohio who - like many others - has a very difficult time in watching the continued mis-treatment of any GOP Candidate - but certainly Mike Huckabee since that is who the Principaled and Values Voters support. You can read the detailed account below - but the remark I made that "offended" Sean Hannity was "So much for Faith and Family Values. It's all about the money and the Mormon funding these guys receive."
It was that email that now the Evangelical Leader Gary Bauer decided to weigh in on. Gary is one individual that I have been discussing Huckabee and other candidates with quite vigorously for a while. His response was:
I understand the strong negative reaction to Senator McCain. I would caution, however, that some of the criticism is overblown. For example:
He has an 82% American Conservative Union voting record.
He has repeatedly promised to veto any tax increase.
He voted against the hate crimes bill.
He is the toughest Republican Senator on fighting pork barrel spending.
He has voted pro-life on every issue except, unfortunately, stem-cells.
Hillary or Obama will destroy our military, shut down conservative talk radio, raise taxes,
surrender in Iraq and give us socialized medicine. How can anything that bad for America possibly be good for conservatives?
Gary
Mr. Bauer is reacting to my comments of voting for Obama if Huckabee isn't at the very least a VP candidate.
I will close this blog with my copy and pasted response to Mr. Bauer and trust it will speak for itself without further commentary (but please feel free to add your comments).
Mr. Bauer,
In response to your reply (be forwarned - Hannity has called me a Huckabee Conspiracy Theorist on National Radio so whatever you have to offer I can take).
Is it overblown that McCain doesn't support the "Sovereignty" of the US?
Is it overblown that McCain supports gay marriage?
Is it overblown that McCain supports stem cell research ("unfortunately" not)?
As for promising to veto any tax increase - so has Huckabee. I'm not going into full explanation here - but you can listen to the same YouTubes and the radio interview between Huckabee and Colmes that I've heard regarding Huckabee's position on tax increase and his POSITIVE record of surplus and LOWERING Taxes in Arkansas (his record is far better than Romney's), along with fixing the education fiasco, the HealthCare problems and Road Problems, the Clintons left behind.
The Hate crimes bill has not been an issue (at least a major one) in this election (that I'm aware of)
Huckabee promises to be tough on Pork Barrel spending and has promoted a Line Item Veto to accomplish it.
Conservative Talk radio is far from conservative - and I'm at the place that they need to be shut down as you suggest the democrats will do. If they aren't going to report objectively and truthfully - why should they exist. It is gross misconduct to be King Makers. The reason FOX came into existence to begin with was so we had an alternative to the Main Stream Media King Maker's - now we have Conservative King Makers. As a matter of fact - what makes you think John McCain wouldn't shut them down alongside the Democrats - his McCain/Feingold bill certainly had the intent of shutting Evangelical Ministries down (even though it was only self-serving to get him the GOP nomination - and now that he has come out and stated that M/F is 'unconstitutional' and your candidate stated it was "bad legislation" the purpose of the M/F bill has been served - and Americans have been duped - and our Government Used like last nights prostitute) Their (FOX and relative pundits) journalism is and remains unethical in practice, and has been bought and paid for.
Socialized Medicine is a Romney plan as well as the democrats.
My position is - if we're going to elect a RINO - let's just put a Democrat in. At least we'll know what to expect of them. Then the GOP's will rally to keep their hands tied and regain Congressional/Senate seats back in 2010. Hillary would probably be the lesser of two evils between her and Obama - so maybe I overspoke in which Democrat I would vote for - but I will not vote for McCain unless Huckabee is the VP (provided he doesn't get the nomination in a brokered convention at this point). I will not vote for Romney even if Huckabee is his VP because of his dirty politics and "Do anything to get elected" mentality. He is as bad if not worse on flip-flopping than John Kerry and the Democrats will hand him his head on a platter in November should he win the nomination.
Evangelical Leadership, the GOP Washington Insiders, and Fox News (Conservative Radio) have all grossly mis-handled this election and probably have cost us the White House.
I almost ended with that - but just to be clear, I'm not upset because the groups I've listed have "Not supported" Huckabee (with exception to the Evangelical leadership who should know better). I'm upset because they clearly ostrosized Huckabee and (yourself included) came out very early stating that "we don't endorse" but you all eventually ended up endorsing when Mike Huckabee started showing promise and even early on - the non-endorsing crowd had no problem saying "we don't endorse - but Mike Huckabee is liberal" and spun his very conservative, very humane, very Christian governing record into what amounted to out-right lies. Evangelical leadership seemingly (this is a "Conspiracy Theory" floating about) have been simply trying to jump on the winning horse in this race - thus they have not backed their clear choice candidate.
THERE MR. HANNITY is why I stated "So much for Faith and Family Values" it seems that the Evangelical leadership can be bought and sold too (along with you and Clear Channel - if that offends you - I'm sorry - - I'm offended too). In the name of "power and open communication lines" with whomever becomes the next President, Evangelicals have remained silent. I have been told by Tony Perkins' staffer's and close friends of James Dobson that my thinking of Mormon Money lining their Organizational pockets is off - but I still maintain "follow the money" How many Mormon Dollars compared to non-mormon dollars pays their utility costs, payroll costs, etc. A comparison I'd like to see. But even taking the words of these individuals - one of which I trust greatly - the silence of these Evangelical leaders is not warranted and not appropriate. Sorry - my Bible tells me that once "having done all to stand... stand." and Evangelicals across this country have given to Focus on the Family, FRC (Tony Perkins), ACLJ (Jay Sekulow), AFA (who have done the right thing in this election), and I would even venture to say Gary Bauer's org and supported their battle cries and calls - and when the rubber met the road when Huckabee threw in (which would have been, should have been, and WAS their prime candidate) they should have gotten behind him with everything their organizations could throw....but they remained silent (an epitaph for their tombstones). They took to the political low road. When it came time to Put up or shut up - they shut up. That's what the Bible terms as being "lukewarm." They had their chance and missed it, and I will be watching and listening throughout the next Presidents adminstration and everytime I hear a complaint or a stance against abortion or any other "Christian issue" - I'm going to tell them Mike Huckabee, Mike Huckabee, Mike Huckabee....you had your chance and took a pass." Every aborted baby's grave should have that on their tombstone: "You had your chance to save me and took a political pass."
Well Mr. Bauer, you and I may never see eye to eye on this election. But you have lost a lot of respect of some very good Christian individuals that I've communitcated with. Why exactly - outside of your failed support of Huckabee and your attacks against him - I'm not sure - something transpiring before my time regarding political interests and involvment.
As stated earlier - I can vote for a McCain/Huckabee ticket as long as I follow it up with a stiff drink (just kidding - I don't drink - just watch too many westerns - since I don't have FOX News to watch or WMAL radio to listen to any more). I would hope we could work together in the future - but unfortunately until this election is over - I have the "if your not for me - your against me" mentaility as applied to Hucakbee - which as you should know is a Biblical Principal.
As for conspiracy theories - - a friend of mine has a very good concept on conspiracy theories - too long to get into here, but there is definately a conspiracy theory that is reality when you think about "principalities and powers" in high places. Many people are working (possibly at odds with others) for the same ultimate goal of the Prince of Persia - but our goal is for the Prince of Peace, and we are currently losing a well-fought battle with this election - haven't lost - but behind at this writing - and in the end you and I both know Who wins the war whatever the outcome of the battle may be. The battle at this time is only the Nomination for GOP Candidate, the next Battle is the General Election, but the War - is the Kingdom of Heaven and it's citizens, to which - in Jesus Christ - we are both a part of. I will stand with you anytime for that ultimate victory - and wish you and the other Evangelical Leaders who chose to go left when they should have gone right had stood with me and many others in this current battle we now face.
I don't know what you think about Don Wildmon - I've always thought he was pretty "out there" but he has supported this candidate and for now - has won my appreciation. I'm not sure how effective he is - but I give him an A for effort, diligence, and faithfulness to his calling over the years. The other more well-known Arlington Group members left their first love and as Mr. Hannity suggested for me...."should be ashamed" of themselves. You can read about that on my blog.
Thanks for the reply.
With respect,
Michael Phillips, Chairman
Maryland Faith and Family Values Coalition
Waldorf, MD
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
What The Republican Capaigns Reveal About Their Candidates
By a HucksArmy Grassroots Volunteer of Bishopville, SC
In this highly unusual presidential campaign, one thing has not changed – the passionate and hope-filled promises of a better America. The real ideas and hard facts for how they could actually work are few and far between, but the promises are there. The problem is most of us have heard them too often, and have grown skeptical.
According to the latest polls, the number one concern among republicans is the economy. We have a deficit in the trillions of dollars and an economy that is, at best, slipping into a recession. Each candidate has shared his promises and the, too often, empty words of dreamy results, but who can really change the course? Which Republican candidate is best qualified to lead this country back to financial health?
At first, Mitt Romney looks as if he is the Messaiah on this point. A self-made millionaire who has a proven record of turning failing companies around, who better understands the economy – who better to lead America to financial recovery? But critics assail that his millions were made by corporate restructuring and sell-offs, which translated, is layoffs and job reductions. If so, that is hardly what we need.
Then, there’s John McCain. He touts his record of fighting against government waste and tenaciously denounces pork barrel spending, offering a handful of examples where he did just that. On the other side, he has never really had the responsibility of running a government or balancing its budget. Romney has asserted that he’s part of the “Washington is broken” problem.
Mike Huckabee did run a government, balancing its budget ten straight years. He got the attention of fiscal conservatives with a fresh, new idea for a stimulus package in the most recent debate – investing the money in a major infrastructure project using American labor and American-made materials. On the flip-side, he has been labeled by the Club for Growth and prominent conservatives as a tax-and-spend liberal.
Ron Paul makes the case that, were we not funding the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, we could divert that money to stimulate the economy. However, that would require abandoning our security interests in that region – something that most republicans would consider far too great a risk.
So, who is really offers America the most hope? Perhaps the answer is not in the promises or opinions, but can be found in the campaigns themselves.
It is no secret that Mitt Romney has outspent all of the other candidates. Estimates are that he has outspent some contenders by as much as 20-to-1. Yet, he has only managed to win three primaries or caucuses, two of which were not contested and one in his “home” state of Michigan. How well does that testify of his ability to control spending? How does it portray fiscal responsibility? How would it translate as an ability to cut the waste out of the federal budget?
And what about the current front-runner, John McCain? Not that long ago, his campaign was on life support – about to go under. His answer – borrow money. Would that he his solution to the economic woes of our country? What would that do to the federal deficit?
How about Mike Huckabee? Huckabee has never had an abundance of cash for his campaign. In fact, the media clearly stated that once Iowa was over, he would be done – that he couldn’t financially compete nationally. But Huckabee has inspired a grass-roots effort that has kept him in the race, in contention in the national polls, and poised for several victories on super Tuesday. When his campaign was feeling the tightness of the budget during the Florida campaign, he made some tough decisions to cut spending, but stay in the black.
America has a problem with spending and deficits. We need a leader who can inspire people, make tough decisions, and put us back on track financially. Some people have already written Mike Huckabee off in this presidential election. That’s a mistake, in more ways than one.
In this highly unusual presidential campaign, one thing has not changed – the passionate and hope-filled promises of a better America. The real ideas and hard facts for how they could actually work are few and far between, but the promises are there. The problem is most of us have heard them too often, and have grown skeptical.
According to the latest polls, the number one concern among republicans is the economy. We have a deficit in the trillions of dollars and an economy that is, at best, slipping into a recession. Each candidate has shared his promises and the, too often, empty words of dreamy results, but who can really change the course? Which Republican candidate is best qualified to lead this country back to financial health?
At first, Mitt Romney looks as if he is the Messaiah on this point. A self-made millionaire who has a proven record of turning failing companies around, who better understands the economy – who better to lead America to financial recovery? But critics assail that his millions were made by corporate restructuring and sell-offs, which translated, is layoffs and job reductions. If so, that is hardly what we need.
Then, there’s John McCain. He touts his record of fighting against government waste and tenaciously denounces pork barrel spending, offering a handful of examples where he did just that. On the other side, he has never really had the responsibility of running a government or balancing its budget. Romney has asserted that he’s part of the “Washington is broken” problem.
Mike Huckabee did run a government, balancing its budget ten straight years. He got the attention of fiscal conservatives with a fresh, new idea for a stimulus package in the most recent debate – investing the money in a major infrastructure project using American labor and American-made materials. On the flip-side, he has been labeled by the Club for Growth and prominent conservatives as a tax-and-spend liberal.
Ron Paul makes the case that, were we not funding the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, we could divert that money to stimulate the economy. However, that would require abandoning our security interests in that region – something that most republicans would consider far too great a risk.
So, who is really offers America the most hope? Perhaps the answer is not in the promises or opinions, but can be found in the campaigns themselves.
It is no secret that Mitt Romney has outspent all of the other candidates. Estimates are that he has outspent some contenders by as much as 20-to-1. Yet, he has only managed to win three primaries or caucuses, two of which were not contested and one in his “home” state of Michigan. How well does that testify of his ability to control spending? How does it portray fiscal responsibility? How would it translate as an ability to cut the waste out of the federal budget?
And what about the current front-runner, John McCain? Not that long ago, his campaign was on life support – about to go under. His answer – borrow money. Would that he his solution to the economic woes of our country? What would that do to the federal deficit?
How about Mike Huckabee? Huckabee has never had an abundance of cash for his campaign. In fact, the media clearly stated that once Iowa was over, he would be done – that he couldn’t financially compete nationally. But Huckabee has inspired a grass-roots effort that has kept him in the race, in contention in the national polls, and poised for several victories on super Tuesday. When his campaign was feeling the tightness of the budget during the Florida campaign, he made some tough decisions to cut spending, but stay in the black.
America has a problem with spending and deficits. We need a leader who can inspire people, make tough decisions, and put us back on track financially. Some people have already written Mike Huckabee off in this presidential election. That’s a mistake, in more ways than one.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
I Actually Agreed With Rush This Week
It's no unknown fact that FOX news, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter have fell off into the brink of biased media reporting because their pockets are lined with Washington Insider Dollars - or so one must assume. It's actually gotten so bad that many conservatives have either started surfing other political news outlets and commentators, or have simply turned them off altogether.
I now watch CNN more than FOX and only watch Fox long enough to be able to accurately describe their newly acquired SPIN-ZONE status with unfair-unbalanced reporting. I promise - I'll get off this broken record spill before I end this post.
Rush Limbaugh this week - in commentating on the Thursday night FOX Debate stated that "We should not be afraid to go after McCain's record." Most all debate watchers are in agreement that McCain made it through Thursday's debate "unscathed." Huckabee took the first punch from Thompson and gave back better than he received (In Normal Huck Fashion - I love it when he gets tough). Ron Paul took several hits (what's new), Mitt might have alluded to some McCain records but didn't really show his teeth too much - and didn't take too many scratches and bites from anyone either. Giuliani had his moments of giving as well as receiving some minor discussion. Huckabee's biggest hits probably came from the Moderator's - again - FOX people trying to Spin the Religion aspect of Huckabee into a negative....how do they sleep at night? (I have thoughts about that - but I don't want to offend some Huckabee supporters in the process - we'll wait until after November to discuss if your still interested).
Overall - McCain took it easy on everyone and in return didn't take any hits either. Rush says "go after his record." I agree, but with respect. He may be a Hero, but he is not Presidential material. When he was defeated by George Bush, he held a grudge against the President for almost 2 years, voting against proposals that Bush conceived or openly approved. McCain has sided with Democrats on many pivotal Bills that came before his signature pen.
WorldNetDaily.com came out with an article today stating that James Dobson has placed his stamp of DISapproval on John McCain. Though the article attempts to appear unbiased, the subtleties run clear that WorldNetDaily has drank the same Kool-Aide FOX has been drinking from GOP Washington insiders. But Dobson is a tee-totaler and doesn't drink that kind of kool-aide. He has no fear of pointing out the falicies of McCain's record.
Sidebar: When I mention subtleties of articles and reporting....I just want to give you an example of what I'm referring to here. This is a quote from WND.com on Dobson....
This paragraph would almost be overlooked by the reader. That last sentence just leaps off the page at me. Has it occurred to WND that the reason Dobson offers his personal opinion is because a reporter probably stuck a microphone and camera in his face and asked.....NOT TO MENTION - ever heard of Free Speech? He has that right!
Well - if McCain had his way - certainly those rights would be absolved. Sometimes loopholes are good. Had Dobson been sitting in his office in the Focus on the Family premises and made that statement - his 501 c 3 would have been in jeopardy, but because he was - and noted thusly - that he was speaking as a private citizen and in his home - he could make those statements. Thank you McCain and Feingold for your bill to allow Big Government to split hairs in the private sector in order to stifle those you knew would not support you in 2008.
I still believe the McCain-Feingold bill was quite self-serving on John McCain's part. He new he was going to run again. He knew Evangelicals wouldn't support him. He knew he couldn't play on the same monetary ball field as other candidates would be able to - so he created and managed the passing of a bill that would bring the ball-game to his turf. How self-serving is that.
Dobson further points out his distaste for McCain as President in the fact the McCain does not support a One Man One Woman Marriage.
McCain stated: "I think that gay marriage should be allowed, if there is a ceremony kind of thing, if you want to call it that...I don't have any problem with that."
If I had any persuasion to think that McCain would be a lesser of two evils choice for me - you just lost me with that quote.
McCain also supports a Democratic authored legislative bill that creates obstacles for ministries to reach constituents with action messages about pending legislation.
This is currently being fought by groups like ACLJ, American Family Association, and Center for Moral Clarity. If this type of legislation is passed - it will effectively silence the church at large and our ability to amass opposition to future legislation such as Stem Cell Research, Abortion bills, Free Speech, and virtually limitless counts of bills that affect our everyday living and freedoms in this country.
Other rules are hidden deeply into this current legislation that include rules to "eliminate the many recent scandals involving members of Congress, ...require pro-family groups to provide documentation of their actions to the government anytime they try to spark any grass-roots action." Where is "smaller government" in this type of legislation? This is Big Government looming over the Church and affiliated organizations. This is Big Brother at his worse.
This would mean that "phone calls, personal visits, emails, magazines, broadcasts, phone banks, appearances, travel, fundraising, and other items all would be subject to government tabulation, verification, and audits....on and on it goes" according to Dobson.
Don Wildmon referred to McCain's bill as "We don't want to hear from you and this is the way we're going to handle it."
I have blogged before - and I have written Mr. Bauer personally that there is a clear and present danger in front of us at this hour. It is the shutting down of the Evangelical and sending us back to the Dance Floor Sidelines to be wallflower's and never being asked to dance. We were courted in the '80's and learned how to dance in the political arena. Now that we as Evangelicals not only know how to dance - but have cleared the floor with our tango-ing Mike Huckabee - we're not welcome anymore. Washington's liberal bills can't get passed because the Evangelicals have a right to free speech and OMG!!! They are using it!!!!
I recall the day when the church in America was practically powerless. We have seen the church mature into a strong voice. Now - we see a government trying to squeeze us back into our box with articles like Robert Novak's stating that we aren't REALLY SERIOUS REPUBLICANS.
To this point, Mr. Dobson states "Republican leaders in Congress during this term apparently never understood, or they forgot, why Ronald Reagan was so loved and why he is considered one of our greatest presidents. If they hope to return to power in '08, they must rediscover the conservative principles that resonated with the majority of Americans in the 1980s – and still resonate with them today. Failure to do so will be catastrophic,"
Maybe it is this mentality that the Robert Novak's of journalism don't take Evangelicals sincerely. In fact I know it is. I experience it somewhat in my local Republican arena. GOP's believe you ought to vote GOP if Suddam Hussein himself were running against Hillary. I'm sorry - I can't buy into that. I have principals when I walk into a voting booth. If the candidate that the GOP's put up in nomination does not adhere to my principals- I won't vote for them.
I am not a Republican because I agree with the Party Platform. I am a Republican because the Party Platform agrees with me.
If that changes - and it will if certain candidates are nominated (Romney, Giuliani, and McCain, Thompson is a close call and will require consideration) - I will not be bound to my party. I will consider a 3rd party and watch to see if Hillary's hand burns when she places it on the Bible in January '09.
As far back as 1998, James Dobson has stated that the GOP has ignored moral issues.
Evangelicals have been asked to "take one for the party" election after election and to me - with the war on terror, the economy teetering on the edge of falling into the brink, illegal immigration helping the poor economy exist - there is just too much to risk to not consider a candidate who understands the political as well as spiritual implications of foreign policy, domestic policies and freedoms that we currently enjoy, stand to lose, and those we have already lost.
We still live in the greatest country in the world (Obama believes mother Africa to be the greatest), we will be weakened if that which made us strong is stripped away one legislative bill at a time. Let's elect a candidate that will change the face of Washington and keep America Great at the same time. That candidate is Mike Huckabee.
I now watch CNN more than FOX and only watch Fox long enough to be able to accurately describe their newly acquired SPIN-ZONE status with unfair-unbalanced reporting. I promise - I'll get off this broken record spill before I end this post.
Rush Limbaugh this week - in commentating on the Thursday night FOX Debate stated that "We should not be afraid to go after McCain's record." Most all debate watchers are in agreement that McCain made it through Thursday's debate "unscathed." Huckabee took the first punch from Thompson and gave back better than he received (In Normal Huck Fashion - I love it when he gets tough). Ron Paul took several hits (what's new), Mitt might have alluded to some McCain records but didn't really show his teeth too much - and didn't take too many scratches and bites from anyone either. Giuliani had his moments of giving as well as receiving some minor discussion. Huckabee's biggest hits probably came from the Moderator's - again - FOX people trying to Spin the Religion aspect of Huckabee into a negative....how do they sleep at night? (I have thoughts about that - but I don't want to offend some Huckabee supporters in the process - we'll wait until after November to discuss if your still interested).
Overall - McCain took it easy on everyone and in return didn't take any hits either. Rush says "go after his record." I agree, but with respect. He may be a Hero, but he is not Presidential material. When he was defeated by George Bush, he held a grudge against the President for almost 2 years, voting against proposals that Bush conceived or openly approved. McCain has sided with Democrats on many pivotal Bills that came before his signature pen.
WorldNetDaily.com came out with an article today stating that James Dobson has placed his stamp of DISapproval on John McCain. Though the article attempts to appear unbiased, the subtleties run clear that WorldNetDaily has drank the same Kool-Aide FOX has been drinking from GOP Washington insiders. But Dobson is a tee-totaler and doesn't drink that kind of kool-aide. He has no fear of pointing out the falicies of McCain's record.
Sidebar: When I mention subtleties of articles and reporting....I just want to give you an example of what I'm referring to here. This is a quote from WND.com on Dobson....
"Dobson, who always is careful to note that he's not speaking for the non-profit ministry, which cannot advocate for or against candidates legally, also doesn't hesitate to state his personal opinions on social or political issues and agendas."
This paragraph would almost be overlooked by the reader. That last sentence just leaps off the page at me. Has it occurred to WND that the reason Dobson offers his personal opinion is because a reporter probably stuck a microphone and camera in his face and asked.....NOT TO MENTION - ever heard of Free Speech? He has that right!
Well - if McCain had his way - certainly those rights would be absolved. Sometimes loopholes are good. Had Dobson been sitting in his office in the Focus on the Family premises and made that statement - his 501 c 3 would have been in jeopardy, but because he was - and noted thusly - that he was speaking as a private citizen and in his home - he could make those statements. Thank you McCain and Feingold for your bill to allow Big Government to split hairs in the private sector in order to stifle those you knew would not support you in 2008.
I still believe the McCain-Feingold bill was quite self-serving on John McCain's part. He new he was going to run again. He knew Evangelicals wouldn't support him. He knew he couldn't play on the same monetary ball field as other candidates would be able to - so he created and managed the passing of a bill that would bring the ball-game to his turf. How self-serving is that.
Dobson further points out his distaste for McCain as President in the fact the McCain does not support a One Man One Woman Marriage.
McCain stated: "I think that gay marriage should be allowed, if there is a ceremony kind of thing, if you want to call it that...I don't have any problem with that."
If I had any persuasion to think that McCain would be a lesser of two evils choice for me - you just lost me with that quote.
McCain also supports a Democratic authored legislative bill that creates obstacles for ministries to reach constituents with action messages about pending legislation.
This is currently being fought by groups like ACLJ, American Family Association, and Center for Moral Clarity. If this type of legislation is passed - it will effectively silence the church at large and our ability to amass opposition to future legislation such as Stem Cell Research, Abortion bills, Free Speech, and virtually limitless counts of bills that affect our everyday living and freedoms in this country.
Other rules are hidden deeply into this current legislation that include rules to "eliminate the many recent scandals involving members of Congress, ...require pro-family groups to provide documentation of their actions to the government anytime they try to spark any grass-roots action." Where is "smaller government" in this type of legislation? This is Big Government looming over the Church and affiliated organizations. This is Big Brother at his worse.
This would mean that "phone calls, personal visits, emails, magazines, broadcasts, phone banks, appearances, travel, fundraising, and other items all would be subject to government tabulation, verification, and audits....on and on it goes" according to Dobson.
"'Clearly, the objective here is to hide what goes on from the public and punish
and silence those of us who would talk about what our representatives are
doing,' Dobson said of the plan by Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev. American Family
Association Chairman Donald Wildmon, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins and American Values President Gary Bauer joined Dobson in urging listeners to flood Capitol Hill with phone calls demanding those speech limits be removed."
Don Wildmon referred to McCain's bill as "We don't want to hear from you and this is the way we're going to handle it."
I have blogged before - and I have written Mr. Bauer personally that there is a clear and present danger in front of us at this hour. It is the shutting down of the Evangelical and sending us back to the Dance Floor Sidelines to be wallflower's and never being asked to dance. We were courted in the '80's and learned how to dance in the political arena. Now that we as Evangelicals not only know how to dance - but have cleared the floor with our tango-ing Mike Huckabee - we're not welcome anymore. Washington's liberal bills can't get passed because the Evangelicals have a right to free speech and OMG!!! They are using it!!!!
I recall the day when the church in America was practically powerless. We have seen the church mature into a strong voice. Now - we see a government trying to squeeze us back into our box with articles like Robert Novak's stating that we aren't REALLY SERIOUS REPUBLICANS.
To this point, Mr. Dobson states "Republican leaders in Congress during this term apparently never understood, or they forgot, why Ronald Reagan was so loved and why he is considered one of our greatest presidents. If they hope to return to power in '08, they must rediscover the conservative principles that resonated with the majority of Americans in the 1980s – and still resonate with them today. Failure to do so will be catastrophic,"
Maybe it is this mentality that the Robert Novak's of journalism don't take Evangelicals sincerely. In fact I know it is. I experience it somewhat in my local Republican arena. GOP's believe you ought to vote GOP if Suddam Hussein himself were running against Hillary. I'm sorry - I can't buy into that. I have principals when I walk into a voting booth. If the candidate that the GOP's put up in nomination does not adhere to my principals- I won't vote for them.
I am not a Republican because I agree with the Party Platform. I am a Republican because the Party Platform agrees with me.
If that changes - and it will if certain candidates are nominated (Romney, Giuliani, and McCain, Thompson is a close call and will require consideration) - I will not be bound to my party. I will consider a 3rd party and watch to see if Hillary's hand burns when she places it on the Bible in January '09.
As far back as 1998, James Dobson has stated that the GOP has ignored moral issues.
Evangelicals have been asked to "take one for the party" election after election and to me - with the war on terror, the economy teetering on the edge of falling into the brink, illegal immigration helping the poor economy exist - there is just too much to risk to not consider a candidate who understands the political as well as spiritual implications of foreign policy, domestic policies and freedoms that we currently enjoy, stand to lose, and those we have already lost.
We still live in the greatest country in the world (Obama believes mother Africa to be the greatest), we will be weakened if that which made us strong is stripped away one legislative bill at a time. Let's elect a candidate that will change the face of Washington and keep America Great at the same time. That candidate is Mike Huckabee.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Fox News Loses It's Fair And Balanced Banner This Election Cycle
FOX News Network has been the Conservative Right response to the liberal media going as far back as the Reagan Presidency. Every anchor, talk show host, and reporter tauts the phrase "fair and balanced."
Where FOX may have begun their mission with the glamorous goal of being fair and balanced with a potential viewership eager for such a lofty aspiration - lost in a leftist media wilderness - they have deputationaly digressed. This backslidden state from balanced reporting has frustrated many of their faithfully committed conservative viewers.
We first saw FOX's faults in their failure to give ALL of the GOP candidates equal time and attention - writing them off as un-winnable or operating in the "fringe." They had moments of appearing to be "king-makers" rather than reporters of who the American people wanted and being "fair and balanced" in the doing. Mike Huckabee couldn't "buy" television time on FOX in his early campaigns, Ron Paul, and Tom Tancredo fell to the same bias. All of the candidates, snubbed by FOX had/have messages on issues that need to be heard and promoted as much as the early frontrunner messages that were - then - being applauded and lauded. Even Fred Thompson was being hailed as the answer to all things conservative - if he would just announce his candidacy at the chagrin of those vieing for some FOX Focus.
From the subtleties of left-handed comments focusing on Huckabee's being an ordained minister - referring to him as"The Baptist Preacher" at every opportunity vs his actual title of Governor that they privilege Romney with - to the strident spin of the Governor's Arkansas record attempting to label him as a liberal for being less of a liberal than Mitt Romney as two Governor's managed their states respectively.
What is so laughable to me is - when Mike Huckabee won Iowa by a very comfortable margin - tongue slingers like Sean Hannity began to pat themselves on the back making statements like "We have - from the beginning - stated that Mike Huckabee was going to do well." Unbelievable audacity.
I watched Governor Huckabee's interview with Fox after his win. He was understandably cold to Hannity in responding to his questions directly with no frills of conversation. Then - after a few minutes passed - I flipped over to CNN and saw a different face on the same candidate. The Mike Huckabee everyone of his supporters and those that don't know. Rush Limbaugh - with a sneering comment - stated that "other networks" could only talk about "Huckabee, Huckabee, Huckabee, Huckabee...." What Limbaugh failed to laud lip service to was the fact that FOX News could only talk about Obama, Obama, Obama.
The latest wave of attacks from Faux News and the like is one of NON-ATTACK. Has anyone but me noticed that Huckabee is being ignored since McCain won and moved to MI for his next wave? Certainly no blame is laid on McCain here - but if the Gary Bauer Evangelicals and Rush Limbaugh King-Maker's want to call Mike Huckabee a Liberal - and laud McCain as the hero to save the GOP - they are simply blinded by the bent of socialistic Government that is being ushered in the desperation that we just can't stand on principals alone and beat Hillary. Not one word of Huckabee passed the lips of Faux Pundits today as they attempt to force Huckabee back into the Evangelical closet of obscurity. For those evangelicals and NRTL leaders that overlooked this candidate who entered into politics to "stop abortion" twenty years ago certainly are telling on themselves as to their real goals unseen by the normal value voter eye.
Has it occurred to anyone that if "Tax-Hike Mike" who lowered taxes 90 times in Arkansas becomes the President and he is successful at eliminating the IRS or implementing the Fair Tax - that all of these non-profits such as http://www.ouramericanvalues.org/ would lose donations because there would be no need for wealthy donors to have a tax write off, ere go less income. If Huckabee were to be successful at ending abortion - Right to Life groups would have no need to exist because no more abortions - no more funds coming into their organizations. So - since Huckabee is serious about changing Washington - he poses a threat to well-intended organizations turned politico - let's support the candidate that LOOKS conservative enough and will appoint judges (which has been done over and over and still no end to Roe V. Wade) that will be pro-life in their judgments and we maintain our organizations, administrations, and our paychecks. Sound overtly cynical? Maybe. But please explain the logic of evangelical's supporting a candidate that was clueless about legislation before the House to overturn Roe v. Wade and who openly stated that overturning Roe v. Wade would not be the direction he would take as President. Yet Mike Huckabee entered politics to STOP ABORTION!
I chased that rabbit long enough: Back to Faux News:
Have the tables turned? Has Faux News drank the Kool-aide of checkbook journalism? The subtleties of their reporting - even in tonight New Hampshire Primary returns - suggest that they have.
One example: on CNN we are given the top three candidates of both parties and their results as the polls come in. But Fox - continuing their attempt to high-hat Huckabee only list the top two candidate results. Am I being cynical? Maybe. In and of itself that little "dig" would be dismissed as unmentionable. However, given all of the attacks, spins, false accusations from Fox and their seeming love affair with Giuliani and Romney - this insignificant notice carries weight.
It has gotten to the point that listening to the talk-show hosts on their radio programs has become sickening. Watching the returns on FOX is no longer appealing to this conservative. I've flipped back and forth between CNN and FOX in the last two returns now - and CNN has now become the more F&B than the original F&B now turned Faux - CNN just doesn't brag about it.
I've stated before in referring to Robert Novak - which now applies to the likes of FOX, Rush Limbaugh, Gary Bauer, and other so-called Reagan-ites, that there is a wedge being driven into the Grand Old Party and pundits like these are the hammer driving it deeper and deeper until the GOP will be so divided that anyone with an R beside their name will not be electable to dog-catcher.
One of my favorite Democrats - though I have no connection to his political beliefs - who is immeasurably intelligent in all things political had this to say about Fox:
Bottom line: If you want true Fair and Balanced reporting during this election - you'll find it at CNN before you'll get it at FOX. If you want perfectly fair and balanced - watch C-Span.
Where FOX may have begun their mission with the glamorous goal of being fair and balanced with a potential viewership eager for such a lofty aspiration - lost in a leftist media wilderness - they have deputationaly digressed. This backslidden state from balanced reporting has frustrated many of their faithfully committed conservative viewers.
We first saw FOX's faults in their failure to give ALL of the GOP candidates equal time and attention - writing them off as un-winnable or operating in the "fringe." They had moments of appearing to be "king-makers" rather than reporters of who the American people wanted and being "fair and balanced" in the doing. Mike Huckabee couldn't "buy" television time on FOX in his early campaigns, Ron Paul, and Tom Tancredo fell to the same bias. All of the candidates, snubbed by FOX had/have messages on issues that need to be heard and promoted as much as the early frontrunner messages that were - then - being applauded and lauded. Even Fred Thompson was being hailed as the answer to all things conservative - if he would just announce his candidacy at the chagrin of those vieing for some FOX Focus.
From the subtleties of left-handed comments focusing on Huckabee's being an ordained minister - referring to him as"The Baptist Preacher" at every opportunity vs his actual title of Governor that they privilege Romney with - to the strident spin of the Governor's Arkansas record attempting to label him as a liberal for being less of a liberal than Mitt Romney as two Governor's managed their states respectively.
What is so laughable to me is - when Mike Huckabee won Iowa by a very comfortable margin - tongue slingers like Sean Hannity began to pat themselves on the back making statements like "We have - from the beginning - stated that Mike Huckabee was going to do well." Unbelievable audacity.
I watched Governor Huckabee's interview with Fox after his win. He was understandably cold to Hannity in responding to his questions directly with no frills of conversation. Then - after a few minutes passed - I flipped over to CNN and saw a different face on the same candidate. The Mike Huckabee everyone of his supporters and those that don't know. Rush Limbaugh - with a sneering comment - stated that "other networks" could only talk about "Huckabee, Huckabee, Huckabee, Huckabee...." What Limbaugh failed to laud lip service to was the fact that FOX News could only talk about Obama, Obama, Obama.
The latest wave of attacks from Faux News and the like is one of NON-ATTACK. Has anyone but me noticed that Huckabee is being ignored since McCain won and moved to MI for his next wave? Certainly no blame is laid on McCain here - but if the Gary Bauer Evangelicals and Rush Limbaugh King-Maker's want to call Mike Huckabee a Liberal - and laud McCain as the hero to save the GOP - they are simply blinded by the bent of socialistic Government that is being ushered in the desperation that we just can't stand on principals alone and beat Hillary. Not one word of Huckabee passed the lips of Faux Pundits today as they attempt to force Huckabee back into the Evangelical closet of obscurity. For those evangelicals and NRTL leaders that overlooked this candidate who entered into politics to "stop abortion" twenty years ago certainly are telling on themselves as to their real goals unseen by the normal value voter eye.
Has it occurred to anyone that if "Tax-Hike Mike" who lowered taxes 90 times in Arkansas becomes the President and he is successful at eliminating the IRS or implementing the Fair Tax - that all of these non-profits such as http://www.ouramericanvalues.org/ would lose donations because there would be no need for wealthy donors to have a tax write off, ere go less income. If Huckabee were to be successful at ending abortion - Right to Life groups would have no need to exist because no more abortions - no more funds coming into their organizations. So - since Huckabee is serious about changing Washington - he poses a threat to well-intended organizations turned politico - let's support the candidate that LOOKS conservative enough and will appoint judges (which has been done over and over and still no end to Roe V. Wade) that will be pro-life in their judgments and we maintain our organizations, administrations, and our paychecks. Sound overtly cynical? Maybe. But please explain the logic of evangelical's supporting a candidate that was clueless about legislation before the House to overturn Roe v. Wade and who openly stated that overturning Roe v. Wade would not be the direction he would take as President. Yet Mike Huckabee entered politics to STOP ABORTION!
I chased that rabbit long enough: Back to Faux News:
Have the tables turned? Has Faux News drank the Kool-aide of checkbook journalism? The subtleties of their reporting - even in tonight New Hampshire Primary returns - suggest that they have.
One example: on CNN we are given the top three candidates of both parties and their results as the polls come in. But Fox - continuing their attempt to high-hat Huckabee only list the top two candidate results. Am I being cynical? Maybe. In and of itself that little "dig" would be dismissed as unmentionable. However, given all of the attacks, spins, false accusations from Fox and their seeming love affair with Giuliani and Romney - this insignificant notice carries weight.
It has gotten to the point that listening to the talk-show hosts on their radio programs has become sickening. Watching the returns on FOX is no longer appealing to this conservative. I've flipped back and forth between CNN and FOX in the last two returns now - and CNN has now become the more F&B than the original F&B now turned Faux - CNN just doesn't brag about it.
I've stated before in referring to Robert Novak - which now applies to the likes of FOX, Rush Limbaugh, Gary Bauer, and other so-called Reagan-ites, that there is a wedge being driven into the Grand Old Party and pundits like these are the hammer driving it deeper and deeper until the GOP will be so divided that anyone with an R beside their name will not be electable to dog-catcher.
One of my favorite Democrats - though I have no connection to his political beliefs - who is immeasurably intelligent in all things political had this to say about Fox:
"Fox was, is and will continue to be an asinine and ignorant network. I have
not spoken to anyone in the Clinton campaign about this. I have not done
domestic political consulting since President Clinton was elected. I'm not
getting back into domestic political consulting. If I do go back, it would
be safe to say that I'm the biggest liar in America." -- James Carville after Fox tried to start the rumor that he was going to work with the Clinton campaign.
Bottom line: If you want true Fair and Balanced reporting during this election - you'll find it at CNN before you'll get it at FOX. If you want perfectly fair and balanced - watch C-Span.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Having Fun Yet?
I'm posting this article from Dick Morris as it is the TOPIC OF DISCUSSION at every lunch, breakfast, sidewalk, grocery store line, conversation that I have these days. Dick Morris nails it on the head - and because I don't keep up with the Democrats at this point - thought I'd share the entire picture of what NEEDS TO HAPPEN in these next few weeks for each candidate across the board. By the way - when you read Mr. Morri's description of McCain - that would be a good point to comment on - - he refers to McCain as "charasmatic" - um - has he actually seen McCain speak - or do I need to go get my dictionary and bone up on my definition of the word? (not intended to be an attack - just a little surprised by the characterization).
What Iowa Means to Each Candidate
The Iowa caucuses mean different things to different candidates.
Of course Obama, Clinton and Edwards, for the Democrats, and Huckabee and Romney, for the Republicans, are vying for a win in Iowa. But there are separate sub-primaries going on as well: Obama vs. Edwards for the position of chief challenger to Clinton, McCain vs. Giuliani for the right to wear the “moderate” Republican mantle, and Fred Thompson vs. Oblivion for the right to stay in the race.
So here’s the scorecard to use in keeping track of what each candidate needs to get from Iowa.
Hillary Clinton
If she scores a decisive triumph, the race for the nomination is almost over.
A victory here would likely propel her to a win in New Hampshire and the nomination would be hers. But she doesn’t need to win. Her national base is so strong that she just has to stop anyone else from winning.
If no clear winner emerges, but the results show, instead, a three-way tie with Obama and Edwards, or a two-way tie between herself and either of her challengers, she comes out the winner. But if she clearly loses by a good margin or finishes third, she has blown a major opportunity and is in for a long cold winter of primaries. She won’t be knocked out in Iowa no matter what, but she could be knocked down.
Barack Obama
He’s got to win in Iowa. He is so far behind Hillary in the national standings that he needs a decisive victory to give him the momentum to prevail in New Hampshire and to compete in Florida and on Super Tuesday. He also needs to leave the pesky John Edwards far behind so he can consolidate the anti-Hillary vote behind his candidacy.
John Edwards
His immediate need is to finish close to or ahead of Obama so he can show that a vote for him is not wasted. With pro- and anti-Hillary sentiment so strong, Edwards risks being excluded as an also ran if he doesn’t make it. He also needs Hillary not to win decisively so that the race stays alive. He has a decent shot in New Hampshire if he can stay in the race and make sure there still is one.
Mike Huckabee
Win or die are his choices. The Huck-a-boom will be right in the ancient history books with the Howard Dean surge in September of 2004. But even if Huckabee wins in Iowa, he’ll probably lose in New Hampshire. Then his candidacy will come back to another game-set-match point in Michigan the following week.
Mitt Romney
He doesn’t have to win, place, or show. He’s got a big checkbook so he can survive any kind of showing and stay in the game. But, a defeat in Iowa might make him vulnerable to McCain in New Hampshire. A loss in the first two states would cost him Michigan and he would limp into Super Tuesday with only a checkbook to protect him. Only.
John McCain
He’s got to finish third or, in other words, beat Rudy. If he does, he has a good shot at winning New Hampshire and getting back into the game. If he doesn’t, Romney will win New Hampshire and McCain will be out of the race. Huckabee has to hope McCain does finish third so Romney doesn’t win New Hampshire and, therefore, doesn’t win Michigan. Got it?
Rudy Giuliani
The Republican frontrunner is in a parallel situation with Hillary. He won’t be knocked out no matter how badly he does. But finishing below McCain means that he has to split the moderate vote with the charismatic Arizona senator and could weaken his chances in Florida and on Super Tuesday.
Rudy can lose Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, Nevada, and South Carolina and still survive to compete in the big states that follow. But he lost a golden chance to avoid a fight by winning in Iowa.
And, if Hillary wins big in Iowa, it will help McCain and hurt Romney in New Hampshire. Why? All the independents who would have voted for or against Clinton in New Hampshire will pile into the Republican primary and may boost McCain to victory (if he survives Iowa).
And . . . by the same token, Rudy needs Hillary to win in the early rounds so he can draw independents into the Republican primary to vote for him rather than the religious right crowd.
Having fun yet?
[Elephant In The Room: Did he say Religious Right Crowd? hmmm., Did he just sneeze at 42% of voters that make or break elections? - Kazuntite - Dick. I feel another blog coming on] :)
What Iowa Means to Each Candidate
The Iowa caucuses mean different things to different candidates.
Of course Obama, Clinton and Edwards, for the Democrats, and Huckabee and Romney, for the Republicans, are vying for a win in Iowa. But there are separate sub-primaries going on as well: Obama vs. Edwards for the position of chief challenger to Clinton, McCain vs. Giuliani for the right to wear the “moderate” Republican mantle, and Fred Thompson vs. Oblivion for the right to stay in the race.
So here’s the scorecard to use in keeping track of what each candidate needs to get from Iowa.
Hillary Clinton
If she scores a decisive triumph, the race for the nomination is almost over.
A victory here would likely propel her to a win in New Hampshire and the nomination would be hers. But she doesn’t need to win. Her national base is so strong that she just has to stop anyone else from winning.
If no clear winner emerges, but the results show, instead, a three-way tie with Obama and Edwards, or a two-way tie between herself and either of her challengers, she comes out the winner. But if she clearly loses by a good margin or finishes third, she has blown a major opportunity and is in for a long cold winter of primaries. She won’t be knocked out in Iowa no matter what, but she could be knocked down.
Barack Obama
He’s got to win in Iowa. He is so far behind Hillary in the national standings that he needs a decisive victory to give him the momentum to prevail in New Hampshire and to compete in Florida and on Super Tuesday. He also needs to leave the pesky John Edwards far behind so he can consolidate the anti-Hillary vote behind his candidacy.
John Edwards
His immediate need is to finish close to or ahead of Obama so he can show that a vote for him is not wasted. With pro- and anti-Hillary sentiment so strong, Edwards risks being excluded as an also ran if he doesn’t make it. He also needs Hillary not to win decisively so that the race stays alive. He has a decent shot in New Hampshire if he can stay in the race and make sure there still is one.
Mike Huckabee
Win or die are his choices. The Huck-a-boom will be right in the ancient history books with the Howard Dean surge in September of 2004. But even if Huckabee wins in Iowa, he’ll probably lose in New Hampshire. Then his candidacy will come back to another game-set-match point in Michigan the following week.
Mitt Romney
He doesn’t have to win, place, or show. He’s got a big checkbook so he can survive any kind of showing and stay in the game. But, a defeat in Iowa might make him vulnerable to McCain in New Hampshire. A loss in the first two states would cost him Michigan and he would limp into Super Tuesday with only a checkbook to protect him. Only.
John McCain
He’s got to finish third or, in other words, beat Rudy. If he does, he has a good shot at winning New Hampshire and getting back into the game. If he doesn’t, Romney will win New Hampshire and McCain will be out of the race. Huckabee has to hope McCain does finish third so Romney doesn’t win New Hampshire and, therefore, doesn’t win Michigan. Got it?
Rudy Giuliani
The Republican frontrunner is in a parallel situation with Hillary. He won’t be knocked out no matter how badly he does. But finishing below McCain means that he has to split the moderate vote with the charismatic Arizona senator and could weaken his chances in Florida and on Super Tuesday.
Rudy can lose Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, Nevada, and South Carolina and still survive to compete in the big states that follow. But he lost a golden chance to avoid a fight by winning in Iowa.
And, if Hillary wins big in Iowa, it will help McCain and hurt Romney in New Hampshire. Why? All the independents who would have voted for or against Clinton in New Hampshire will pile into the Republican primary and may boost McCain to victory (if he survives Iowa).
And . . . by the same token, Rudy needs Hillary to win in the early rounds so he can draw independents into the Republican primary to vote for him rather than the religious right crowd.
Having fun yet?
[Elephant In The Room: Did he say Religious Right Crowd? hmmm., Did he just sneeze at 42% of voters that make or break elections? - Kazuntite - Dick. I feel another blog coming on] :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
