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 Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. 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.
Friday, January 18, 2008
What does $585,000 buy you?
Question: What does $585,000 buy you?
Answer: It bought Mitt Romney backers a smear job against Mike Huckabee orchestrated by Beltway Insiders.
The Club for Growth has an affiliated 527 group, Club for Growth.net, running anti-Mike Huckabee ads in early primary states.
- At least $585,000 in contributions from Mitt Romney financial backers.
- Club for Growth has spent $750,000 against Governor Huckabee in Iowa, South Carolina and Michigan.
Here are donors that have donated both to Club for Growth.net* and Mitt Romney:
Name: John Childs**
Contribution to Beltway Group
$100,000 on 11/16/07
$100,000 on 12/31/07
Contribution to Mitt Romney
$2,100 on 1/8/07
Name: Bob Perry
Contribution to Beltway Group
$200,000 on 12/12/07
Contribution to Mitt Romney
$2,300 on 3/13/07
Name: Kristen Hertel
Contribution to Beltway Group
$25,000 on 12/21/07
$25,000 on 1/02/08
Contribution to Mitt Romney
$1,000 on 2/6/07
Name: Muneer Satter
Contribution to Beltway Group
$25,000 on 12/21/07
$25,000 on 1/02/08
Contribution to Mitt Romney
$2,300 on 2/6/07
Name: Michael Valentine
Contribution to Beltway Group
$40,000 on 1/3/08
Contribution to Mitt Romney
$2,300 on 4/4/07
Name: Travis Anderson
Contribution to Beltway Group
$25,000 on 12/19/07
Contribution to Mitt Romney
$2,100 on 2/8/07
Name: Richard Gaby
Contribution to Beltway Group
$20,000 on 12/19/07
Contribution to Mitt Romney
$1,000 on 2/12/07
* Only represents donors that contributed more than $20,000 to Club for Growth.net in 2007/2008.
** "Boston investor John Childs, who donated $2,100 to Romney in 2007, recently gave 100,000 to the Club for Growth." [Morain, Dan. "Huckabee foes open their wallets for attack ads," The Los Angeles Times. 1 January 2008.]
*** All contributor information obtained from Federal Election Commission's electronic database at www.fec.gov.
Paid for by Huckabee for President, Inc.
www.mikehuckabee.com
Answer: It bought Mitt Romney backers a smear job against Mike Huckabee orchestrated by Beltway Insiders.
The Club for Growth has an affiliated 527 group, Club for Growth.net, running anti-Mike Huckabee ads in early primary states.
- At least $585,000 in contributions from Mitt Romney financial backers.
- Club for Growth has spent $750,000 against Governor Huckabee in Iowa, South Carolina and Michigan.
Here are donors that have donated both to Club for Growth.net* and Mitt Romney:
Name: John Childs**
Contribution to Beltway Group
$100,000 on 11/16/07
$100,000 on 12/31/07
Contribution to Mitt Romney
$2,100 on 1/8/07
Name: Bob Perry
Contribution to Beltway Group
$200,000 on 12/12/07
Contribution to Mitt Romney
$2,300 on 3/13/07
Name: Kristen Hertel
Contribution to Beltway Group
$25,000 on 12/21/07
$25,000 on 1/02/08
Contribution to Mitt Romney
$1,000 on 2/6/07
Name: Muneer Satter
Contribution to Beltway Group
$25,000 on 12/21/07
$25,000 on 1/02/08
Contribution to Mitt Romney
$2,300 on 2/6/07
Name: Michael Valentine
Contribution to Beltway Group
$40,000 on 1/3/08
Contribution to Mitt Romney
$2,300 on 4/4/07
Name: Travis Anderson
Contribution to Beltway Group
$25,000 on 12/19/07
Contribution to Mitt Romney
$2,100 on 2/8/07
Name: Richard Gaby
Contribution to Beltway Group
$20,000 on 12/19/07
Contribution to Mitt Romney
$1,000 on 2/12/07
* Only represents donors that contributed more than $20,000 to Club for Growth.net in 2007/2008.
** "Boston investor John Childs, who donated $2,100 to Romney in 2007, recently gave 100,000 to the Club for Growth." [Morain, Dan. "Huckabee foes open their wallets for attack ads," The Los Angeles Times. 1 January 2008.]
*** All contributor information obtained from Federal Election Commission's electronic database at www.fec.gov.
Paid for by Huckabee for President, Inc.
www.mikehuckabee.com
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.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
It's A New Day!
That phrase was one of the opening remarks of Mike Huckabee's victory speech last night. He finished the phrase with "It's a new day, but it doesn't end here - it ends at 1600 Pensylvania Avenue."
It may be a new day for the campaign and its supporters - but sit back and watch the same old hat from Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. An interview with Tom Tancredo - as I am typing - has already shown this to be true. Certainly last night the panels and heavy talker's gave Mike his victory - well sort of - they took their shots at Ed Rollins, Huckabee's campaign manager regarding a private conversation between him and his wife at an Iowa restaurant.
What's not being noticed or spoken about in terms of GOP's and specifically Huckabee is the percentages of Mike Huckabee over Hillary and his close proximity to Obama's percentile.
The Governor gave an awesome speech that was a message of uniting the Party and the nation. I was quite surprised at the similarities of both victory speeches between Huckabee and Obama. Tonight most certainly sent a message to the nation that Mike Huckabee is the candidate in the GOP that is going to not only seek change in Washington - but effectively make it happen.
Out of tonights political showcase - there were a lot of quotes to be heard and passed around. Some of them quite humorous as Faux News tried to take credit for predicting Mike Huckabee's popularity - while only earlier today taking opportunity to falsly make him out to be a RINO.
I'll close this blog with the quotes I found to be memorable or noteworthy:
We have all underestimated Huckabee. - - -Bill Crystal of Fox News
I Love Iowa A Whole Lot --- Mike Huckabee, opening comments of his victory speech
We have – from the beginning – reported Mike Huckabee would do well - - Sean Hannity
People are more important than the Purse - - Mike Huckabee
"...Outspent 15 to 1 it would be impossible...American politics are still in the hands of people…" --Mike Huckabee
...we will forever change the way people look at their political system and how we elect our Presidents. --- Mike Huckabee
"he [Romney] whipped Thompson, McCain, and Giuilani. [Huckabee's win] is not a blow (referring to Huckabee’s 9 point victory). What a blow is we beat the other top three organizations. - - -Bay Buchannan
Great conservative discontent among conservatives - - - Laura Ingram
The big story is on the democrat side. --- Rush Limbaugh
Huckabee was perfectly positioned to win Iowa - - Rush Limbaugh
I’ve stayed out of this up til now. -- Rush Limbaugh when asked who he supports (yeah right)
Some of us are missing the boat about what we think about Huckabee - - Laura Ingram
I haven’t underestimated Mike at all - - -Rush Limbaugh
I wouldn’t expect him to try to make peace - - Rush Limbaugh answering the question as to what he would say to Mike Huckabee if he calls in during tomorrow's show.
For every network except yours [Faux News] – it was Huckabee Huckabee Huckabee --- Rush Limbaugh – speaking to Fox regarding the coverage of the victory in Iowa.
This wasn’t an issue based race for Huckabee - - what are the issues Huckabee ran on? - - Tom Tancredo - I suppose he was asleep when Mike spoke to the issues in every debate that Tancredo participated in.
The story is not Huckabee for me - - the worry for me is that McCain get’s the real bump for me going into NH, that’s scary for me. - - - Tom Tancredo
We shall see....It is indeed "a new day" - Mike Phillips, The Elephant Room :)
It may be a new day for the campaign and its supporters - but sit back and watch the same old hat from Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. An interview with Tom Tancredo - as I am typing - has already shown this to be true. Certainly last night the panels and heavy talker's gave Mike his victory - well sort of - they took their shots at Ed Rollins, Huckabee's campaign manager regarding a private conversation between him and his wife at an Iowa restaurant.
What's not being noticed or spoken about in terms of GOP's and specifically Huckabee is the percentages of Mike Huckabee over Hillary and his close proximity to Obama's percentile.
The Governor gave an awesome speech that was a message of uniting the Party and the nation. I was quite surprised at the similarities of both victory speeches between Huckabee and Obama. Tonight most certainly sent a message to the nation that Mike Huckabee is the candidate in the GOP that is going to not only seek change in Washington - but effectively make it happen.
Out of tonights political showcase - there were a lot of quotes to be heard and passed around. Some of them quite humorous as Faux News tried to take credit for predicting Mike Huckabee's popularity - while only earlier today taking opportunity to falsly make him out to be a RINO.
I'll close this blog with the quotes I found to be memorable or noteworthy:
We have all underestimated Huckabee. - - -Bill Crystal of Fox News
I Love Iowa A Whole Lot --- Mike Huckabee, opening comments of his victory speech
We have – from the beginning – reported Mike Huckabee would do well - - Sean Hannity
People are more important than the Purse - - Mike Huckabee
"...Outspent 15 to 1 it would be impossible...American politics are still in the hands of people…" --Mike Huckabee
...we will forever change the way people look at their political system and how we elect our Presidents. --- Mike Huckabee
"he [Romney] whipped Thompson, McCain, and Giuilani. [Huckabee's win] is not a blow (referring to Huckabee’s 9 point victory). What a blow is we beat the other top three organizations. - - -Bay Buchannan
Great conservative discontent among conservatives - - - Laura Ingram
The big story is on the democrat side. --- Rush Limbaugh
Huckabee was perfectly positioned to win Iowa - - Rush Limbaugh
I’ve stayed out of this up til now. -- Rush Limbaugh when asked who he supports (yeah right)
Some of us are missing the boat about what we think about Huckabee - - Laura Ingram
I haven’t underestimated Mike at all - - -Rush Limbaugh
I wouldn’t expect him to try to make peace - - Rush Limbaugh answering the question as to what he would say to Mike Huckabee if he calls in during tomorrow's show.
For every network except yours [Faux News] – it was Huckabee Huckabee Huckabee --- Rush Limbaugh – speaking to Fox regarding the coverage of the victory in Iowa.
This wasn’t an issue based race for Huckabee - - what are the issues Huckabee ran on? - - Tom Tancredo - I suppose he was asleep when Mike spoke to the issues in every debate that Tancredo participated in.
The story is not Huckabee for me - - the worry for me is that McCain get’s the real bump for me going into NH, that’s scary for me. - - - Tom Tancredo
We shall see....It is indeed "a new day" - Mike Phillips, The Elephant Room :)
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] :)
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Flip/Flop Is Too Nice Of A Term
When I was young, I was always taught that if a person cheats on or lies to other people, they will eventually cheat on or lie to you. The principal that Anne Coulter fails to realize in her praise of Mitt's Tricks on the Dem's (see my post Tricky Mitt video #2) is if a person(s) is capable of it (as is everyone) with one person or group, that individuals character flaw will not allow them to draw the line no matter who's team they happen to be playing for.
Mike Huckabee's book: Character IS The Issue point's out very strongly how Mike Huckabee feels about doing what's right. Even his campaign today- almost ten years after his books release, he fights against advisers (like me) to resist the temptation of counter-attacking the attack ad's with similar negativity. Though Mike Huckabee has been creatively making counter-statements (as well he should), the like's of Mitt Romney (who has now added John McCain to his adversarial list albeit without Faux News assistance - only Evangelical Mike receives that honor as a distaste to Washington Insiders) and all his wealth and attack ads cannot escape his own shifting shibboleth.
Please browse through these documented quotes about Washington's latest subject of infatuation (Mitt Romney):
Abortion rights
"I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose and am devoted and dedicated to honoring my word in that regard." Boston Herald Debate, 10/29/02
Mike Huckabee's book: Character IS The Issue point's out very strongly how Mike Huckabee feels about doing what's right. Even his campaign today- almost ten years after his books release, he fights against advisers (like me) to resist the temptation of counter-attacking the attack ad's with similar negativity. Though Mike Huckabee has been creatively making counter-statements (as well he should), the like's of Mitt Romney (who has now added John McCain to his adversarial list albeit without Faux News assistance - only Evangelical Mike receives that honor as a distaste to Washington Insiders) and all his wealth and attack ads cannot escape his own shifting shibboleth.
Please browse through these documented quotes about Washington's latest subject of infatuation (Mitt Romney):
Abortion rights
"I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose and am devoted and dedicated to honoring my word in that regard." Boston Herald Debate, 10/29/02
"Roe v. Wade continues to work its destructive logic throughout our society This can't continue." Speech to the Massachusetts Citizens For Life Mother's Day Pioneer Valley Dinner, 5/10/07
[ok, ok, a man can change his heart - even if it is right before he runs for President. Even if he changes...I suppose I'm still supposed to understand Romney's 2007 belief that states like Massachusetts should have the right to remain Pro Choice - Mitt Romney is Soft on Abortion BTW: Need a great deal for an abortion? Drive to Massachusetts - Romney signed a bill that allows for $50 Co-Pay's for Abortions - a bill that could have been vetoed by Pro-Lifer's as dedicated to the cause as Romney after such a thoughtful life changing decision as he SAYS he had. I RECANT my former statement about Romney being Soft on Abortion - - He remains to be Pro-Abortion]
Immigration reform
"With these 11 million people [here illegally], let's have them registered, know who they are....those that are here paying taxes and not taking government benefits should begin a process towards application for citizenship." Lowell Sun, 3/30/06
"One simple rule: no amnesty. If that [Kennedy-McCain bill] is not a form of amnesty, I don't know what is." New York Times, 6/4/07
[If I hear anyone is soft on immigration without Romney being included in the list - I think I'll be sick]
Gun laws
"We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them. I won't chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety."
Romney in 2002 gov. debate, Boston Globe, 1/14/07
"I have a gun of my own. I go hunting myself. I'm a member of the NRA and believe firmly in the right to bear arms." Boston Globe, 1/14/07
Amendment to ban gay marriage
"Mitt does not support it...As far as Mitt is concerned, it goes farther than current law, and therefore it's unnecessary." Romney spokesman, Boston Globe, 3/22/02
"When I was Governor, we took every conceivable step within the law to stop, block or slow down this unprecedented court decision." Speech to National Right to Life Convention, 6/15/07
"No new taxes" pledge
"I'm not intending to, at this stage, sign a document which would prevent me from being able to look specifically at the revenue needs of the commonwealth" Associated Press, 3/27/02
"Signing the pledge now sends a very clear message to those in Washington who have voted against tax relief and for tax hikes that such actions will never grow our regional and national economies." Romney spokesman, Boston Globe, 1/5/07
Minimum wage
"I think the minimum wage ought to keep pace with inflation. I think the minimum wage is a good thing to have in our economy and I think it ought to be updated." Boston Globe, 10/17/94
"[T]he challenge with raising the minimum wage excessively is it is a hurt to those that are entering the work force, the very poor, those that are trying to get early jobs, get those first jobs." Associated Press, 7/25/06
Cutting Social Security
"I don't think you go back and rewrite the contract the government has with people who've retired." Boston Globe, 10/17/94
"Personal accounts would be a big plus."... [Romney]also said changing the retirement age could be considered, as well as basing the Social Security cost of living adjustment on a different inflation gauge. Union Leader, 6/7/07
Governor Mitt Romney and a legislative leader yesterday delivered unwelcome news to the Catholic bishops of Massachusetts, who plan to seek permission from the state to exclude gay and lesbian parents from adopting children through its social service agencies. The governor said he was not authorized to give such an exemption... Boston Globe, 2/17/06
"And then another slide along the slippery slope. The Catholic Church was forced to end its adoption service, which was crucial in helping the state find homes for some of our most difficult to place children... Now, even religious freedom was being trumped by the new-found 'right' of gay marriage." Speech to National Right to Life Convention, 6/15/07
Stem cell research
[Romney] endorsed embryonic stem cell research, saying the controversial science might one day help treat his wife's multiple sclerosis...."I am in favor of stem cell research. I will work and fight for stem cell research. I'd be happy to talk to [President Bush] about this, though I don't know if I could budge him an inch." Boston Globe, 6/14/02
"FACT: Governor Romney Opposes Using Taxpayer Money to Fund Embryo-Destructive Research." www.MittRomney.com A Record of Protecting Life
Bush tax cuts
Governor Mitt Romney refused yesterday to endorse tax cuts at the heart of President Bush's economic program...In addition to refusing to endorse the president's tax cut, the governor surprised several people at the meeting by saying he is open to a federal increase in gas taxes.
Boston Globe, 4/11/0
[Romney] said it was "absolutely critical" to renew tax cuts proposed by President George W. Bush. Letting them expire would result in a "massive tax increase" that would retard economic growth, Romney said. Detroit Free Press, 2/8/07
Reagan Republicanism
"I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush." Boston Herald, 10/27/94
"Ronald Reagan is ... my hero. ... I believe that our party's ascendancy began with Ronald Reagan's brand of visionary and courageous leadership." Boston Globe, 1/19/07
[This to me is the biggest Elephant In The Room. No one is bringing this into the lime-light and I don't understand why]
Desire to serve in Vietnam
"I was not planning on signing up for the military. It was not my desire to go off and serve in Vietnam..." Boston Herald, 5/2/94
"I longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam and be representing our country there and in some ways it was frustrating not to feel like I was there as part of the troops that were fighting in Vietnam." Boston Globe, 6/24/07
[this flip flop is just plain offensive - my apologies to any Democrat Vietnam Vet's for this GOP candidate named Mitt Romney]
In Closing: I was shocked to learn last night in a discussion with friends that in Mitt Romney's Anti-Socialized Healthcare rhetoric - he passed a law as Governor in Massachusetts that MANDATES every citizen of Mass. to have Health Care. This is a John Edwards plan implemented. In other words - in case your not familiar with the word "MANDATE" - In Mass., you would be REQUIRED to own Health Insurance. Well - what if I were wealthy enough or had enough investments that I didn't need healthcare to spend my hard-earned dollars on - if I get sick - I'll just pay for my hospital visit out of my pocket - - but NOT in Mass. where Mitt Romney had Executive privaledge. In my understanding that is the epitomy of SOCIALISM coming from a GOP Candidate named Mitt Romney.
Without once stating the issues I have regarding his Mormonism - we have a complete list of why NOT to vote for Mitt Romney.
Quote for the Day: "Mitt Romney spends all his time telling people why we should not vote for other candidates but very little time explaining why we should vote for Mitt Romney." - Mike Huckabee
Explain yourself Mitt
Mike Is RIGHT for U.S.
Friday, December 28, 2007
When the going get's tough - the tough get ___________________!!!
How do you fill in that blank?
I have just been informed by someone who talks to a lot of Hucksters - that there is some discouragement, some dissatisfaction, and overall distraction among our support base. (don't misunderstand - the campaign is not tanking in the very least - in fact new poll numbers in Iowa show us that Huckabee is still on the rise).
Now is the time to rally and get our candidate a win in Iowa. The campaign has stated from the beginning that we need to come in as a top 3 spot in Iowa.
I don't know all that much about running a campaign - but I know that if we don't win in Iowa - we're in BIG Trouble for the rest of the trip. In fact - IMO we will need to start thinking of who we're VP'ing for. BUT WE ARE FAR FROM THAT POINT.
I'm hinging this campaign on a win in Iowa, South Carolina, and a 2nd in Florida - while thinking we'll make a showing in NH even if we're dead last (of course Faux News - my new favorite term - will have a hayday should that happen). I believe we could pull a win if we spent time and money in NH - but probably isn't worth the effort at this point. A win in Michigan would seal the deal for a nomination and I think we own most of the South.
We have a lot of YOUNG supporters that don't have deep pockets. I am convinced by the way this campaign has been successful that we don't really need deep pockets if every one of our supporters simply gave a Buck for Huck once a week from now until Super Tuesday - how awesome that would be in financial gain. Most people - when you ask them to give a buck - will probably do better than that after going to the trouble.
What we ABSOLUTELY CANNOT DO is let the NEGATIVE CAMPAIGNING that has onslaughted us have the victory. If we go down (and I don't think we're really even breathing hard yet - much less going down) but if we do go down - we don't go down without a fight.
When your asked to make phone calls to Iowa - - volunteer.
When your asked by the campaign to spread your workload a little thin - - "take up your cross and bear it" but realize somebody can help you. DELEGATE! If your in Iowa - and getting discouraged because your overloaded - send me an email (reply to this post) - I'll make some phone calls from Maryland to recruit some help for you, and If I'm not successful - at least you'll be encouraged that I tried.
If you don't like the way the campaign is handling its business or the direction it's going - send them an email. Start a Blog (They pay attention to bloggers - I know from experience).
The bottom line here is - We need to "keep our powder dry" (whatever that means - my old preacher used to tell me that and it seems to fit here), and tighten our shoe-laces and keep running. Mike Huckabee's analogy of this camaign has always been that of a Marathon. In a marathon you set target's or goals and you meet each one - one at a time. The target before us is WIN IN IOWA. Ask someone - ask me if you don't know anyone else - what you can do to help the campaign meet that goal, then be willing to do it.
I have had so many people in Maryland ask me "what can I do to help." I have gathered a huge number of email addresses as a result. I sent an email to each one today asking for volunteers to make phone calls to Iowa. I received ONE volunteer. I understand the fear, the discomfort, and the challenge it takes to call someone you don't know - but if we're not willing to do the work - or if we get distracted by the complaints and discouragement - we will not be able to pull a victory for the nomination.
Huckabee is my man. I'm sold on him as a great Political and yes - even Spiritual leader with a broader audience than I - as a Pastor - could ever reach. He's the man for the job in the White House, and I will do whatever necessary (and legal) to help him get there. If he doesn't make it - I won't be sitting back pointing fingers or wishing I could have done more - I'll do what I can as much as I can.
I've had my discouragements with this campaign. I've had my disagreements and let-downs, some of them pretty disheartening. But, I'm still in it - and I'm still involved because the greater good is that Mike Huckabee get's to Washington. I ask everyone reading this post - to be willing to do the same. Not just verbally or by posting a "get-r-done" Hoorah reply - but by contacting someone at the campaign and volunteering your services in your state or in other states if you can. If you need my help in doing that - don't hesitate to ask.
Thanks
Mike Is Right For U.S.
I have just been informed by someone who talks to a lot of Hucksters - that there is some discouragement, some dissatisfaction, and overall distraction among our support base. (don't misunderstand - the campaign is not tanking in the very least - in fact new poll numbers in Iowa show us that Huckabee is still on the rise).
Now is the time to rally and get our candidate a win in Iowa. The campaign has stated from the beginning that we need to come in as a top 3 spot in Iowa.
I don't know all that much about running a campaign - but I know that if we don't win in Iowa - we're in BIG Trouble for the rest of the trip. In fact - IMO we will need to start thinking of who we're VP'ing for. BUT WE ARE FAR FROM THAT POINT.
I'm hinging this campaign on a win in Iowa, South Carolina, and a 2nd in Florida - while thinking we'll make a showing in NH even if we're dead last (of course Faux News - my new favorite term - will have a hayday should that happen). I believe we could pull a win if we spent time and money in NH - but probably isn't worth the effort at this point. A win in Michigan would seal the deal for a nomination and I think we own most of the South.
We have a lot of YOUNG supporters that don't have deep pockets. I am convinced by the way this campaign has been successful that we don't really need deep pockets if every one of our supporters simply gave a Buck for Huck once a week from now until Super Tuesday - how awesome that would be in financial gain. Most people - when you ask them to give a buck - will probably do better than that after going to the trouble.
What we ABSOLUTELY CANNOT DO is let the NEGATIVE CAMPAIGNING that has onslaughted us have the victory. If we go down (and I don't think we're really even breathing hard yet - much less going down) but if we do go down - we don't go down without a fight.
When your asked to make phone calls to Iowa - - volunteer.
When your asked by the campaign to spread your workload a little thin - - "take up your cross and bear it" but realize somebody can help you. DELEGATE! If your in Iowa - and getting discouraged because your overloaded - send me an email (reply to this post) - I'll make some phone calls from Maryland to recruit some help for you, and If I'm not successful - at least you'll be encouraged that I tried.
If you don't like the way the campaign is handling its business or the direction it's going - send them an email. Start a Blog (They pay attention to bloggers - I know from experience).
The bottom line here is - We need to "keep our powder dry" (whatever that means - my old preacher used to tell me that and it seems to fit here), and tighten our shoe-laces and keep running. Mike Huckabee's analogy of this camaign has always been that of a Marathon. In a marathon you set target's or goals and you meet each one - one at a time. The target before us is WIN IN IOWA. Ask someone - ask me if you don't know anyone else - what you can do to help the campaign meet that goal, then be willing to do it.
I have had so many people in Maryland ask me "what can I do to help." I have gathered a huge number of email addresses as a result. I sent an email to each one today asking for volunteers to make phone calls to Iowa. I received ONE volunteer. I understand the fear, the discomfort, and the challenge it takes to call someone you don't know - but if we're not willing to do the work - or if we get distracted by the complaints and discouragement - we will not be able to pull a victory for the nomination.
Huckabee is my man. I'm sold on him as a great Political and yes - even Spiritual leader with a broader audience than I - as a Pastor - could ever reach. He's the man for the job in the White House, and I will do whatever necessary (and legal) to help him get there. If he doesn't make it - I won't be sitting back pointing fingers or wishing I could have done more - I'll do what I can as much as I can.
I've had my discouragements with this campaign. I've had my disagreements and let-downs, some of them pretty disheartening. But, I'm still in it - and I'm still involved because the greater good is that Mike Huckabee get's to Washington. I ask everyone reading this post - to be willing to do the same. Not just verbally or by posting a "get-r-done" Hoorah reply - but by contacting someone at the campaign and volunteering your services in your state or in other states if you can. If you need my help in doing that - don't hesitate to ask.
Thanks
Mike Is Right For U.S.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
I Seem To Recall - Not So Many Months Ago...
...when Mike Huckabee wasn't even polling in double digits - and yet he simply plugged away in states like Iowa and New Hamphshire giving his message of Faith Family and Freedom (have I told you that my MD church where I serve as Pastor is named Faith Family Fellowship, hailing from Arkansas - NLR in fact - as my home town - I can't help but like Mike).
Not too much further in the campaign Mike broke double digits, causing O'Reilly to lose his dinner deal with Dick Morris.
In all of that hustle and bustle of Campaign (months before Christmas) two things I never heard - We're concerned about Mike Huckabee's poll numbers - - AND - - Mike Huckabee attacking those in the #1 and #2 (and #3 when it applied) spots in the polls.
Funny how that was Not So Many Months Ago....
In recent weeks, the process started when Mike tied and overtook Mitt in Iowa, Rudy in Florida, own's South Carolina, climbing in New Hampshire (with another steep hill before him). Fred wakes up from his winter slumber to slap Mike 6 times with negative statements (I wonder if he wakes up next to his "trophy wife" - his words not mine - with the same attitude and gives her 6 negative statements). Romney twists and turns every statement of Mike's to make him look mean and unconcerned about other religions and GOP politics, regardless of the fact that Mike thinks more like mainstreet voter's than Washington Business as Usual Politicians. And now McCain - who Mike has never publicly spoken any discouraging words or negative comments other than to call McCain a National Hero and thanked him publicly for his service to the country - only to receive a false accusation of Push Polling in New Hampshire. Which may be happening - but not from Mike Huckabee's directive, in fact latest news indicates that Mike Huckabee has also called on the NH Attorney General to investigate and stop the party from doing it (possibly a person trying to hurt the Huckabee campaign).
At the time I'm writing this blog - so far - Rudy has stayed away from the negative fray regarding Mike...He has kept to the high ground, and as I have noticed, Mike and Rudy tend to maintain a political respect for one another. Pay attention Mitt Romney and Fred, that's Presidential leadership material in action.
Mike didn't need to bring other's down to rise to the top over the course of the last 3 months. If your counting the "Jesus' brother" remark as negative - again - twisted and out of context from Romney's camp - but - Mitt got his apology nonetheless, then turns to slam Mike's statements on Bunker Bush tactics today. I don't get it (actually I do get it). But Negative campaigning will hurt you more than it helps you.
I like Rush Limbaugh's encouragement: Stick to the Issues. Getting distracted on the religion issues is only confusing the American Public [but still - keep reading my Mormon analogy on this blog (-: ].
Today has been a very huge day politically. Lot's of activity taking place. Hope your keeping up. Thank you for reading my blog - - as usual any and all comments are welcome (as long as they are on topic with the post your commenting on).
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
2005: Romney says Huckabee would make a great president
[Note: this blog entry is copied and pasted from www.huckabeehound.blogspot.com - just too good not to bring it to the Elephant Room]
In 2005, while at the Arkansas' Governor's Mansion for a meeting about health-care, Mitt Romney had the following to say about Mike Huckabee if he were to run for President:
The Arkansas News Bureau reported in August 2005 that Romney said Huckabee would have the support of many Massachusetts Republicans if the Arkansan were to run for president in 2008.
While at the Arkansas Governor’s Mansion for a meeting about health care, Romney demurred when asked whether a presidential race was in his future but had nice things to say about his host.“Who knows what the future will hold?” Romney said in 2005. “Most likely, we’ll all stay as governors or find other offices, but we need to make sure that we have a strong person who can take the baton from President Bush, and Gov. Huckabee is certainly one of those individuals. He'd make a fine president.”
Read the whole article from the Times Record by clicking here.
In 2005, while at the Arkansas' Governor's Mansion for a meeting about health-care, Mitt Romney had the following to say about Mike Huckabee if he were to run for President:
"...we need to make sure that we have a strong person who can take the batonIs this another flip-flop by Mitt Romney? It seems like whichever way the wind blows, his position blows right along with it.More from the article...
from President Bush, and Gov. Huckabee is certainly one of those individuals.
He'd make a fine president.”
The Arkansas News Bureau reported in August 2005 that Romney said Huckabee would have the support of many Massachusetts Republicans if the Arkansan were to run for president in 2008.
While at the Arkansas Governor’s Mansion for a meeting about health care, Romney demurred when asked whether a presidential race was in his future but had nice things to say about his host.“Who knows what the future will hold?” Romney said in 2005. “Most likely, we’ll all stay as governors or find other offices, but we need to make sure that we have a strong person who can take the baton from President Bush, and Gov. Huckabee is certainly one of those individuals. He'd make a fine president.”
Read the whole article from the Times Record by clicking here.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
The Truth on Mike Huckabee and Immigration
- The Governor opposes and will never allow amnesty.
- Governor Huckabee believes that securing our borders must be our top priority and has reached the level of a national emergency.
- The Governor supports the $3 billion the Senate has voted for border security. This money will train and deploy 23,000 more agents, add four drone planes, build 700 miles of fence and 300 miles of vehicle barriers, and put up 105 radar and camera towers.
- In this age of terror, illegal immigration is not only an economic issue, but also a national security issue.
- Governor Huckabee opposed the amnesty bill that was attempted to be rushed through Congress this summer, and opposed the misnamed DREAM Act, which would have put us on the slippery slope to amnesty for all.
- Governor Huckabee opposes and will not tolerate sanctuaries for illegals.
- Governor Huckabee opposes giving driver's licenses to those who are illegally in our country and supports legislation to prevent states from doing so.
- Governor Huckabee believes illegal aliens who try to vote or try to apply for welfare benefits should be arrested.
- Governor Huckabee will stop punishing cities which try to enforce our laws and protect the economic well-being, physical safety, and quality of life of our citizens.
- Governor Huckabee opposes and will not tolerate employers who hire illegals. They must be punished with fines and penalties so large that they will see it is not worth the risk or profitable.
- Governor Huckabee opposes the economic integration of North America that would create open borders among the United States, Canada, and Mexico.
- Governor Huckabee will never yield one inch of American sovereignty.
- Governor Huckabee will take our country back for those who belong here. No open borders, no amnesty, no sanctuary, no false Social Security numbers, no driver's licenses for illegals.
It has been reported that Mike Huckabee supported benefits for illegals immigrants while he was Governor of Arkansas.
Governor Huckabee never supported benefits for illegal immigrants. In Arkansas, illegal immigrants do not receive welfare benefits or food stamps. Governor Huckabee has always, and will always be supportive of the laws and regulations of the country. It has also been said that Mike Huckabee was in favor of providing college scholarships for illegal immigrants while he was Governor.
The governor only supported the measure that applied to those who met the academic qualifications and applied for legal citizenship. The measure didn't pass. Governor Huckabee stressed that any student would simply be treated as any other graduate of an Arkansas High School, and not given any special consideration. Critics say that Governor Huckabee's motives behind opening a Mexican consulate office in Little Rock was to court illegals to come work in Arkansas.
The Mexican consulate provided Arkansas businesses with access to Mexico and opportunities to expand their markets, and would help further ensure that immigrants from Mexico are legal and better able to secure legal documentation. At the same time, the office would open up opportunities for Mexican investors to invest money with Arkansas partners, which would help create more jobs in the state.
- Governor Huckabee believes that securing our borders must be our top priority and has reached the level of a national emergency.
- The Governor supports the $3 billion the Senate has voted for border security. This money will train and deploy 23,000 more agents, add four drone planes, build 700 miles of fence and 300 miles of vehicle barriers, and put up 105 radar and camera towers.
- In this age of terror, illegal immigration is not only an economic issue, but also a national security issue.
- Governor Huckabee opposed the amnesty bill that was attempted to be rushed through Congress this summer, and opposed the misnamed DREAM Act, which would have put us on the slippery slope to amnesty for all.
- Governor Huckabee opposes and will not tolerate sanctuaries for illegals.
- Governor Huckabee opposes giving driver's licenses to those who are illegally in our country and supports legislation to prevent states from doing so.
- Governor Huckabee believes illegal aliens who try to vote or try to apply for welfare benefits should be arrested.
- Governor Huckabee will stop punishing cities which try to enforce our laws and protect the economic well-being, physical safety, and quality of life of our citizens.
- Governor Huckabee opposes and will not tolerate employers who hire illegals. They must be punished with fines and penalties so large that they will see it is not worth the risk or profitable.
- Governor Huckabee opposes the economic integration of North America that would create open borders among the United States, Canada, and Mexico.
- Governor Huckabee will never yield one inch of American sovereignty.
- Governor Huckabee will take our country back for those who belong here. No open borders, no amnesty, no sanctuary, no false Social Security numbers, no driver's licenses for illegals.
It has been reported that Mike Huckabee supported benefits for illegals immigrants while he was Governor of Arkansas.
Governor Huckabee never supported benefits for illegal immigrants. In Arkansas, illegal immigrants do not receive welfare benefits or food stamps. Governor Huckabee has always, and will always be supportive of the laws and regulations of the country. It has also been said that Mike Huckabee was in favor of providing college scholarships for illegal immigrants while he was Governor.
The governor only supported the measure that applied to those who met the academic qualifications and applied for legal citizenship. The measure didn't pass. Governor Huckabee stressed that any student would simply be treated as any other graduate of an Arkansas High School, and not given any special consideration. Critics say that Governor Huckabee's motives behind opening a Mexican consulate office in Little Rock was to court illegals to come work in Arkansas.
The Mexican consulate provided Arkansas businesses with access to Mexico and opportunities to expand their markets, and would help further ensure that immigrants from Mexico are legal and better able to secure legal documentation. At the same time, the office would open up opportunities for Mexican investors to invest money with Arkansas partners, which would help create more jobs in the state.
Monday, December 3, 2007
A Fair Question From Gary Bauer
You Be The Judge!
As Mike Huckabee continues to improve in the polls, his positions on the issues are coming under greater scrutiny. Over the last week, a heated debate has broken out between Huckabee and many of the other candidates over the immigration issue, and particularly the question of providing benefits to the children of illegal immigrants.On Friday, many of the leading groups fighting illegal immigration blasted Huckabee for his position on the issue. While Governor Huckabee now says he is against amnesty and for secure borders, he continues to raise eyebrows with his defense of scholarships and other taxpayer-funded benefits for illegal aliens.
Since the illegal immigration debate will continue to be a big part of the 2008 campaign, and no doubt a key item on the legislative agenda in 2009, as it has been in Congress for the past few years, I want to get your take on the controversy.
The FactsWhen he was governor of Arkansas, Huckabee supported legislation allowing illegal immigrants who had attended Arkansas high schools to participate in a scholarship program to attend college. Huckabee lost that debate, and the bill failed. He also strongly opposed an effort by state Senator Jim Holt, also an ordained Southern Baptist minister, to end taxpayer subsidies for illegal immigrants in Arkansas and to require proof of citizenship in order to register to vote. Huckabee denounced Holt's legislation as "race baiting" and "demagoguery."
Huckabee's ArgumentGovernor Huckabee strongly defends the positions he took as governor on aid to illegals. He argues that denying illegal immigrant students scholarship money would be punishing children for what their parents have done. He says, "my soul will not let me" do that. On ABC News this weekend, when he was asked whether or not he would support federal scholarships for illegal immigrant students, Huckabee said, "I'm not sure." Senate Democrats recently proposed the "DREAM Act," which would have allowed illegal aliens to receive taxpayer subsidized in-state college tuition rates that out-of-state American citizens cannot get.
The "DREAM Act," like other recent immigration "reform" efforts, failed to pass due to overwhelming public outrage. One year ago, Huckabee compared America's response to illegal immigration to slavery by remarking, "One of the great challenges facing us is that we do not commit the same mistakes with our growing Hispanic population that we did with African Americans 150 years ago. I think, frankly, the Lord is giving us a second chance to do better than we did before."
The Critics' Response
Critics of Huckabee's positions point out that many illegal immigrants are entering the U.S. because they want to get benefits for their children. Increasing those benefits, such as college scholarships, would serve as a magnet for illegal immigrants. Since scholarship money is always limited, every scholarship that is given to an illegal immigrant student is a scholarship that is taken away from an American citizen. In addition, they point out that while it is a Christian responsibility to help the poor, it is not Christian to take someone else's money through the power of Big Government to redistribute it to the disadvantaged. Huckabee's critics also say that comparing slavery to illegal immigration is a complete distortion. Finally, they reject Huckabee's argument that children shouldn't be punished for their parents' actions. Children do get hurt when their parents are punished, including when a parent is imprisoned for criminal behavior.
My Take
I think the critics are closer to the truth in this debate. I believe any Republican presidential nominee who has a soft record on illegal immigration will have a hard time distinguishing themselves from Hillary Clinton, who, as you know, is tripping over herself to avoid appearing to be soft on illegal immigration.
What do you think?
Please address the issue I have presented. I have accurately described the two sides of the debate, so I am not sympathetic to the idea that simply posing the question is somehow anti-Huckabee. Rather this is part of an ongoing debate we need to have in order to understand what the conservative position on immigration "reform" is and to ensure that we have a clear conservative nominee in 2008. This issue cuts across party lines and many Americans - Republicans, Democrats, Independents - were outraged by the repeated efforts of politicians in both parties to push comprehensive immigration reform. Please feel free to pass on this "End of Day" update to interested friends and family members.
Paid for by Campaign for Working Families and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. Campaign for Working Families2800 Shirlington RoadSuite 930Arlington, VA 22206 Phone: 703-671-8800 Fax: 703-671-8899 Web: www.cwfpac.com
As Mike Huckabee continues to improve in the polls, his positions on the issues are coming under greater scrutiny. Over the last week, a heated debate has broken out between Huckabee and many of the other candidates over the immigration issue, and particularly the question of providing benefits to the children of illegal immigrants.On Friday, many of the leading groups fighting illegal immigration blasted Huckabee for his position on the issue. While Governor Huckabee now says he is against amnesty and for secure borders, he continues to raise eyebrows with his defense of scholarships and other taxpayer-funded benefits for illegal aliens.
Since the illegal immigration debate will continue to be a big part of the 2008 campaign, and no doubt a key item on the legislative agenda in 2009, as it has been in Congress for the past few years, I want to get your take on the controversy.
The FactsWhen he was governor of Arkansas, Huckabee supported legislation allowing illegal immigrants who had attended Arkansas high schools to participate in a scholarship program to attend college. Huckabee lost that debate, and the bill failed. He also strongly opposed an effort by state Senator Jim Holt, also an ordained Southern Baptist minister, to end taxpayer subsidies for illegal immigrants in Arkansas and to require proof of citizenship in order to register to vote. Huckabee denounced Holt's legislation as "race baiting" and "demagoguery."
Huckabee's ArgumentGovernor Huckabee strongly defends the positions he took as governor on aid to illegals. He argues that denying illegal immigrant students scholarship money would be punishing children for what their parents have done. He says, "my soul will not let me" do that. On ABC News this weekend, when he was asked whether or not he would support federal scholarships for illegal immigrant students, Huckabee said, "I'm not sure." Senate Democrats recently proposed the "DREAM Act," which would have allowed illegal aliens to receive taxpayer subsidized in-state college tuition rates that out-of-state American citizens cannot get.
The "DREAM Act," like other recent immigration "reform" efforts, failed to pass due to overwhelming public outrage. One year ago, Huckabee compared America's response to illegal immigration to slavery by remarking, "One of the great challenges facing us is that we do not commit the same mistakes with our growing Hispanic population that we did with African Americans 150 years ago. I think, frankly, the Lord is giving us a second chance to do better than we did before."
The Critics' Response
Critics of Huckabee's positions point out that many illegal immigrants are entering the U.S. because they want to get benefits for their children. Increasing those benefits, such as college scholarships, would serve as a magnet for illegal immigrants. Since scholarship money is always limited, every scholarship that is given to an illegal immigrant student is a scholarship that is taken away from an American citizen. In addition, they point out that while it is a Christian responsibility to help the poor, it is not Christian to take someone else's money through the power of Big Government to redistribute it to the disadvantaged. Huckabee's critics also say that comparing slavery to illegal immigration is a complete distortion. Finally, they reject Huckabee's argument that children shouldn't be punished for their parents' actions. Children do get hurt when their parents are punished, including when a parent is imprisoned for criminal behavior.
My Take
I think the critics are closer to the truth in this debate. I believe any Republican presidential nominee who has a soft record on illegal immigration will have a hard time distinguishing themselves from Hillary Clinton, who, as you know, is tripping over herself to avoid appearing to be soft on illegal immigration.
What do you think?
Please address the issue I have presented. I have accurately described the two sides of the debate, so I am not sympathetic to the idea that simply posing the question is somehow anti-Huckabee. Rather this is part of an ongoing debate we need to have in order to understand what the conservative position on immigration "reform" is and to ensure that we have a clear conservative nominee in 2008. This issue cuts across party lines and many Americans - Republicans, Democrats, Independents - were outraged by the repeated efforts of politicians in both parties to push comprehensive immigration reform. Please feel free to pass on this "End of Day" update to interested friends and family members.
Paid for by Campaign for Working Families and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. Campaign for Working Families2800 Shirlington RoadSuite 930Arlington, VA 22206 Phone: 703-671-8800 Fax: 703-671-8899 Web: www.cwfpac.com
Monday, November 26, 2007
As The Worm Turns
William Shakespeare wrote in Henry VI, Part 3, where Lord Clifford urges the king against lenity and harmful pity, saying:
To whom do lions cast their gentle looks?
Not to the beast that would usurp their den.
Whose hand is that the forest bear doth lick?
Not his that spoils her young before her face.
Who 'scapes the lurking serpent's mortal sting?
Not he that sets his foot upon her back.
The smallest worm will turn being trodden on,
And doves will peck in safeguard of their brood.
Though too heavy a thought to be campaign clambake, "The Worm Is About To Turn" is a cliche that fits our current political climate.
Only a few weeks ago, Mike Huckabee was not getting enough attention in the media. Bloggers blogged, spinners spun, blitz's blasted and Mike's Glory-bound train took no jokers. Huckabee has arrived! O'Reily's olive branch obtained, Bauer's bashing buttoned, Hannity's hush now heralding its time to sing: FIVE GOLDEN RINGS!! four calling birds, three french hens, two turtle doves.......
Enter The new phase. Eight Candidates Clashing. Mike has left the 2nd tier behind to be in double digits nationally in the Rasmussen polls. He is well within the margin of error to be named #1 in Iowa - though the mainstream (and not so mainstream) media still refuses to recognize Mike as a contender. Fred who has floundered his campaign thus far with a lackadaisical approach - finally woke from slumber to hit Mike with six (6) negative ads "informing" Americans that Mike isn't a "Beltway insider" (as if that were a negative). Mitt's mindless mudsling would have you to believe that Mike is soft on immigration, when in fact - as a Governor of Arkansas he obeyed the laws and gave illegal immigrants the education required by state law as any governor would be required. Yes, in addition he allowed those immigrants who were successful in their education the same rights as other students with the requirements of maintaining above average GPA's and Citizenship. But, Mr. Romney fails to mention his personal lawn pawns amidst the rhetoric. Just so my bases are covered - they are not pawns - they are people (immigrants, aliens or whatever label you wish to place them under) and people deserve a chance in life - through the appropriate channels - to succeed. That is the very definition of being an American - more to the point - a Pro-life (all of life) American - how soon we forget after 231 years (or three years if your a former Massachusetts Governor adamantly campaigning as a pro-abortion and anti-Regan/Bush candidate).
While we all hear the bells on Christmas day, in the background you may very well hear the ringing of a hammer driving a wedge between the Evangelical/Values Voter and the GOP. Articles like Robert Novak's today (http://tinyurl.com/2plrus) will be the hammer as he views Evangelicals as not "serious republicans" or "real conservatives." I find it interesting that of all people, Robert Novak would be the town crier for defining the "real conservative" when he was a primary proponent of the evangelical inclusion into the GOP during the Reagan years. Now as the worm begins to turn and a true Evangelical shows up to the dance - he has cold feet and wants Evangelicals banished to the irrelevance of being political wall-flowers again.
Novak claims that Evangelicals pose a threat and Mike is the reputed repercussion of the religious right. He claims that Huckabee "press[ed] his new lifestyle" of good health on Americans after he lost 100 lbs. Let's hope Jenny Craig never runs for President, American might feel "pressed." I suppose Mr. Novak would prefer Americans to remain overweight and Diabetes to continue to be the fastest growing disease plaguing this country. Speaking of being pressed - wouldn't that be what Mr. Novak is doing in his article in trying to convince Americans that Evangelicals are bad (or a threat) for the GOP?
Who purports that Evangelicals created this candidate? Mike Huckabee has arrived on his own. Evangelicals have been shy to support Mike and some "Err-elevant" Evangelicals have supported other candidates in spite of the polarized view on the issues between them and their candidate of choice. Mike has at least wished for - if not actually asked for Evangelical monetary support as he struggled to get his train up the steep hill he has now crested. It hasn't been there. In fact, one evangelical leader suggested to me that Mike needs to 'prove he can make it on his own' before evangelicals will get behind him [with donations - implied]. Well, He's here, He's alive and thriving - and evidently threatening to pull off a nomination
One final thought before I close this episode of "As The Worm Turns," if I had the audience and the desire to go speak to the other GOP candidates - I would offer them this piece of advice.
Don't attack Mike too harshly - that strategy will backfire. It backfired with Reagan and it will backfire with Huckabee. He's a likeable candidate - by both parties and some in between. When other candidates attack Mike - especially with half-truths and blatant un-truths, they will only serve to burn themselves.
After claiming that Mike is no Goldwater-Reagan Republican - I think Iowa will prove him wrong as will the other February 5 states. Mike Huckabee is in fact the most Reaganesque candidate on the sale block. Rudy - would call for a Platform change by taking out the Pro-Life plank and Mitt is just too fake and flip-flop. Fred's closest association with Reagan is his acting career.
Mike remains the clear choice for the Value Voter and the Evangelical. He envisions an administration that is tough on immigration/border laws, victory in Iraq, Pro-Life, Pro-Marriage, Pro-Family, and Pro-American.
Your comments (even yours Ron Paul of Virginia) are welcome.
To whom do lions cast their gentle looks?
Not to the beast that would usurp their den.
Whose hand is that the forest bear doth lick?
Not his that spoils her young before her face.
Who 'scapes the lurking serpent's mortal sting?
Not he that sets his foot upon her back.
The smallest worm will turn being trodden on,
And doves will peck in safeguard of their brood.
Though too heavy a thought to be campaign clambake, "The Worm Is About To Turn" is a cliche that fits our current political climate.
Only a few weeks ago, Mike Huckabee was not getting enough attention in the media. Bloggers blogged, spinners spun, blitz's blasted and Mike's Glory-bound train took no jokers. Huckabee has arrived! O'Reily's olive branch obtained, Bauer's bashing buttoned, Hannity's hush now heralding its time to sing: FIVE GOLDEN RINGS!! four calling birds, three french hens, two turtle doves.......
Enter The new phase. Eight Candidates Clashing. Mike has left the 2nd tier behind to be in double digits nationally in the Rasmussen polls. He is well within the margin of error to be named #1 in Iowa - though the mainstream (and not so mainstream) media still refuses to recognize Mike as a contender. Fred who has floundered his campaign thus far with a lackadaisical approach - finally woke from slumber to hit Mike with six (6) negative ads "informing" Americans that Mike isn't a "Beltway insider" (as if that were a negative). Mitt's mindless mudsling would have you to believe that Mike is soft on immigration, when in fact - as a Governor of Arkansas he obeyed the laws and gave illegal immigrants the education required by state law as any governor would be required. Yes, in addition he allowed those immigrants who were successful in their education the same rights as other students with the requirements of maintaining above average GPA's and Citizenship. But, Mr. Romney fails to mention his personal lawn pawns amidst the rhetoric. Just so my bases are covered - they are not pawns - they are people (immigrants, aliens or whatever label you wish to place them under) and people deserve a chance in life - through the appropriate channels - to succeed. That is the very definition of being an American - more to the point - a Pro-life (all of life) American - how soon we forget after 231 years (or three years if your a former Massachusetts Governor adamantly campaigning as a pro-abortion and anti-Regan/Bush candidate).
While we all hear the bells on Christmas day, in the background you may very well hear the ringing of a hammer driving a wedge between the Evangelical/Values Voter and the GOP. Articles like Robert Novak's today (http://tinyurl.com/2plrus) will be the hammer as he views Evangelicals as not "serious republicans" or "real conservatives." I find it interesting that of all people, Robert Novak would be the town crier for defining the "real conservative" when he was a primary proponent of the evangelical inclusion into the GOP during the Reagan years. Now as the worm begins to turn and a true Evangelical shows up to the dance - he has cold feet and wants Evangelicals banished to the irrelevance of being political wall-flowers again.
Novak claims that Evangelicals pose a threat and Mike is the reputed repercussion of the religious right. He claims that Huckabee "press[ed] his new lifestyle" of good health on Americans after he lost 100 lbs. Let's hope Jenny Craig never runs for President, American might feel "pressed." I suppose Mr. Novak would prefer Americans to remain overweight and Diabetes to continue to be the fastest growing disease plaguing this country. Speaking of being pressed - wouldn't that be what Mr. Novak is doing in his article in trying to convince Americans that Evangelicals are bad (or a threat) for the GOP?
Who purports that Evangelicals created this candidate? Mike Huckabee has arrived on his own. Evangelicals have been shy to support Mike and some "Err-elevant" Evangelicals have supported other candidates in spite of the polarized view on the issues between them and their candidate of choice. Mike has at least wished for - if not actually asked for Evangelical monetary support as he struggled to get his train up the steep hill he has now crested. It hasn't been there. In fact, one evangelical leader suggested to me that Mike needs to 'prove he can make it on his own' before evangelicals will get behind him [with donations - implied]. Well, He's here, He's alive and thriving - and evidently threatening to pull off a nomination
One final thought before I close this episode of "As The Worm Turns," if I had the audience and the desire to go speak to the other GOP candidates - I would offer them this piece of advice.
Don't attack Mike too harshly - that strategy will backfire. It backfired with Reagan and it will backfire with Huckabee. He's a likeable candidate - by both parties and some in between. When other candidates attack Mike - especially with half-truths and blatant un-truths, they will only serve to burn themselves.
After claiming that Mike is no Goldwater-Reagan Republican - I think Iowa will prove him wrong as will the other February 5 states. Mike Huckabee is in fact the most Reaganesque candidate on the sale block. Rudy - would call for a Platform change by taking out the Pro-Life plank and Mitt is just too fake and flip-flop. Fred's closest association with Reagan is his acting career.
Mike remains the clear choice for the Value Voter and the Evangelical. He envisions an administration that is tough on immigration/border laws, victory in Iraq, Pro-Life, Pro-Marriage, Pro-Family, and Pro-American.
Your comments (even yours Ron Paul of Virginia) are welcome.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Iowa Right To Life sends a message....
The letter below from Iowa's Right To Life sends several messages in one. The first being the most important was a message of silence/neutrality. When a subordinate organization cannot effictively choose to support the "mother" organization's decision to support Fred Thompson sends a loud signal. The NRLC certainly placed the states in an awkward situation by their endorsement of a candidate that can't fully support the pro-life agenda.
The second message sent by this Iowa group is a very strong message to Giulinai supporters. Not only is Rudy NOT Pro-Life but he is depicted as Pro-Abortion almost to the degree (as I read this letter) of an Abortion Activist. Whether the latter is the intent of the author or not there still needs to be a recognition of the GOP Platform. If the Pro-Life plank is removed from the GOP Platform - there will be problems on the homefront. Here's the letter from the Iowa RLC....
Iowa Right to Life Committee Remains Neutral at This Time
Des Moines, IA—The Iowa Right to Life Committee met in a closed session yesterday in a response to the National Right to Life endorsement of Fred Thompson. As the affiliate to National Right to Life, the Iowa Right to Life Board of Directors took a positive position to honor and work with NRLC toward the common goal for life.
It was the decision of the Iowa Right to Life Board to stay neutral at this time in order to maintain a long tradition that supports all pro-life candidates in a primary, including Fred Thompson.
Thompson is fairly new in Iowa, but has good name recognition among the grass roots. On the other hand, Rudy Giuliani, who is the only anti-life candidate, has practically ignored Iowa. This lack of interest in Iowa could indicate that he never stood a chance there.
“Without a doubt, Giuliani's support is soft at best since there are still so many conservatives who do not know that he is a strong supporter of abortion, including tax funded abortions,” stated Kim Lehman, President of IRLC. The right to life issue has become, in many circles, the barometer to indicate the candidate’s ethical and moral foundation. Failure to honor life is a failure to the family, which remains under attack.
Anti-life Republicans are misguided to think that they can win an election without the pro-life vote. It is important for this country to choose a candidate that respects life, as Ronald Reagan respected life, because without the right to life, no other rights matter.
For More Information
Kim Lehman
President
Kim@IRLC.org
515-202-2517
The second message sent by this Iowa group is a very strong message to Giulinai supporters. Not only is Rudy NOT Pro-Life but he is depicted as Pro-Abortion almost to the degree (as I read this letter) of an Abortion Activist. Whether the latter is the intent of the author or not there still needs to be a recognition of the GOP Platform. If the Pro-Life plank is removed from the GOP Platform - there will be problems on the homefront. Here's the letter from the Iowa RLC....
Iowa Right to Life Committee Remains Neutral at This Time
Des Moines, IA—The Iowa Right to Life Committee met in a closed session yesterday in a response to the National Right to Life endorsement of Fred Thompson. As the affiliate to National Right to Life, the Iowa Right to Life Board of Directors took a positive position to honor and work with NRLC toward the common goal for life.
It was the decision of the Iowa Right to Life Board to stay neutral at this time in order to maintain a long tradition that supports all pro-life candidates in a primary, including Fred Thompson.
Thompson is fairly new in Iowa, but has good name recognition among the grass roots. On the other hand, Rudy Giuliani, who is the only anti-life candidate, has practically ignored Iowa. This lack of interest in Iowa could indicate that he never stood a chance there.
“Without a doubt, Giuliani's support is soft at best since there are still so many conservatives who do not know that he is a strong supporter of abortion, including tax funded abortions,” stated Kim Lehman, President of IRLC. The right to life issue has become, in many circles, the barometer to indicate the candidate’s ethical and moral foundation. Failure to honor life is a failure to the family, which remains under attack.
Anti-life Republicans are misguided to think that they can win an election without the pro-life vote. It is important for this country to choose a candidate that respects life, as Ronald Reagan respected life, because without the right to life, no other rights matter.
For More Information
Kim Lehman
President
Kim@IRLC.org
515-202-2517
Thursday, November 15, 2007
What's Fred Got That Mike Ain't Got?
In light of this weeks endorsment for Fred Thompson from National Right To Life, I thought I would copy and paste an old post from my other blog on myspace. It received several comments from Mike Huckabee supporters. I hope to receive some comments from Fred Supporters being a little broader audience in this venue. Whoever your candidate is - feel free to comment (you can also comment on these responses. Just note the # your referring to).
To get started - here are a few responses I've received on my other blog:
1. (my favorite so far): Mike Huckabee will give us 1 definition of marriage across America of one man plus one woman equals marriage.Fred Thompson says he will give us 50 definitions of marriage by allowing 50 different states to define Marriage.
2. "I think Mike has many things that Fred doesn't: Charisma, character, humour, great communicative & speaking skills, and he has the ability to draw attention naturally. Fred has only 1 thing, people mascarading him as another Reagan. His 1st speech was a let down, he's not raising much money and soon people will begin to see he isn't anywhere near Reagan. Another thing is i only know of two politicians that could naturally outdo Hillary in a debate, because of their great communication: Gingrich & Huckabee."
3. "Fred Thompson originally had my vote and only because I thought he might be famous enough to get enough votes to beat Hillary. But, when he decided so long to run, and after the values voters debate that he didn't show up for. I'm for Mike.. Fred Thompson has a young family. He's been divorced several times, and I think he doesn't have any real answers. NOr do I think he is a true conservative."
4. Fred has got nothing much to say and what little he has to say he has trouble saying it. Mike has plenty to say, and knows how to say it. Did you see the Gov on the Glenn Beck show on CNN tonight, he spoke and made sense for the whole hour!! (note: I just heard Fred on CSPAN - and he has as much if not more trouble with speaking and speech giving as Pres. Bush - Hillary will rip him to shreds - mp)
5. "I feel I can actually trust Mike Huckabee. Fred has advisors telling him what to say and even when Fred does say something he is reading it off a sheet of paper. I have yet to see Mike Huckabee read from a script. The words he says are words of conviction that come right from his heart. I know who Mike was ten years ago and I know how Mike will be ten years from now. He convictions are firm with deep roots. That's the difference between Mike and Fred."
To get started - here are a few responses I've received on my other blog:
1. (my favorite so far): Mike Huckabee will give us 1 definition of marriage across America of one man plus one woman equals marriage.Fred Thompson says he will give us 50 definitions of marriage by allowing 50 different states to define Marriage.
2. "I think Mike has many things that Fred doesn't: Charisma, character, humour, great communicative & speaking skills, and he has the ability to draw attention naturally. Fred has only 1 thing, people mascarading him as another Reagan. His 1st speech was a let down, he's not raising much money and soon people will begin to see he isn't anywhere near Reagan. Another thing is i only know of two politicians that could naturally outdo Hillary in a debate, because of their great communication: Gingrich & Huckabee."
3. "Fred Thompson originally had my vote and only because I thought he might be famous enough to get enough votes to beat Hillary. But, when he decided so long to run, and after the values voters debate that he didn't show up for. I'm for Mike.. Fred Thompson has a young family. He's been divorced several times, and I think he doesn't have any real answers. NOr do I think he is a true conservative."
4. Fred has got nothing much to say and what little he has to say he has trouble saying it. Mike has plenty to say, and knows how to say it. Did you see the Gov on the Glenn Beck show on CNN tonight, he spoke and made sense for the whole hour!! (note: I just heard Fred on CSPAN - and he has as much if not more trouble with speaking and speech giving as Pres. Bush - Hillary will rip him to shreds - mp)
5. "I feel I can actually trust Mike Huckabee. Fred has advisors telling him what to say and even when Fred does say something he is reading it off a sheet of paper. I have yet to see Mike Huckabee read from a script. The words he says are words of conviction that come right from his heart. I know who Mike was ten years ago and I know how Mike will be ten years from now. He convictions are firm with deep roots. That's the difference between Mike and Fred."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
