|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
     |
 Saturday, December 15, 2007
Press Release Also, here's an interesting exchange about Huckabee's comments on FoxNews with Bill Sammon:  I already posted this at NY for Mitt, but knew we'd get a larger audience by posting here, too.I saw this story earlier in the week at Evangelicals for Mitt. Here's today's story: Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee told the Christian Broadcasting Network he had a theology degree, he told voters in Iowa he had a theology degree, he repeated the claim in last month's CNN YouTube debate ... but, his campaign now says, it was not true. This preacher--without a theology degree--has a lot of expaining to do. Update by Slick Willie: As if getting caught once weren't enough, it appears Huck is continuing to fabricate his resume. When questioned about the fact that he has no theology degree, Huckabee responded,
If Huck's degree is in "Religion" as he claimed, he should suffer some ridicule. But if WorldNetDaily is right, and Huckabee's degree is actually in "Speech & Communications," not "Religion," he has moved from puffery to flat-out lying. Almost having a theology degree does not equal having a theology degree no matter how much New Testament Greek you study. This type of deception is an absolute application killer when applying for a job or graduate school. How could it be acceptable for a president? Victor Davis Hanson is one of my favorite public intellectuals. He has been the preeminent voice defending the war in Iraq. He is also very good on illegal immigration and pointing out the liberal bias in education. Really, you won't find a better reasoned defender of foreign policy conservatives. He posts occasionally over at the Corner. Here's his take on Huckabee's Foreign Affairs essay:
I think that VDH gets at some of the flaws of the Huckabee foreign policy philosophy. Mostly Huckabee's statements show a lack of depth and understanding. There is very little recognition of what truly drives foreign powers and how we should interact with them. Indeed, Huckabee seems to be at public opinion's mercy. When public opinion drives one's policies, one must talk out of both sides of one's mouth. Huckabee has done just that. He is sometimes the hawk, sometimes the dove with very little intellectual coherence to help see a pattern as to why. This kind of confusion leads to inconsistent positions: overly hawkish towards Pakistan, overly dovish towards Iran, etc. Also, as VDH discussed, Huckabee's analogies seem rather inept. While some use analogies to simplify the complexities of an argument, Huckabee uses analogies to mask the argument, hoping the audience will be asuaged by the utter cute-ness of the comparisons he makes. Timotheus: Rather than post separately on this subject, I wanted to invite readers to peruse excerpts from Romney's Foreign Affairs essay. Romney's managerial experience exudes competence in all aspects of our foreign policy. Looking at that side by side with Huckabee's should be a real eye opener. Besides, do you really want a guy who has a soft spot for ciminals in charge of protecting America from terrorists? I don't think so. And this from the AP: "'I can't believe he'd say that. I'm afraid he's running from the wrong party,'" Romney said to a gathering of about 100 supporters in a restaurant here. "'I had to look again — did this come from Barack Obama or from Hillary Clinton? Did it come from John Edwards? No, it was Governor Huckabee.'" Labels: foreign policy, mike huckabee, Victor Davis Hanson Jonathan Martin of Politico starts the speculation . . . but we'll see how it plays out.
Read about it over at this post on Iowans for Romney. It would be HUGE. Jeff Fuller Taking the Rasmussen crosstabs from September and December we can readily gauge the specific demographics who have soured on Rudy.
I just wanted to follow up on the Bork endorsement. Being a law student, such an endorsement is especially meaningful to me.
I assume that most are aware of his nomination to the Supreme Court in 1987 by Ronald Reagan. After elevating William Rehnquist from Associate Justice to Chief Justice, upon the retirement of Warren Burger, and filling the new vacancy with Antonin Scalia in 1986, Ronald Reagan was given another chance to fill the court with conservative jurists. With the vacancy from Lewis Powell's retirement in 1987, Reagan nominated Robert Bork. Of course that nomination was famously rejected by the Senate, leading to the later elevation of Anthony Kennedy to the Supreme Court (who subsequently upheld Roe v. Wade in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and wrote the opinion in such decidedly illogical cases such as Lawrence v. Texas and Romer v. Evans). Bork is famously remembered for his failed nomination, but Bork was and has been much more influential in conservative thought. Indeed, Yale professor of law and political science Bruce A. Ackerman wrote in 1988 in the Harvard Law Review: I begin where Chief Justice Burger ended [in his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee]: when judged by normal personal and professional criteria, Robert Bork is among the best qualified candidates for the Supreme Court of this or any other era. Few nominees in our history compare with him in the range of their professional accomplishments -- as public servant, private practitioner, appellate judge, legal scholar. Few compare in the seriousness of their lifelong engagement with the fundamental questions of constitutional law. Of course, Bork's answers to these questions are controversial. But who can be surprised by that? Even those, like myself, who disagree with Bork both can and should admire the way he has woven theory and practice, reason and passion, into a pattern that expresses so eloquently our deepest hopes for a life in the law. The Republic needs more people like Robert Bork. 101 Harv. L. Rev. 1164The endorsement of such an accomplished and influential person in conservative thought and conservative circles is deeply telling about the candidacy of Mitt Romney. Not only does it indicate the type of principled jurists that Romney could be expected to nominate for the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts, but it also is telling about the intellectual underpinnings of Romney's view of conservatism. Labels: endoresements, judges, Robert Bork According to the Politico, Judge Robert Bork has endorsed Governor Romney.
Friday, December 14, 2007
The AP has a nice biographical article of Mitt as his father's legacy. While it covers some familiar ground, it is a good introduction on the character behind the man that we will hopefully call our next President. Here is a sample:
"Asked recently to name his most treasured possession, Mitt Romney had a quick answer: A 1962 Rambler his sons gave him on his 60th birthday. The relic was manufactured during George Romney's final year as American Motors chairman." "The youngest of George and Lenore Romney's four children, Willard Mitt Romney was born on March 12, 1947, a 'miracle baby,' his father wrote, because Lenore Romney no longer thought she could become pregnant." "Mitt developed a passion for his father's business and sat alongside George Romney as he pored over auto trade publications. The son absorbed the smallest details of the auto industry, down to the minutiae of each car's design." "'I used to brag that you could show me one square foot and I could pick out the model and the year of the car,' he said." "Although they lived a privileged life in the Detroit suburbs, Romney's parents sought to instill working-class values by making sure the kids pitched in with chores. That included shoveling before dawn during snowstorms." Over at Bill O'Reilly's website you can vote for Mitt in his poll (it's between McCain, Rudy, Huck, and Mitt . . . poor Fred got left off---OUCH). The key is that Ron Paul is not included so some other candidate that isn't Paul will actually win an online poll for once.
This is a big poll and will be announced on Bill's TV show and Radio show with millions watching/hearing the results. It would be a nice boost to our upward-moving campaign to have Mitt win this one convincingly. Send an email to friends/family encouraging them to vote too! Let's win this one guys!!! Jeff Fuller So there he sits, his Texas Ranger at his side! What was Huckabee afraid of? Did he think that O'Reilly was so mean that he could not show up without Chuck Norris as his body guard? ("There is no chin underneath Norris' beard... there is only another fist!")
Rudy made an accident. It happened on two levels: strategically and tactically. On the strategic side, Rudy’s plan to wait for a win until Florida was a huge mistake. Pat Buchanan said it best:
Whoever thought up this strategy is the kind of guy who plays Russian roulette with four bullets in the chamber. That is an apt description. Why? Because just as a game of Russian roulette with four bullets in the chamber relies on something out of your control to decide your destiny, so does a strategy that consists of hoping no one will emerge as leader from the early state primaries and caucuses. Hoping that Romney, Thompson, and others would split the early states was not a plan, it was a roll of the dice. Where the miscalculations of the early states proved to be a high-risk gamble, the tactical mistake of pushing Huckabee was indeed an err of hubris. It was born out of the idea that Guiliani was an institutional front-runner, today’s Florida Rasmussen poll shows he clearly is not. The Rudy campaign made two deep miscalculations of what the American electorate’s response to Huckabee would be. They figured Huckabee, a social conservative, would pull from Mitt’s social conservative crowd. They also figured that it would be minimal, only in Iowa, and perhaps somewhat in South Carolina. They were utterly wrong. In fact Huckabee supporters turned out to have two characteristics that Giuliani underestimated 1. Hard Core Evangelicals, 2. People who prefer rhetoric to substance. In fact neither of these groups were likely Romney supporters. People who like Romney love concrete answers and details. They love the efficiency of his whole persona. Romney’s supporters aren’t worried about a Gordon B. Hinckley puppet president, or at least they don’t view their vote in a Republican primary as a Christian war against a secularist MSM. Hard-core Evangelicals never preferred Rudy, but rhetorical carnivores did. They fell in love with the guy who put Ron Paul in his place, and found it just as easy to fall in love with the preacher who joked of Jesus not being in politics. Then they gave added legitimacy for the Evangelicals. In the end (or at least three weeks prior to it) we see that the tactical err on Guiliani’s part of giving up the rhetorical loving voting population in Iowa was the impetus that drove Huckabee’s Evangelical base to him. This tactical error is what exposed the strategical disaster you and I have come to know as the Guiliani Campaign. Earlier this year, when the debate over the compromise immigration bill was at its height, Mitt Romney offered a simple solution: enforce the law. It sounded almost too simplistic. Could it be possible that all that was needed to resolve the illegal immigration issue was to enforce the law? The answer also seems almost too simple: yes.
At the end of the day, the problem with illegal immigration is one of execution. All the basic elements of a good immigration system are already the law. Laws have been passed requiring the federal government to secure the border, build a fence, implement an employer verification system, etc. For whatever reason, past administrations have failed to execute those laws. Thus, Mitt Romney’s answer, that we need to enforce the law, is indeed the right answer. To further encourage legal immigration and discourage illegal imigration, Mitt Romney has also talked about the need to “streamline the system to recruit and retain skilled workers and welcome the best and the brightest from around the world to our universities.” Other candidates still think that such a simple solution is somehow ill-suited for a complex problem. They have had or continue to defend policies that would encourage illegal immigration: special pathways to citizenship, sanctuary cities, special scholarships, etc. All these policies would maintain America as a magnet for illegality and disrespect for our immigration laws. Somehow the simple elegance of executing current laws has eluded these candidates. But enough of my exposition. Hear Governor Romney in his own eloquence: Enforce the laws The problem with a special pathway for illegal immigrants The problem with sanctuary cities The problem with scholarships for illegal immigrants
Labels: volunteer ...Huckabee's qualifications.
The notion that a theology degree constitutes a special qualification for fighting the war on terror is only marginally more coherent than Huckabee's joke in which he substitutes a night at the Holiday Inn Express for foreign policy experience. Moreover, Huckabee's comparison of Iran to a wayward family member in need of dialogue and respect tends to undercut his claim that he possesses special insight into the theocratic nature of the war on terror. I knew I liked those guys over there at Powerline. Also, they lay out the Romney nomination even if he loses Iowa. Rich Lowry sees Huckabee as this cycle's Howard Dean:
After many false prophecies, Dean circa 2008 has finally arrived. He is former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. Not because he will inevitably blow himself up in Iowa. But because, like Dean, his nomination would represent an act of suicide by his party.Gerard Baker sees Huckabee splintering the Republican party: Huckabee. It sounds like one of those American restaurant chains popular across the South, the kind of place where on All You Can Eat Tuesdays the patrons down buckets of barbecued ribs and fried chicken while sucking on 32-ounce tumblers of diet soda. Then again, it could be a character from a Mark Twain novel, or a predictably contrived name in the first line of one of those obscene limericks written by bored schoolboys. But President Huckabee, commander-in-chief, leader of the free world? Update: They just keep rolling in. Peggy Noonan: But there is a sense in Iowa now that faith has been heightened as a determining factor in how to vote, that such things as executive ability, professional history, temperament, character, political philosophy and professed stands are secondary, tertiary. Jim Geraghty: Huckabee already had questions about whether he really could appeal to economic conservatives or foreign policy conservatives. It seems, judging by his supporters and his rhetoric, that the one message that has worked like gangbusters for Huckabee since he entered the race, has been his message to evangelical conservatives, “I’m one of you.” Judging by the polls, that community has responded enthusiastically: “Yes, you’re one of us.”That’s a nice bond. But it’s not enough. And for those of us outside that bond, what’s the pitch to get us to mark Huckabee’s name on the box? Good jokes? The irony of seeing Hillary defeated by a guy from Hope, Arkansas? A campaign theme of “I’m one of you” only works for folks who see themselves as “you”, not as “the other guys.” Stuart Rothenberg: And if electability truly is an important issue for the GOP, Huckabee could be a disaster. While some have argued that he could hold conservatives on abortion and civil unions and appeal to swing voters and even Democrats on immigration, spending and domestic priorities, it is more likely that he would lose conservatives on taxes, spending and immigration and alienate moderates and Democrats on social issues. Before I start, I am Maurice Harris a college student that has been a little too busy to write as of forever, yet I have been around since the beginning of My Man Mitt and I give my apologies for not blogging much.
Yet, over the past few days I have seen the rise of Gov. Mike Huckabee with great dismay. First I do not like his view of crime and punishment or what I like to call the Michael Dukakis view of Crime and Punishment: letting parolees out of the penitentiary early and to find out that they have committed more crimes after they have received their new founded freedom. Knowing that people support a man who would let convicted felons out early really scares me. Yet, that is not the thing that scares me the most. The issue that scares me the most is his use of religion and faith in his campaign message. As a Christian myself, it is at times refreshing to here of a person who believes strongly in his faith and leads by his moral convictions, which I would like to see from more politicians these days. Yet, how Huckabee is using his beliefs as his only credential on why he should be the Republican nominee is not the way to go. To question candidates' religious beliefs, especially Romney's, as a campaign ploy is simply wrong. We are not electing people based on their religious beliefs, but on their positions on not only social issues, but on economic, foreign policy, education, health care, energy, and environmental issues. To have religious tests in the 21st century shows that some people have not matured past the 19th century. I may not agree with Romney's religious beliefs, but I am not voting on his Christianity, but on his effectiveness as a President, which I truly believe that he is the right person to become President in a time when we need leadership on so many challenges that the U.S. faces. Huckabee's leadership in Arkansas is mixed and it shows since for the most part he has focused on his religious background and not on the fact that he did not get rid of the sales tax on food or made Arkansas the economic growth story of the South. Enough of the religious talk and lets focus on the real issue, who can lead America in the 21st century on the issues that matter to most people, the economy, war on terror, health care, Iraq, and education. Let us not focus on which candidate is the most Christian. As I say in my post at Iowans for Romney, I'm conflicted in even publicizing this more. I really wish this whole religious issue/ "holy war" would just go away. But this Craig Adamson guy needs to be exposed for the sad excuse of a public servant that he is.
Jeff Fuller Rasmussen Reports came out this week with an interesting pre-holiday poll asking the question: "During your Holiday Family Gatherings, will you and your family discuss politics with a passion, avoid political discussins like the plague, or occasionally talk about the political news of the day?"
The results? "Discuss politics with a passion": 15% "Avoid political discussion": 25% "Occasionally talk about politics": 58% "Not sure": 2% Couple of bullet points from the crosstabs:
Labels: christmas, election, holidays, politics, poll, polling That's what Mona Charen over at NRO has done. She writes that after "The Speech" she had to reevaluate the Romney candidacy and liked what she saw:
But no one running is more impressive than Mitt Romney. It was his speech on religion in American life that caused me to take another look at him. Until then, I confess that I saw him as a sort of robo-candidate: smooth, articulate, but perhaps a little opportunistic and possibly even insincere. The religion speech cast a new light on him. After explaining how significant she thought his speech was, she goes on to look again at Romney's accomplishments: top academic acheivements, private sector success, Olyimpic turnaround, successful tenure as governor of Massachusetts, etc. She then concludes:
Here are two more clips from the debate forum where we talked about Mitt Romney.
Here's a clip talking about why Romney is the best choice to face Hillary: Here's a great question: "Can Romney make a deal with the unmovable object? A Democratic congress" Here's the original introduction in case you missed it: Labels: candidate debate, debate I submitted the following letter in the comments section of Tom Tancredo's Official Blog and also emailed it to his info address.
Dear Tom- I have always been a fan and I wanted to share a thought with you generally about Mitt Romney. I think you and Romney are alligned in more ways than not. Of the candidates, Romney is probably most aligned with you on immigration issues. Plus, Romney is willing to stand up and take on people who want our country to have open borders or who simply want to provide incentives for people to immigrate here illegally. In light of this, I respectfully suggest that you should consider endorsing Romney. You are a great asset to our nation and I know that no matter the outcome of this nomination process, you will continue to be a voice for change in America. Your greatest strengths come from your activism, which we will always, hopefully have. Romney's greatest strengths come from his executive experience, which we could use in the White House. Hopefully, we can enjoy both of you working together to solve our immigration problems. At the debate in Iowa a few days ago, you called out Governor Huckabee over his past views on illegal immigration. You are absolutely right and Romney has been highlighting the same problems with Huckabee's past policy positions on illegal immigration. But Romney is being chalenged in Iowa right now by Huckabee. Romney needs all the support he can get. You could really help him out. Now, I am just an independant blogger with no connection to the Romney campaign. But, it seems to me that you could really do our country a service by helping out another Republican who believes in securing our borders, that we shouldn't have incentives for people to come here illegally, and we shouldn't give people who are here already any benefit for coming here illegally. Respecfully Submitted, Timotheus www.mymanmitt.com Thursday, December 13, 2007
Or just want to learn more? Maybe your for Huckabee/Rudy/Clinton and doing some opo-research? No better place than read Romney's former speeches: Here they are. Feel free to look around... Also tell me what you think... 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
State of the State Speeches
I'm going to try to do an ongoing series about several reasons to vote for Romney. Today I wanted to start out with something a little out of the norm when thinking about a presidential candidate: temperment. With all the scrutiny that comes with the job, we need a president with thick skin and a hesitency to judge. We know that every president has his critics and the job lends itself to being targeted by rivals and the media.
From the day Romney entered the race he has heard the critics and responded with kindness. He has argued forcefully on substance, but left personal attacks for other candidates. AB Stoddard, over at the Hill, puts it well, reflecting on the events of the last few weeks:
One week after Mitt gave his now famous (infamous?) so-called "Mormon speech" regarding religious tests for presidential candidates, the media has come out in full force both for and against Romney.
A Google News search for the keywords "Romney Mormon speech" for the last week shows an astounding 4,000 news and blog stories devoted to the topic. A quick perusal of the tenor of the stories and blog comments reveals that there are mixed opinions on both sides. There are evangelicals stoutly defending Romney and others defending Huckabee's bigoted retorts. The Boston Globe reports today, though, that not everyone loves Huckabee. When "Huckleberry," as he's nicknamed, left the governor's office, the furniture he'd been given to spruce up the place left with him.Maybe there's a reason? There are, of course, Mormons who defend Romney, yet others who are lukewarm or who support other candidates. In general, there are many who believe Romney made a smart move by talking openly with Americans about what he believes and how those beliefs would inform his presidency. Just after the speech, the Dallas Morning News reported from Iowa:
The data on Google Trends for the keywords "Romney", "Huckabee", "Mormon", and "Evangelical" will soon show the impact, which is likely to be significant, of those topics on the blogosphere and traditional online news media. Keep watching. This topic isn't going to go away. “Mike Huckabee may be a nice man, but his record is troubling.”
I’m sure that quote or some variation of it is what is going on in the thought processes of most of his opposition. It may be what is going on in your head as you are reading these words. I’m here to tell you that Presidential Candidate Mike Huckabee is NOT a nice man. I’m also here to tell you that Mike Huckabee is more dangerous to the future of the Republican Party then any other Presidential candidate. Huckabee, the Pastor, may have been a nice man. Huckabee, the Governor, may have been a nice man, as well. (We all know his record shows that he is an incompetent man, but he was probably nice.) However, Huckabee the Presidential Candidate is NOT a nice man. There is nothing nice about what Mike Huckabee is trying to do in order to secure the Republican nomination. He’s using religion to divide, rather than to unite. His campaign strategy is completely contingent upon the “fact” that he is the only “real Christian” in the race. In fact, he is counting on his image as a “real Christian” to attract other “real Christians” to his side. This author considers himself one of those “real Christians”. I’m a Born-Again Evangelical Christian. I believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. I believe that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin, that he died on the cross, and that he rose from the dead on the third day to provide salvation for those who would accept him as Lord and Savior. I believe there is only one way to heaven, not many roads to one destination. I disagree with many of the tenets of the Catholic Church. I also disagree with many of the tenets of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I disagree with the tenets of many faiths and denominations. I do not believe that the Saints of the Catholic Church are to be prayed to. I do not follow the teachings of Joseph Smith. The above statements were not meant to offend my many LDS or Catholic friends, as I’m sure my friends of all different faiths and denominations disagree with me on many tenets of my faith. However, I made the above statements to prove a point. The point is that I am exactly the target audience of Mike Huckabee’s Presidential Campaign. However, I have seen through his simple rhetoric and am insulted by the insinuation that I should vote for him because he’s a “real Christian” That kind of strategy is against everything America stands for. Faith was central in the creation of America and as much as Post-Modernism has tried to push it out, faith is still central. However, Huckabee is counting on the “real Christians” to forget that America is a place where people may disagree, but fight to the death for each other’s right to differ. Instead, Mike Huckabee is attempting to institute a religious litmus test, which is immoral and un-American. Let us take Ronald Reagan as an example. Ronald Reagan was clearly a man who had a tremendous faith. It oozed out of him and was central to the man he was in public life. Yet he never used his faith to divide. He was not a Catholic, but as President his most consistent prayer partner was one. When Jimmy Carter ran for re-election in 1980, he styled himself, the “real Christian”. We know what a disaster Jimmy Carter was as President and Reagan clearly was a wonderful success. Likely the greatest part of Ronald Reagan’s character and talent was his ability to unite, rather than divide. In socializing or in government activities, he liked people. When assembling his team and in picking his friends, he picked quality, rather than a dividing characteristic. In fact, Reagan is known as the man who brought together the three legs of the Republican Party. Mike Huckabee is clearly not a man who wants to do this. Mike Huckabee is the gravest threat the Republican Party has faced because, opposite of Reagan and in order to win, he is trying to divide us. The latest polls have shown that he may do just that. This would spell disaster for the Republican Party. Jesus Christ once said, “A house divided against itself cannot stand”. Huckabee is bastardizing his deeply held religious beliefs by using them as a marketing tool. What should be a man’s most personal and treasured sentiment is being used to garner votes. Now I do not claim to know the mind of God on every issue, but I do not think that He likes His name to be used in that fashion. If you are a “real Christian” and you are reading this, I pray you do not let this happen. If you believe that Mike Huckabee is the most qualified candidate, then vote for him. But please consider the fact that there is no other candidate in either party that, Republican or Democrat, is trying to gain your vote by using religion as a litmus test, divider, and marketing tool. Don’t fall for the lie that says if a candidate’s religion is more acceptable to you than another’s then you should vote for that candidate. We are not voting for America’s Pastor, Rabbi, Preacher, Priest, Imam, or Evangelist. We are voting for President of the United States. The person who is most qualified and shows the most promise for leading our country through the challenges ahead should get your vote. He’s getting mine. If you fall for the bait of the religious litmus test and vote according to it, then shame on you! Shame on all of us if we allow religious prejudice to determine our nominee. Say no to Mike Huckabee.
Last night I participated in a forum sponsored by America's Future Foundation, representing Governor Romney in a "debate the candidates" style match-up.
The setting was an old (and I mean old) townhouse near Dupont Circle that used to be the residence of the German ambassador decades previous. The debaters, representing their respective candidates, were well prepared and the audience was engaged and respectful (for the most part). I should note this was mostly a younger crowd of conservatives and libertarians and there were a good number of, you guessed it, Ron Paul supporters. Like many of the actual candidate debates, a good portion of the program was spent rallying for and against Paul. I will be uploading videos as I can throughout the day. Here are my introductory remarks. The bios of the participants are below: For Mitt Romney: Justin Hart is the Vice President of Communications for the Lighted Candle Society. With over a decade of experience in the corporate world helping Fortune 500 companies utilize emerging technologies, Mr. Hart is now taking on the non-profit industry. He is the co-founder of MyManMitt.com, the top-trafficked blog supporting Mitt Romney for President. Mr. Hart has published numerous articles about technology and his favorite candidate on several websites, including the American Thinker. He is also the founder of the support group, Help Soar In. For Fred Thompson: Jon Henke is an Online Brand Manager for New Media Strategies in Arlington and a consultant to the Fred Thompson presidential campaign. Previously, he has worked as the New Media Advisor to the Senate Republicans and as the New Media Coordinator for the last few months of the George Allen Senate campaign. He blogs at QandO.net. For Mike Huckabee: Michael Mayernick is a freelance internet marketing and development consultant and serves on the board of trustees to the American Parliamentary Debate Association. While studying economics and political science, Mr. Mayernick represented Johns Hopkins University as part of the nation’s top-ranked team in national and international debate competitions. He is currently a management consultant at Bearingpoint. For Ron Paul: Jonathan Bydlak, Fundraising Director for Ron Paul. (I don't have a full bio for Jonathan since he ws a last minute substitute.) For Rudy Giuliani: Michael J. Zarrelli is currently the Corporate Counsel / Federal Affairs Manager for a privately held $6.4 billion multi-national company that competes in the global marketplace and sells products in more than 80 countries and territories worldwide. He is also a Washington, DC advisor to the Rudy Giuliani Presidential Committee. From 1997 thru 2001, he served as a Legislative Representative for New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani in his Washington Bureau. Mr. Zarrelli received a B.A. in Political Science from Hartwick College and a J.D. from The Catholic University of America - Columbus School of Law. He is a member of the Maryland Bar. Moderating: Christopher Beam is a political reporter for Slate Magazine and writes its campaign blog, Trailhead. Labels: bloggers, candidate debate, debate, ron paul The Cato Institute's Michael Tanner sums up the Cato view on Huckabee's tenure as governor and his prospects as president. Some excerpts:
As governor of Arkansas, Huckabee dramatically increased state spending. During his two-term tenure, spending increased by more than 65 percent -- at three times the rate of inflation. As much as I don't align perfectly with Cato, these are nuts and bolts issues. As I've said before, the key reasons that Republicans were booted from office last election were lack of fiscal discipline, a sense of incompetence (Iraq, Katrina, etc.), and corruption and scandal. Mike Huckabee does little to address these issues. Obviously spending and taxes are not his strong points. Huckabee is also not campaigning on competence. When he does, as last night in bragging about the Arkansas school system, he flops badly. Finally, Huckabee has not been scandal free. A Huckabee candidacy would likely mean more losses for Republicans because he represents a continuation of the past and not a break from it. Mitt Romney, on the other hand, addresses the problem areas and build on past strengths. Mitt has a strong fiscal record, exudes competence and delivers, and is notably scandal-free. These things in addition to a commitment to the coalition of conservatives, makes Romney distinct among the primary choices. Labels: mike huckabee Sorry that I didn't get much up on debate thoughts as promised. The newest little Romney-bot had a tough day yesterday that required my attention.
Look, Romney had a great day yesterday. He was substantive, positive, and highlighted his record of accomplishment, all key strengths to his campaign. It is unsurprising that after such a debate focus groups such as Luntz's would find him to be the winner. Also he drew distinctions with other campaigns even as the moderation discouraged such exchanges. Notably on education, Romney was able to offer substantive ideas that made Huckabee's "kids are dropping out because they're bored" look silly. Additionally, his retort about the comparative excellence of Arkansas schools to Massachusetts schools was one of the few debated points of the night. I thought in some ways Huckabee got off easy last night as the moderators took off the table two soft points to his candidacy: Foreign policy and immigration. I'm not sure what prompted that decision, but Huckabee really lucked out. He also got embarrased by Tancredo over the federal role in education. Also, did Alan Keyes call out Huckabee for not being religious enough? Thompson had a fine night, although apparently everyone else missed it that as he was giving his answer on NAFTA he admitted not having anything to say, even as he kept talking. I appreciated his refusal to answer the hand-raising questions. Hoepfully that will discourage others (I'm looking at you Chris Matthews) from asking those types of questions again. I don't remember a thing that anyone else said, although I remember Alan Keyes perpetually embarassing himself. Rudy seemed fine, but has failed to excel the way he did earlier in the year. McCain, like Huckabee, lucked out that the debate didn't cover immigration. Tancredo and Duncan Hunter...uh...were there. Ron Paul was Ron Paul. Great analysis of the yesterday's debate from Dry Fly Politics
Labels: debate Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Romney is going up on the air in Michigan, as reported by Politico. While people are focused on New Hampshire and Iowa at the moment, we should keep in mind the other states in the nomination process. The great thing about Romney is that he can compete on multiple fronts because he has a broader base of support than many other candidates and has the resources to do so. I think Romney will get the job done in Iowa and win, through organization and strength of will, but even if he were to take second, he still has a great shot at the nomination through winning New Hampshire, Michigan, Wyoming, and Nevada (not in that order).
Was There a Conspiracy Against Rudy and McCain? [Kathryn Jean Lopez] Mitt won — sounded presidential, competent, made a case for himself, and was optimistic but realistic about the threats we face. He's hit his stride. (Yes, you're shocked I'd say that.) More from the Corner Bread-and-Butter Mitt [Rich Lowry] Labels: debate This Wednesday, December 12th, just hours after the last Republican pre-Iowa melee, the America's Future Foundation will be hosting a "forum" featuring bloggers supporting the top candidates on the GOP side.
 Here's the blogger setup:
Labels: blogs, debate, Justin Hart
Firststate Blog is reporting (Our own Dave Burris) Fred Thompson will not make the cut for the Feb 5 primary.
I called to confirm this with the Delaware Department of Elections and a man named Paul confirmed it. Paul stated that Thompson received only 281 of the required 500 signatures. Actually Thompson had 800 signatures but the rest were not registered Republicans as required in Delaware. National Review beat me to it, alas, but I have been deciding to come out publicly for Mitt Romney for some days now. I have been supporting him privately for weeks, though I was trying to avoid supporting anybody publicly. Read the rest here. For those watching the debate in 1.5 hours, I'll have some of my own comments to go along with the debate. Keep an eye on MMM for updates and comments.
For those with just internet access, you should be able to watch the debate at Fox News, CNN, C-SPAN3, the DeMoines Register, or Iowa Public Television. National Review editor Rich Lowry was just on Laura Ingraham, explaining that Huckabee STOLE his Immigration proposal from National Review. Huckabee took it and tried to pass it off as his. So far Huckabee has skated through on quick quips, with no serious examination of his record. (And a manipulative, mean-spirited use of religion that is over the line in my view) Powerline with more on his record. (Note the Leftie Dem Huffington Post will press this attack relentlessly should Huckabee win the GOP nomination, and with good reason.):
Read on at Powerline. (H/t Elect Romney Blog)
From Private Equity International:
Marc Ambinder interviews Mitt On Hannity Huckabee admits he flipped on Cuba because he's running for president.
Then this--HotAir: 1998 statement signed by Huck affirmed: “A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband”And how about this one, what a nice, tolerant guy, just the kind of person you want in the White House. Time: Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee, an ordained Southern Baptist minister, asks in an upcoming article, ''Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?'' Well, he just flipped on that too. Mike Huckabee is pure poison to Republicans. And he has no idea how damaging this is. In an interview with the NY Times magazine! He wants to smear Romney, but with talk like this he gives all people of faith a bad name. And sets us up for a horrendous loss in the fall. He's a fan of big government, that's why he switched to politics. And he's manipulating faith in an unforgivable, crassly ambitious, mean-spirited way. ---crossposted at BackyardConservative Previous posts: Happy Go Lucky Huckabee, Huckster for Big Government, Huckabee's Hutzpah, Tax Hike for Christ Mike
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Twin articles with earily similar themes show that Giuliani wants Huckabee to clear the way for him and the Democrats want Huckabee to win the nomination to clear the way for them.
The first article, which can be found here, details how Mayor Giuliani and Governor Huckabee's respective campaigns have made a non-aggression pact with each other that resulted in both camps not criticizing the other camp. The strategy was to allow Huckabee to gain steam, thus knocking off Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney. "Rudolph Giuliani, the Republican frontrunner, and Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor now surging up the party’s rankings, are pursuing an unofficial non-aggression pact as they try to knock rivals out of the race for the presidential nomination. In the week that the battle for the Republican nomination turned ugly in a bad-tempered televised debate, the former New York mayor and the ex-Arkansas governor have been at pains not to knock each other, according to campaign insiders. Advisors to Mr Giuliani told The Sunday Telegraph that they were deliberately refraining from public criticism of Mr Huckabee, despite his increasing popularity, in the hope that he can derail their mutual rivals, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson." The article goes on to mention that should Huckabee actually become a real threat to Giuliani, then the gloves will come off. "Former Giuliani speechwriter Fred Siegel told The Sunday Telegraph: 'Right now, Huckabee is an unmitigated Godsend for Rudy. They have a shared interest in not attacking each other right now, but if Huckabee threatens to upset the apple cart in Florida, then the gloves will be off for the Giuliani campaign. Florida is his firewall.'" The second article can be found on the Drudgereport "Democrat party officials are avoiding any and all criticism of Republican presidential contender Mike Huckabee, insiders reveal. The Democratic National Committee has told staffers to hold all fire, until he secures the party's nomination. The directive has come down from the highest levels within the party, according to a top source. Within the DNC, Huckabee is known as the "glass jaw -- and they're just waiting to break it." In the last three weeks since Huckabee's surge kicked in, the DNC hasn't released a single press release criticizing his rising candidacy. The last DNC press release critical of Huckabee appeared back on March 2nd. [DNC Press Release Attack Summary: Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) – 37% (99 press releases) Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R-NY) – 28% (74) Senator John McCain (R-AZ) – 24% (64) Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN) – 8% (20) Governor Mike Huckabee – 2% (4)] In fact, as the story broke over the weekend that Huckabee said he wanted to isolate AIDS patients back in 1992, the DNC ignored the opportunity to slam the candidate from the left." The interesting thing is that, at least in terms of press releases, the DNC clearly considers Romney the greatest threat with Giuliani coming in second.  National Review endorses Romney. Finally a publication with the right idea. The article should be read in its entirety, but here are some excepts: "Our guiding principle has always been to select the most conservative viable candidate. In our judgment, that candidate is Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts. Unlike some other candidates in the race, Romney is a full-spectrum conservative: a supporter of free-market economics and limited government, moral causes such as the right to life and the preservation of marriage, and a foreign policy based on the national interest. "Romney is an intelligent, articulate, and accomplished former businessman and governor. At a time when voters yearn for competence and have soured on Washington because too often the Bush administration has not demonstrated it, Romney offers proven executive skill. He has demonstrated it in everything he has done in his professional life, and his tightly organized, disciplined campaign is no exception. He himself has shown impressive focus and energy. "More than the other primary candidates, Romney has President Bush’s virtues and avoids his flaws. His moral positions, and his instincts on taxes and foreign policy, are the same. But he is less inclined to federal activism, less tolerant of overspending, better able to defend conservative positions in debate, and more likely to demand performance from his subordinates. A winning combination, by our lights. In this most fluid and unpredictable Republican field, we vote for Mitt Romney." Labels: national review There has been some sentiment, in browsing around the blogosphere, that somehow the negative stuff that's coming out about Huckabee is somehow unfair. Jonathan Martin in particular seems to be trying to paint a picture that the different stories out about Huck's clemency issues, tax record, thoughts on AIDS or gays, foreign policy credentials, or immigration record are somehow insubstantial or hateful. This is absolute nonsense.
Huckabee had gotten zero scrutiny before November, mostly because his campaign had gotten little traction and he appeared headed for a sure VP nomination. This left little reason to scrutinize his record. Since then, not only has he risen in the polls and submitted himself as a viable presidential candidate, he has done it without scrutiny of his record. Now that such scrutiny is coming fast and furious, he is left to quickly do what other candidates have been doing all year: explain and defend their record. Romney, Giuliani, McCain, and even Thompson have been answering the repeated critiques of their respective records. That Huckabee is subjected to the same standard hardly seems unfair. Thus, to those bloggers, especially unaffiliated ones, who are trying to generate sympathy for Huckabee for having to go through scrutiny, I say: quit pouting. Huckabee is a seriously flawed candidate. Nothing that is being done to him is unique to him. All serious candidates have had to go through the same process. So take it like a man, Huckabee, and quit yer bellyachin'. |
    12/31/06 - 1/7/07 1/7/07 - 1/14/07 1/14/07 - 1/21/07 1/21/07 - 1/28/07 1/28/07 - 2/4/07 2/4/07 - 2/11/07 2/11/07 - 2/18/07 2/18/07 - 2/25/07 2/25/07 - 3/4/07 3/4/07 - 3/11/07 3/11/07 - 3/18/07 3/18/07 - 3/25/07 3/25/07 - 4/1/07 4/1/07 - 4/8/07 4/8/07 - 4/15/07 4/15/07 - 4/22/07 4/22/07 - 4/29/07 4/29/07 - 5/6/07 5/6/07 - 5/13/07 5/13/07 - 5/20/07 5/20/07 - 5/27/07 5/27/07 - 6/3/07 6/3/07 - 6/10/07 6/10/07 - 6/17/07 6/17/07 - 6/24/07 6/24/07 - 7/1/07 7/1/07 - 7/8/07 7/8/07 - 7/15/07 7/15/07 - 7/22/07 7/22/07 - 7/29/07 7/29/07 - 8/5/07 8/5/07 - 8/12/07 8/12/07 - 8/19/07 8/19/07 - 8/26/07 8/26/07 - 9/2/07 9/2/07 - 9/9/07 9/9/07 - 9/16/07 9/16/07 - 9/23/07 9/23/07 - 9/30/07 9/30/07 - 10/7/07 10/7/07 - 10/14/07 10/14/07 - 10/21/07 10/21/07 - 10/28/07 10/28/07 - 11/4/07 11/4/07 - 11/11/07 11/11/07 - 11/18/07 11/18/07 - 11/25/07 11/25/07 - 12/2/07 12/2/07 - 12/9/07 12/9/07 - 12/16/07 12/16/07 - 12/23/07 12/23/07 - 12/30/07 12/30/07 - 1/6/08 1/6/08 - 1/13/08 1/13/08 - 1/20/08 1/20/08 - 1/27/08 1/27/08 - 2/3/08 2/3/08 - 2/10/08 2/10/08 - 2/17/08 2/17/08 - 2/24/08 2/24/08 - 3/2/08 3/2/08 - 3/9/08 3/9/08 - 3/16/08 3/16/08 - 3/23/08 3/23/08 - 3/30/08 3/30/08 - 4/6/08 4/6/08 - 4/13/08 4/13/08 - 4/20/08 4/20/08 - 4/27/08 4/27/08 - 5/4/08 5/4/08 - 5/11/08 5/11/08 - 5/18/08 5/18/08 - 5/25/08 5/25/08 - 6/1/08 6/1/08 - 6/8/08 6/8/08 - 6/15/08 6/15/08 - 6/22/08 6/29/08 - 7/6/08 7/6/08 - 7/13/08 7/13/08 - 7/20/08 7/20/08 - 7/27/08 7/27/08 - 8/3/08 8/3/08 - 8/10/08 8/10/08 - 8/17/08 8/17/08 - 8/24/08 8/24/08 - 8/31/08 8/31/08 - 9/7/08 9/7/08 - 9/14/08 9/14/08 - 9/21/08 9/21/08 - 9/28/08 9/28/08 - 10/5/08 10/12/08 - 10/19/08 10/19/08 - 10/26/08 10/26/08 - 11/2/08 11/2/08 - 11/9/08 11/9/08 - 11/16/08 11/16/08 - 11/23/08 11/23/08 - 11/30/08 11/30/08 - 12/7/08 12/7/08 - 12/14/08 12/21/08 - 12/28/08 1/11/09 - 1/18/09 1/18/09 - 1/25/09 1/25/09 - 2/1/09 2/1/09 - 2/8/09 2/22/09 - 3/1/09 4/12/09 - 4/19/09 4/19/09 - 4/26/09 4/26/09 - 5/3/09 5/10/09 - 5/17/09 5/17/09 - 5/24/09 5/24/09 - 5/31/09 5/31/09 - 6/7/09 6/14/09 - 6/21/09 6/21/09 - 6/28/09 6/28/09 - 7/5/09 7/5/09 - 7/12/09 7/26/09 - 8/2/09 8/2/09 - 8/9/09 8/9/09 - 8/16/09 8/30/09 - 9/6/09 9/6/09 - 9/13/09 9/18/11 - 9/25/11 What People are Saying about MyManMitt: "A proactive voice in the wilderness, always on-message and fighting the fight, for Mitt." - David All |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Show/Hide 1 Comments | Post a Comment