Things are happening fast and furious in the political world. John Edwards drops his official bid for President and begins his official bid for vice president.
And on the GOP side . . .:
"John McCain’s wave of political momentum is building as he comes off a major win in the winner-take-all Florida presidential primary and prepares to receive the endorsement Wednesday of one-time Republican national frontrunner Rudy Giuliani."At least for me, the decision to back a candidate is generally very complex. Character. Political positions. Track Record. And finally, "electability."
The GOP primary in Tennessee is in less than a week. The GOP race has (likely) narrowed to McCain, Romney and Huckabee (oh, and Ron Paul). And despite much research/consideration, I have long been unsure about whom I would be supporting for the GOP nomination. But the deciding factor for me was the extended conversation I had today with a former Arkansas state legislator who worked closely with former Governor Mike Huckabee while they both were in office. In sum, all the negative things I've heard about Huckabee's views on spending reminded me too much of former Tennessee Governor Don Sundquist. And all the negative (regarding fiscal policy) things I've heard from Huckabee's detractors were accurate. That being said, I still disagree with the focus by Huckabee detractors on Huckabee (to the exclusion of other candidates). But that leads me to my last point: electability.
In light of recent GOP political developments, I do not believe that Mike Huckabee is going to become the Republicans' nominee for President. With or without my support . . . with or without my vote. And among the two Republicans likely to be in the running at the end of the day, I unreservedly believe that Mitt Romney is the better candidate.
Now where can I get a yard sign . . .
92 comments:
I got my Mitt Romney sign from MittRomney.com !
Welcome aboard, it's far from over.
Why speak to one Arkansas official when you could see the claims of several who made the effort to warn you over a year ago! Then you had people who responded to your drooling in showing you the truth with the records to prove it!
I guess that would have been too easy for your stupid ass.
Choosing a president is not entertainment or a F'n game. It is our collective responsibility for our own governance!!
Wake the fuck up!!!!!
Hey, welcome aboard to Team Mitt!
I liked Huckabee when I first saw him at the debate, but then started to learn about him and what I learned really concerned me.
Enough said.
Again, welcome aboard!
Thank you so much for this.
Here's my own personal plea:
Huckabee supporters...a plea from a fellow conservative here. I think most of you understand just how liberal McCain's main achievements in the Senate have been, linking up with extreme liberals like Feingold of California, Kennedy of Massachusetts, working closely with Hillary Clinton, etc. If McCain wins, all conservatives lose, and in a big way likely to last for years. The ONLY way we can stop McCain is to have you guys join us in supporting Mitt Romney on Super Tuesday. Please consider this. I believe it is critically important. Don't forget the McCain crafted the bill that had it passed would have given all illegals a chance to stay in the U.S. the rest of their lives with only a minor fine to pay. Don't forget that McCain-Feingold was a direct restriction of the First Amendment guarantee of free speech. Let's unite for conservatism!
So the Main Stream Media is still rooting for its liberal Republican baby John McCain (I know what you're thinking, McCain is really old, but he's still a baby). McCain looked like a smug, lying politician during the debate last night. I wrote down three or four times when John McCain's "Straight Talk Express" hurdled off the bridge and exploded into a great ball of fire. McCain is definitely a Washington Politician. We've got to stop the liberal Republican.
Rally to Romney!
What I have learned about Mitt on his social issues in his past really concern me. If I didn't care and put higher importance on social issues than money I would have no problem with Mitt. However I cannot under good conscience vote my pocket book. If social issues take a back seat for you, than by all means vote Mitt. Its your conscience not mine. What a shame.
Mitt is not for the Human Life Amendment and he only changed to be pro-life prior to running for president; hardly believable.
Mitt is also not the fiscal conservative that many are making him out to be. He raised the tax burden on the people of MA more during his 4 years (4.0%; 30.4 to 34.4) than Huckabee did during his 10+ years in AR (0.2%; 30.3 to 30.5). Plus, Mike is for the Fair Tax and Mitt is uncommitted.
anonymous' wonderful attitude sure isn't going help other Huckabee supporters consider switching and he certainly is a big man writing like that with a name like that on the internet.
Mike Huckabee was and is the right choice for president and the Republicans will likely lose with Mitt as the nominee (and McCain for that matter).
How sad that you could not stand up for your initial convictions, which were correct. Romney is just a Republican John Kerry. He has no chance of defeating Hillary or Obama because they sill do exactly to him what Republicans did to John Kerry. It's so easy to paint him as a man who puts his finger in the air and goes with the prevailing winds. How you can not see how insincere this man is, is beyond me. He's quite shallow and cannot win. He ran to the left of Sen. Kennedy, for crying out loud.
I'm with Huckabee til the end because he is conservative, he is someone who can win and he is someone who has stuck to his original message all along. Romney is a fake. A rich fake.
Mittens will not win. You need to face that.
Listen...here's my take on the pro-life issue...Romney was never personally anything but pro-life. What happened when he ran for office in liberal Massachusetts is he said in effect: "I'm personally pro-life, but I understand the 'law of the land' and the large majority in this state are pro-choice. I will not work to change the law in this regard." But when he was actually in office and presented with specific decisions related to abortion, he always acted in the pro-life way (hence the endorsement of the Massachusetts for Life Coalition). Now that he's in a national race rather than MA specific, he is able to say to a different constituency: "I am pro-life and would work on behalf of the pro-life cause as president." Also you could argue that he did more good for the pro-life cause in the hostile territory of Massachusetts than he ever could have had he not approached it as he did and won the governorship. Actions speak louder that words. Romney ACTED in a strongly pro-life manner when he had the opportunity to do so.
bobrocky,
I completely disagree with your assessment of Romney's chances to win. Did you see that debate last night? Romney is freaking smart and communicates well. He could FRY Clinton or Obama in a debate. With the support of all conservatives, all Republicans, and enough independents, he most certainly could win in November. But he will need the support of all. btw, in terms of his having money - isn't part of conservatism the belief that we want people to be able to achieve on their own merits and enjoy the fruits of their labors? In fact, Romney has not only worked hard and achieved his wealth through his own strength and abilities, but I give him even more kudos because he is actually willing to spend his own money and sacrifice for a cause he firmly believes in and for the good of America.
Yes Teej, your correct Mr. Romney said he will uphold the law of the land in his state regarding abortion. This is exactly why I dont want this liberal in office. If we look at his past actions like you say, then we can conclude he will do nothing to overturn Roe V. Wade. He will "uphold the law of the land". Romney is a say anything, do anything, spend anything, pay anyone to get elected. Because of this, he would lose in a landslide in the general. I'd say Mitt drops out and therefore the only true conservative Mike can get the nomination.
Scott,
see if I'm not making sense here...I'm looking at the very real difference between his run for office in the state of Massachusetts as opposed to a national race for the presidency. His comment about the 'law of the land' was a pledge he was making specifically for voters in Massachusetts. Now that he is running nationally, he has not repeated that, in fact to the contrary, he has committed that he is dedicated to supporting pro-life strongly. The difference is not one of a lack of commitment to the cause, but rather a difference in the constituencies and nature of the voters in liberal Massachusetts as opposed to the nation as a whole. He is firmly and openly committed to the pro-life cause as a national issue.
Teej,
Ok, with that reasoning... then you can say the same thing about Mike. All the talking heads (Rushbo and Shamnity) cry about Mike raising taxes in his state, however he has taken a no new tax pledge for the nation. So why the double standard? If we use your reasoning they both are on the same playing field. The problem is Mitt comes across as a rich white Republican. Which this country is sick of. Mike comes across as a the nice average white guy, the common man. Dems and Independents would much rather vote for the latter. Mitt would never win the Independents or cross over Dems. Mitt would mean an easy win for the Dems.
Sorry for all the posts, but this is a great discussion I think.
My other thing about Romney is this...other than the issue of pro-life we are discussing, can you really think of anything other issues that he is even charged with changing position on? Not everything we hear on the news or from his political opponents is correct as we know.
I guess I'm saying that yes, Romney has wealth, but he's using it for what he believes in and giving America a real choice. Yes, Romney is criticized by the MSM who are Friends of McCain, but that doesn't mean the charges are true. Yes, Romney has some different priorities running for President than he did when running for Governor of Massachusetts, but it's not a question of integrity, just one of assessing priorities based on the difference in constituencies and the real differences between what a governor does and what a president does. I think he's a stright-up, straight-shooter, and that is becoming more and more apparent with time.
The real question for me today is this: Romney is the only candidate still standing who has a realistic chance to derail ultra-liberal McCain. But it will require united support by all who care deeply about conservative values and causes, which I do and I sense that you do as well. And this support doesn't have much time to "develop." If Romney doesn't get enough support from Huckabee supporters next Tuesday, it may be too late to stop McCain, which be an unmitigated disaster for conservatives, and a huge step backwards for the causes we care so much about.
Scott,
I'll concede that point...Huckabee's tax raises in Arkansas should not be held up too strongly against him since he is now committing to be a tax cutter in Washington.
Huck does seem to be a good man and has the strengths you mention. At this point in the campaign though, he hasn't had much success to speak of since Iowa, and 4th place in Florida doesn't bode well for Super Tuesday (I understand he didn't put his full effort into Florida but I think that was in part because he was trying to decide where his effort and presence would make the most difference and where it wouldn't).
And this gets back to McCain. I really believe that if the conservative vote splits itself next Tuesday, we hand it to McCain, who would be a Lawrence-Welk-Republican-disaster in November, and who is the most liberal of the remaining candidates by far. So my argument is that yes there we each have our preferences for who we like best among the Republicans, but we also need to realistically look and say: who has the best chance to derail McCain. Because if we don't unite behind one guy, we will all lose.
For me, the race is more than about the man. It is about the issues and the ideas. These I will continue to support, and as long as Huckabee is speaking for the FairTax, infrastructure development, state control of education, etc I will be his support team. We need to support Mike all the way. The other candidates need him, his block of delegates, (what he has already, and what he will gain Tues.) are holding back any coronation. Until they come to us and recognize that we hold the key, and gain assurances they will carry the torch, there is no need to throw our support to them. Look at Ron Paul, while I disagree with him, his backers still have a place at the table because of their loyalty to a candidate.
Mike,
I appreciate your commitment to principle on taxes, etc. I also understand the argument about the value of being "at the table" to discuss ideas you care about.
My argument on this would be that we consider the effect of what happens next Tuesday on the issues we care deeply about. For example, in the early primaries process it has been valuable to have Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul and Fred Thompson at the debates to bring up these issues and work to get people to understand and accept them.
But we are at a point in the process now where there are other (and I would argue much greater) issues we face than just being "at the table" and holding delegates to be a "player" at the RNC convention.
If John McCain gets the large majority of delegates at stake on Tuesday (which he will if Romney does not get significant support from Huckabee and Giuliani supporters not to mention and Fred supporters still undecided), then McCain will get the nomination.
The two main problems I fear if that happened are (1) I think McCain is a terrible candidate for us and would get crushed in November, and (2) If I'm wrong and he succeeds, it is a disaster for conservatives. McCain has made a living of sticking it in the eye of conservatives in his career. He would no doubt continue to do so but with the greater power of the presidency to do it with. In addition, because conservatives cannot support him, it introduces entrenched division in the Republican Party for at least 4-8 years if not longer.
That's why I feel it is so critical that we unite and help defeat McCain.
Romney is not electable, period.
Get a clue people. I don't hate the man - but the simple fact of the matter is he is an easy target:
His numerous changes on positions like life and marriage will be used against him.
His ties to China and what he did to businesses will be used against him.
Too many people don't like the man because he is simply too polished. The folks in fly over country will not not vote for someone they view as hoity toity.
A number of christian conservative voters cannot support the man. It's not bigotry (in most cases) it's character and integrity on issues important to these people that matter the most.
Mitt speaks like a politician..again a huge negative.
Mitt supporters need to get the stars out of your eyes and wake up. The man is a RINO. To call him a conservative just because he has the support of Rush, Sean, and CFG is absurd. He is not a conservative.
Mike Huckabee is the only candidate that has a chance against Obama. If Mitt is the candidate - his wealth, his "station in life", his demeanor (condescending and overbearing) will not be helpful. In fact - it will be seen as demeaning to an African American.
Mike Huckabee is the only candidate who has faced the Clinton machine. I think both Mitt and Huck can tear her apart in a debate, but Mike has done it in the past and has Arkansas politics experience - thus an insider advantage of how to go after Hillary.
Mike Huckabee is a true conservative. He raised taxes because he had to...so did Romney and so did Reagan (no one is holding this against Mitt).
It is dishonest, and insulting to assume that Mike is tearing apart the conservative movement. He is the only conservative in the race and it is, in fact, Mitt that is tearing us apart because he is neither a conservative nor is he electable.
Teej,
You keep repeating that conservatives should rally around Mitt. Well I think Romney's supporters should rally around Mike so we can beat McCain. hehe I have a feeling we're not going to change each other's opinions ;-)
Jon,
I believe you are wrong about Romney's electability. I'll tell you why, fwiw...
(1) every candidate has changed on some issues, and conventional wisdom to the contrary, Romney is no worse and I think better in this regard than the other candidates. I mean, think how many position changes Hillary has had! Obama maybe a little less but only because he's been in national politics such a short time and he's been able to vote consistently liberal since he's from a liberal state there's no political cost to him to do so.
(2) Everybody has ties to something or other that could detract from their message, but if you listen to Romney on China and other economic competitors, he's very compelling about the challenges we face but also the ability we have to overcome those challenges and has strong ideas on how we can do that.
(3) I agree his image of being "straight-laced" has been an issue, but I know loads of people who have changed their minds on that and see him as a real guy...sure he has kind of a businessman's manners but other than Huckabee I think he's had the best one-liners and humor in the debates and on the campaign trail. I think people are still getting to know Romney (most Americans really still don't but that's slowly changing) but will like him more and more as they do.
(4) Do you honestly think people as committed to conservatism as Rush and Sean and others are would support Romney so strongly if he was not conservative? I do not. I think those guys would never support someone who was not conservative, because their commitment is to CONSERVATISM, not the Republican Party or popularity, etc.
(5) I don't think it's so much "Huck tearing apart the Republican Party" as the fact that if McCain wins it would effectively do this. I'm not blaming Huck for the situation but realistically we need Huckabee supporters to help us back Romney to avoid this devastating defeat for conservatism and for the Republican Party.
(5)
scott,
you may be right...this may be an effort in vain...but the prospect of liberal McCain winning and the damage it would do to conservative issues and values compels me to try anyhow...
Look, if the situation were reversed, and Huckabee had the polls and organization and the resources to compete nationally, and if Huckabee were the one getting so many conservatives to rally around him (nearly all the conservative talk radio folks are rallying to Romney right now), I would have to switch to Huckabee, but since all those things suggest Romney is the only one with a realistic shot at knocking McCain out, my plea is that you consider supporting Romney, as your blogger Ned Williams has.
Teej,
I do find it quite odd that Rushbo and Shamnity and other conservative radio hosts are under Clear Channel and it just so happens that Mitt's former company, Bain Capital just bought Clear Channel. Makes me wonder about things.
Yeah...I didn't know that and it could create doubt...I don't know that Romney still has any ties to Bain but maybe he does. In any case I guess it's a matter of do you trust that Rush and Sean have integrity and are committed to conservatism and will base their comments on that commitment. I trust their integrity. I've always been impressed that more than almost any media people I know these two are solid in their beliefs and their integrity, but maybe others don't.
btw you're great to interact with on this. I sure hope this comes out OK, though I can't get rid of the fear in the pit of my stomach about McCain. We need to stop him now.
Ned, you are a coward. How dare you create a blog supporting Mike Huckabee, only to turn around and sell your principals to a flip-flopper!! You can Romney a conservative? Let's look at this.
Romney: Tax burden increased 4% in 4 years
Huckabee: Tax burden increased .5% in 10 1/2 years
Romney: Promoted ENDA and $50 co-pay abortions
Huckabee: Supports a human life amendment, passed parental notification for minors
Romney: HE FREAKIN RAN FOR SENATE ON THE PROMISE OF BEING MORE LIBERAL THAN TED KENNEDY! HOW IN THE WORLD DO YOU CALL HIM CONSERVATIVE????
You are either very ignorant, or very stupid.
I will vote for Huckabee whether he is the nominee or not. I have convictions. I won't sell my soul because of what the media tells me.
Grow a pair and stand for something, instead of being a wavering douche. How appropriate that you flip flop to Mitt. That's the new title of your blog: Willard '08
A Flip Flopping Blog for a Flip Flopping Candidate
You sir, disgust me.
I am sorry that you have become disillusioned by the propoganda and misrepresentations of the media. Mitt Romney never has been and never will be a conservative. The fact that you were led away from the one true conservative shows what a silver tongued liar Mitt Romney really is. I could never vote for a weasel like that.
vikes,
what I nice gentlemanly post there buddy. Do you honestly believe a person can't change their mind based on principles? As Ned said, these are complex decisions based on many variables. Deciding to support a different candidate can be made on principle and have nothing to do with the media.
You might be selling your soul in letting John McCain take the nomination. At least you would be selling out conservative principles and values, imho.
al,
what is your definition of conservatism then? Because every principle of conservatism I know Romney has actually followed in practice as governor of Massachusetts and in his campaign and positions in the run for the Republican nomination.
Another other point made by conservative commentator Mark Levin on his blog today: "Let’s face it, none of the candidates are perfect. They never are. But McCain is the least perfect of the viable candidates. The only one left standing who can honestly be said to share most of our conservative principles is Mitt Romney. I say this as someone who has not been an active Romney supporter. If conservatives don’t unite behind Romney at this stage, and become vocal in their support for him, then they will get McCain as their Republican nominee and probably a Democrat president. And in either case, we will have a deeply flawed president."
I'll stick with Huckabee. My vote will go to someone who's been a conservative from the start before it ever goes to one who just recently converted in order to buy his way into the White House. Mitt promised to introduce his mandated health care to the nation, just what we need is federally subsidized abortions at 50 bucks per death.
I don't doubt that Mitt Romney stands a very good chance of winning the Republican nomination. He may also win the White House but I seriously doubt it. Liberals are already armed with his business reputation, his record as governor and his endless inconsistencies. Either way, any victory garnered by Romney will be without any help from me.
Teej,
No, as a matter of fact I do not trust Rushbo and Shamnity. And yes Mitt is no longer the CEO of Bain but he does have a stake in the company still. I believe to Rushbo and Shamnity... money talks. Rushbo and Shamnity both were attacking Mike back in Iowa when Mike became competitive against their poster child Mitt, and now that McCain is competitive they are attacking him. I dont trust Mitt, i dont trust Rushbo nor Shamnity. I dont believe in their doctrine that everything Republicans do is good and everything that Dems do is bad. Thats the kind of politics that is destroying and dividing america. I much prefer Mike's approach of "vertical politics". I think for myself, I dont let talking heads and so called conservative radio hosts, tell me how to think or influence my decisions. Unfortunetly a lot of people do.
Scott,
believe me I do my own thinking. Nobody decides my positions for me. I don't expect any candidate to be perfect, but I am satisfied on every serious point by Mitt Romney.
ruff,
and just to set the record straight about coverage for abortions in MA, that was a mandate from the courts which Romney opposed and fought but could do nothing about. The blame is on the courts there for that awful decision.
Teej,
You and I agree on one thing.. I too am satisfied on every serious point by Mike Huckabee !! Now if we'd just have you guys come over to our side, we'd be cake walking. :-)
My biggest problem with Romney's supporters is the arrogance to assume, if not demand, that Huckabee supporters join your cause. As I've said before - Romney is not electable. He is where he is today only because he has spent between 10 - 20 times more money than the other guys, has the backing of talk radio, and CFG. These folks represent a small segment of the conservative movement. If Romney had Huckabee's money - he'd be a laughing stock.
Huckabee and his supporters will not join your movement for a number of reasons. The fact is, average Joe six pack can't stand the guy - he's too pretty, too rich, too polished, doesn't kill his own food or do his own laundry. You can sit there and shout the politics all you want but it doesn't matter. In the most simple and basic nature of most of the great unwashed of which I am a proud member - your candidate is not electable.
As for the Yalies and other intelligencia - enjoy Romney for another week - he's toast.
by the way - I prefer Yale to Harvard, but neither would admit me to mow the lawn!
LOL
Jon,
I don't assume anything, but this is a good conversation to have and listen to each other's rationale, see if we can come together.
btw, Ronald Reagan was not any of those things you said either...not someone who killed his own food or do his own laundry...he had his own ranch to just hang out in all the time, for heaven's sake! He was rich and not the kind of guy you would hang out and have a beer with. But he was a great president, and a great leader of conservative causes and of the nation.
Mitt Romney: Look at my Record
Romney's Abortion Fairy Tale
www.trueromney.com
Romney Can't Decide
How many Right to Life endorsements has Romney received? umm I dont think any? (He must have not thrown enough money at them like he has other conservative groups) Are all of them wrong for not supporting Romney? They must not be convinced of what he now says, so why should the american people?
Scott,
I know for sure that the Massachusetts Pro-Life Coalition has endorsed Romney and gave him their Leadership Award for his pro-life decisions as governor of MA.
Teej,
Please give me a direct link to that, cause I could not find it anywhere. I couldn't even find a website for the so called "Mass. Pro life coalition"
The NRTL nor their state's RTL agency have endorsed Romney. I wonder why that is?
Huckabee has received numerous state ones.
MA Pro-Life Group Says Romney Misleading About $50 Abortions
Mike Huckabee has been endorsed by:
- Duncan Hunter
- Alaska Right to Life
- Arizona Right to Life
- Arkansas Right to Life
- Georgia Right to Life
- Missouri Right to Life
- Right to Life of Montana
- Tennesee Right to Life
- Michigan Chooses Life PAC
- Michigan Christians for Life
- Leaders of Life Decisions International
- Thomas A. Glessner, Founder and President of the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates
Furthermore, the National Right to Life Committee has acknowledged Huckabee as the strongest pro-life candidate left in the race.
MCFL had considered Romney a hard-core pro-abortion politician who had no interest in meeting with them. To get the award, Romney paid $15,000 and went around MCFL’s state headquarters to deal with a willing local politician who arranged the award through a local chapter.
“MCFL was in financial difficulty when Romney’s check came in and has been reluctant to contradict him publicly,” Haskins said. “There are some very fine people associated with MCFL, but to let Romney hustle voters with this conveniently cooked-up pro-life award is a tragic mistake. It allows lawyers and consultants like Jay Sekulow, Jim Bopp and Mark DeMoss, who have gotten rich over the years wheeling and dealing with the Republican elites, to call the honest pro-life heroes liars and to mislead voters. We have no choice but to speak up. If Mitt Romney outruns his record in Massachusetts and buys his way into the White House it will be partly because people who know the facts did not expose this pro-life award as not much more than a dime-store rip-off.”
William Cotter, president of another Massachusetts pro-life group, Operation Rescue-Boston, agreed: “It’s just not possible to honestly call Romney’s record ‘pro-life — even after the just-in-time staged conversion. Mitt Romney is not pro-life. On balance, his policies were pro-abortion.”
http://kevinjthompson.wordpress.com/2008/01/02/conservative-elites-covering-up-romneys-betrayals-on-marriage-life-children-and-constitution/
I'll try to get to some of your other questions at some point tonight. On the right to life issue I mentioned, it was a local leadership award from the Massachusetts Citizens for Life, but not an official endorsement.
Also on that point, I'm not saying that Romney has done more on it than Huckabee or others, but I am saying that he took some serious pro-life positions when he was in the governor's office and this did take courage in such a liberal state. Also that he certainly has been clear about his position on pro-life in the presidential campaign and those positions are what he would govern by.
So if it was a competition on this one issue, I'm with you. But his commitment for the national electorate is clear and so I think we have to look at the whole range of issues, and we also have to be realistic about what will happen next Tuesday and next November. I think McCain would be a disaster for all conservatives.
Teej,
You are correct. If it is a competition on the Pro_life issue Mike wins hands done, now on the other issues, Mike has the best plan on immigration (endorsed by Jim Gilgrest and Hunter) and the best tax plan (fair tax), I of course put priority on the Life issue. If we can't as a society stand up for the most innocent of person, what can we stand for? For this pro life issue Mike is the man ! Romney " i think abortion should be safe and legal in this country" he didnt say state he said country !!
Why doesnt the auther of this blog chime in? I find it quite odd that he has this so called revelation all of a sudden after speaking to a former Ark. legislator ?? What i want to know, is who this legislator is and I wonder who he is backing for pres.? ... and how much money have you received for "changing your mind" ?
Scott, as far as Huckabee on illegals, check this one out: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24142&s=rcmc
He was pretty poor as governor. So you would give a pass to Huck on taxes and immigration, etc. but not to Romney on pro-life even though he is now onboard with prolife?
Mike's record has been distorted by the mass media. He was governor for over 10 years and taxes went up by less than 1% during his tenure. It's funny that people are criticizing Huckabee for such a minor tax increase when Romney increased taxes by 4% in just four years. Also, 80% of Arkansas' people demanded tax increases because of their poor economy, education and health care. Romney made the quality of life worse for the people of Massachusetts. His disapproval ratings were over 60%!
The truth about Huckabee's record:
http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=TruthSquad.Home
The truth about Romney's record:
http://www.trueromney.com
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
Paid for an endorsement? Ha. I've had very ltd. access to the 'net since Sunday. McCain's momentum coupled with the winner-take-all aspect of TN's primary diminishes the appeal of a vote for Huckabee this Tues. I won't name the legislator, but "sourcing" isn't necessary. The info I gained was sufficient to convince me that fiscal criticism/enmity from Establishment Repubs was not unfounded.
I think Huckabee is undoubtedly the best candidate on the abortion issue, but it comes down to a decision about whether a vote for him will advance the sanctity of life or not. Will electing McCain (not to mention Obama or Hillary) advance the issue?
Will electing Romney advance the Pro Life movement? How can we trust him? I can't. My vote is a vote of my conscience and facts about the most important issues... Pro-Life and protecting marriage, nothing else, and for those Mike is hands down the best candidate. No one with a right mind can deny that.
Also, Ned if he is a legislator, then he's a public official. Why hide his name??? I can make up any story and just said my "source" told me. LOL that makes no sense and is therefore not reliable.
Good for you, Scott. My vote will also be one of conscience, and you can believe what you want about my motives. The former legislator was indeed a public official, but that doesn't mean that I have a right to broadcast his name. I never mentioned that I would blog about his candid--and reluctant, discussion about Huckabee. And, like me, he was struggling to choose a candidate.
And though you've thrown down the gauntlet on the abortion issue, I won't return the slight. I can appreciate your position while still concluding that a vote for a losing primary candidate won't do much to impact the issue, you know?
Well a vote for someone whose past stances on Life and marriage is contrary to what I believe and whom I believe is not authentic in his so called "conversion" if elected would not impact the issue either. You know what if Romney would drop out then we'd get all or the majority of his supporters and therefore we'd be "electable" just as much if it were reversed. Electability can be debated, past stances on the most important issues cannot. One of my favorite quotes by Huckabee "let us never sacrifice are principals for anyone, not now, not ever"
Would you at least consider the arguments here? http://www.townhall.com/columnists/HughHewitt/2008/02/01/rally_to_romney
Romney has flip-flopped too many times. Hillary would slaughter him in any debate. Huckabee, on the other hand, fixed the problems that Bill Clinton did not in Arkansas. If Hillary dares criticize Huckabee, she would also be criticizing her husband. The Clintons also campaigned heavily against Huckabee many times in Arkansas. Huckabee is the only Republican candidate that has faced and defeated the Clinton political machine.
Romney was named one of the country's top ten RINOs by Human Events:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=11129
Mitt's tax hikes helped doom him in N.H.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1066042&srvc=rss
Romney should not be the next president
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071222/OPINION/712230301/1027/OPINION01
Gun Owners of America against Romney
http://gunowners.org/pres08/romney.htm
The problem with Romney is Romney
http://www.thestate.com/presidential-politics/story/290851.html
Mitt's biggest flop
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=11222
I do understand there are valid criticisms of Romney, though I think that is true of all the candidates, and we do have to work with what we have. I just have a strong sense that Romney is with us and committed as a conservative. As we've seen in the debates, Romney is very smart and does a great job and I think he would against Clinton or Obama as well.
If you will consider it, here's a quote this morning from commentator Hugh Hewitt: "Rush, Sean and others have been articulating the reasons behind the decision to (1) strongly favor Romney over McCain, and (2) abandon Huckabee or Paul immediately. Romney favors victory in the war as does McCain, but Romney also favors tax cuts, the end of the death tax, entitlement reform, originalist judicial picks in the mold of Roberts and Alito, and exploration in ANWR while opposing Z Visas and the climate change hysteria that infuses McCain-Lieberman.
There is a compelling case for voting for Romney over McCain, and it got even more compelling with news that Obama raised a stunning $32 million in January, while John McCain was struggling to gather in $7 million. It will be very, very difficult to defeat Barack Obama with an old face from inside the Beltway, even one with the heroism and courage that John McCain embodies. To beat this phenomenon --there is much to write about why it exists and what it represents later-- will require communication skills, energy, and yes lots of money, far beyond what Senator McCain can likely muster.
I'll sign up for McCain if he is the nominee, but it will be with the same sort of sense of gloom that pervaded the Dole campaign in 1996.
Which is why Rush, Sean, and Laura, Beck, Levin and Hewitt are right, and Arnold, Rudy, and Rick Perry are wrong: Conservatives have to decide right now if they will fight for Romney and the party of Reagan against the MSM-generated McCain resurrection. I think they will, and that Super Tuesday will be one for the books with surprises as great as the chattering class has had to digest in a long, long time."
Something to think about...
Teej said:
It will be very, very difficult to defeat Barack Obama with an old face from inside the Beltway, even one with the heroism and courage that John McCain embodies. To beat this phenomenon --there is much to write about why it exists and what it represents later-- will require communication skills, energy, and yes lots of money, far beyond what Senator McCain can likely muster."
Teej you are clearly an articulate and intelligent individual. But you are simply wrong, and your missing a critical point. Romney is not electable.
Romney would get absolutely smeared by Barak. Not on substance. In a Barak / Romney race it will be more about race/money/and big money ties. The reality is that the liberal media will eviscerate Romney for his good looks, his money, his flip flopping, Bain Capital, and more.
Hard core social conservatives can not tolerate his historical stance on life and marriage and do not have historical evidence to support his politically expedient position change. What's more, it is far less of a leap to tie Romney to the beltway than Huckabee.
Mike Huckabee is the only candidate that can unite all facets of the conservative movement and have a chance against whomever the Dem's nominate.
It's time for Mitt to drop out and endorse Mike.
I would rather have to rely on Romney as President than McCain.
But, Scott, regarding which campaign ought to give up the ghost, where are Huck's endorsements? His likely (vs. McCain) endorsements? Where are his contributions? Where is his nationwide campaign organization? The time has come, in my opinion, to assess--regardless of a given person's potential strength as a candidate, said person's likelihood of actually winning the nomination.
Jon,
At least tell me...what makes you think (given as Ned says all the issues of money and endorsements and all that, and given the exit polling regarding Huckabee's support, etc.) that Huck would unite Republicans and conservatives?
Again, from exit polling in Florida, McCain, Giuliani, and Thompson supporters listed Romney as their second choice a mojority of the time. Among Huckabee supporters he was fairly close but not the "top second choice."
What evidence do you see that Huckabee would unite us in the way we need to be united against the Dems?
Teej,
Let me ask you this.. with all the negative ads / distortions waged against us from Romney, why would you think we would rally around Romney? He has burned a bridge. Everyone I've talked to have said they would rather vote for McCain than Romney. McCain is not the enemy in our camp, its Romney. With all the money Romney has spent, he should be leading far greater than Mike which leads me to the conclusion that folks believe in Mike's message or they just dont trust Romney. I think Romney should get out now, so all you guys can rally around Mike.
My point is that given a level playing field Mike would pound any of the other candidates, regardless of affiliation.
Mike has been playing with less money, less name recognition, less time in debates. On the other hand, which candidate has faced more direct attacks from the beltway, from fiscal conservative radio, and from now former candidates who are supporting the existing way of doing business (read Thompson, Guliani).
I haven't seen the numbers from Mitt's campaign, but how much of the money he has spent was raised? In spite of the enormous disadavantage of funds and endorsements from the establishment, Mike has consistently outperformed expectations.
In SC - Mike would have won if not for Thompson spending something like two or three weeks directly attacking Huckabee. It was patently obvious that Thompson had no chance in SC, yet he spent millions and weeks subverting only Huck....why?
In FL - Guliani spend millions and weeks and just barely beat out Mike. If you look at the county voting maps it was a result of Guliani's success in uber liberal county's in south florida.
As for Mike and Mitt splitting the evangelical vote, I posit, albeit without empirical evidence, that just because someone is an evangelical it doesn't mean that they've been paying attention to anything more than what the MSM, and talking heads tell them. If that was my sole source of information I wouldn't for Mike either.
The charges that Mike is a Christian liberal are sophomoric and ridiculous. Given choice between McCain and Romney - I'll take Mitt. Between Romney and Mike - obviously it's Mike.
More than anything else, I'm trying to get you out the political junkie world that you and I live in. 99.5% of America is not as informed as you and I. They see clips, hear sound bites, and follow the lead of their nosy neighbor. These are the people that will, come general election time, never support Mitt.
Mike has an ability to draw conservatives of every stripe, conservative and moderate Dems, and independents to a degree unlike any of the other Republican candidates.
If you want to think in a practical sense - Mike is your only choice. If you choose to stay in political junkie heaven - we'll never sway the other.
It's time to stop McCain with an eye on the general. I posted on Hucks Army that the impact of the Guliani and Governator endorsements are going to cause the poo to hit the fan in the Republican establishment....it has. I also said the the results of Tuesday will determine who survives between Mitt and Mike. I firmly believe that Mitt will be done after Tuesday - he has little chance in the south and only slightly better odds elsewhere.
The sum total of the delegates will result in Mitt being a distant third in spite of his contributions, endorsements, and millions of his own hard earned and well deserved dollars.
I would love to have your intellect and insight as part of Hucks Army. If you want to be part of the winning team just pop on over and sign up...it's free.
Jon and Scott...
After next Tuesday of course there will be a major reassessment by everyone. If I assess the total strength of the candidates and their chances of winning the nomination, obviously McCain has the lead right now, but I think Romney is a solid second and has a chance; Huckabee would be third...certainly solid core support but I don't see much action outside that core group.
On a couple of issues: as to negative ads...I believe I've seen them all and I guess I draw a distinction between personal attacks (things like "so and so is dishonest" or "so and so doesn't care about you" or "so and so is a crook" versus issue differentiation ads like "so and so did this with taxes, but I did this" or "so and so said this and has this position." Sure there's some gray zone there because you don't have time to give context in a 30 second ad nor is that necessarily your purpose, but I think Romney has at least stayed issue oriented.
As for money, there's no doubt Romney has spent a lot more than the others, and especially compared to Huckabee. My only thought there is that the other candidates have a "built in constituency" of some kind...for McCain it's the military, and for him and McCain it's their war on terror service; for Thompson it was your basic conservatives, especially in the South. For Huckabee its conservative Christians. In all cases they had support from others but my point is they had a natural base support. That hasn't been true for Romney. Romney and Huckabee also both had the biggest issues in terms of people even knowing who the heck they were, but again at least Huck has some tied-in core support as a baseline. I think much of Romney's money and ads have primarily served the purpose of getting his name and ideas more well known.
Still, as to whether "non-political" types will increase their support for Romney I don't know. We shall see.
btw, just in terms of your opinions, do you think Romney's being a Mormon has hurt him? And if so, should it?
I will say that you guys have warmed me to Huckabee, and I'm certainly continuing to assess the candidates and the state of things from here till Tuesday...
Romney's Mormonism is not what has hurt him among voters. There are undoubtedly some bigoted people that dislike Romney because of his Mormonism, but that's not why people aren't rallying around Romney in larger numbers. Romney's inconsistency on so many issues and his negative campaigning is what has hurt him the most.
I know that there are many solid conservative Mormon politicians in our country. If any of those politicians had decided to run for president, they would probably have more support than Romney.
Mitt being a mormon has nothing to do with my opinion of him. I'd rather vote for someone thats an atheist as long as that atheist has conviction and you know where he stands. Like the above person has said, i'm sure there are folks that have a problem with that just like folks have a problem with Mike being a christian, but by far the majority of folks his mormanism doesnt bother them. I would have to say the MSM and others have given Mike a much tougher time with his faith than with Mitt's. Its clear MSM has tried to paint Mike as being a evangelical nut. Clearly he has had far more "religious" questions in the debates. You cannot deny that. The question should be does Mike being a Christian and former pastor hurt him? and should it?
Scott,
there's no question that all the religion questions have gone to Huckabee and Romney...and no, it's not fair and Romney's mormonism and Huckabee's being a baptist minister should not make a difference, other than I do think generally people appreciate someone who is committed to their faith in general as it tends to say something good about their character.
I do think Romney has gotten raw treatment on the charge of not having integrity in his positions, just as Huckabee has gotten a raw deal being pigeon-holed as a candidate with limited draw, but I guess the media and politics tend to do that, eh?
teej:
I had to look it to make sure, but integrity is defined as such:
integrity
(Än-tÄ•g'rÄ-tÄ“) pronunciation
n.
1. Steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code.
2. The state of being unimpaired; soundness.
3. The quality or condition of being whole or undivided; completeness.
The problem we have is that Mitt is changing his position to suit the political wind. A real leader must be willing to make a stand regardless of the fall out. McCain is flat wrong on many issues, but at least he has the integrity (as defined above) to stand by his position even if he catches all heck for it.
I live in Arizona where we have a huge Mormon population. I won't go down a rabbit trail of working / living in and around Mormon's but suffice it to say it's not an issue. There are always bigoted moron's - but they are in a very small majority.
I would say that while Mitt did take some religious questions, he has not taken the flak nor be branded as a kook like Mike has - it's not even close.
I encourage you to join Hucks Army - and visit mikehuckabee.com there is a lot of information there that might help you understand why we are so passionate.
-LOL!- True enough, but then would any of us want to be judged according to that dictionary definition?!?
Hey, apparently this is in the eye of the beholder, because I just don't see that he's been posturing more than any politician out there. I don't think there are many people in the world that would look squeaky clean if we microanalyzed every statement they've ever made and insisted that you can't ever change your mind. It's easy to be cynical about someone else's motives but I just don't feel the mistrust some apparently due about Romney. I think he's an up front guy. For one thing, how many politicians these days actually are happily married to their first wife and have kids (5 in this case) who obviously like their dad and respect and support him? To me that says as much as anything about his personal character.
If you can listen to this audio link I think it makes good points from Rick Santorum. http://hotair.com/archives/2008/02/01/audio-rick-santorum-and-laura-ingraham-endorse-mitt-romney/
I considered joining Huck's Army for a loooong time . . . the time for that choice has passed.
I'd say that many Christians are as weirded out by Mormonism as non-Christians or nominal Christians are weirded out by Huckabee's devoutness (and vocational background). That's why the best definition for "zealot" is someone who believes in something more than you do.
I hear ya on the issue of integrity. But I'd say Huckabee has feet of clay given the various first-hand accounts I've heard of his fiscally Liberal/populist/spendthrift decisions while governor--decisions he is now spinning as court-mandated or unavoidable.
I spent the week in Arkansas . . . around a lot of political Conservatives (which to me means fiscal and "social"), and at the beginning of the week I was still unsure for whom I would vote in the GOP primary. As I rooted around with Huckabee's former constituents and colleagues, to a person they were not planning on voting for Huckabee. All of them said they liked him as a person but weren't sure for whom they were voting in the primary. I was otherwise out of the loop on "current events" . . . I didn't find out about the FL results or the Giuliani (likely) decision until Thursday afternoon. I didn't hear anything about Limbaugh's or Hannity's or Levin's leanings until this afternoon. Huckabee, for a variety of reasons, never made it to the final two spots, and I've got to pick one of those two candidates. Romney's my pick.
Mike Huckabee is not perfect. But could you name one conservative accomplishment of Mitt Romney while governor? He's changed on almost everything. Human Events awarded him as one of the top 10 RINOs in the nation - in 2005.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=11129#c1
In 2006, National Review was blasting RomneyCare.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/pipes200601260811.asp
Here are some more concerning things.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GreggJackson/2007/11/09/romney_secrets_the_media_are_hiding_from_you
We have his word that he's now with us on the issues but I really question his word.
This is the guy who talks about
seeing his father marching with Martin Luther King,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3A1is6xfZE
being a lifelong hunter,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/05/AR2007040501944.html
receiving NRA endorsement,
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/12/16/romney_claims_nra_endorsement.html
receiving endorsement of pro-life group in 1994,
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/09/romney_and_abortion.html
he and his father marching with MLK,
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/12/21/romney_never_saw_father_on_king_march/
Mormon doctrine,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5Xc-X8LckQ
not calling "it amnesty in my ad",
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HotMWgYVm2Q
having lobbyists 'running my campaign'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNYs8OSSfiE
Jonathan,
Not only is Huckabee not perfect, he is almost certainly not able to keep John McCain from becoming the Republican nominee.
Romney has his flaws, too, but I'm more willing to rely on him as president than McCain.
jonathan,
you ask what conservative things Romney did as governor? Among other things lowering both taxes and spending was a huge thing, and encouraging free enterprise. For another, he almost single handedly defended traditional marriage from the legislators and lawyers pushing gay marriage. There are more but it gives you an idea...
A vote for Mitt in the South is a vote for McCain. Romney is 3rd in the South. He would only be pulling votes from Huck. This ensures a McCain victory in the South and most likely the nomination. So Romney people should go to Huck, that way it will be a brokered convention rather than McCain winning.
Hey "anonymous,"
Where (in the South) is Huckabee in second? More importantly, where (anywhere) is he in organizational, financial or poll-related range of being in first?
anon,
I've thought about the "brokered convention" thing, but the problem is I haven't seen hardly anything but admiration by Huckabee for McCain (which I can't begin to understand considering McCain's liberal-cause track record in the Senate). Do you really think Huckabee would join with Romney against McCain at the convention? And if Romney has more delegates than Huckabee by then (which he seems very likely to), would Huckabee give his delegates to Romney to defeat McCain? I would hope so. But if you doubt that he would, then it seems that the best way to stop McCain is to vote for Romney on Tuesday.
http://campaignamerica08.blogspot.com/2008/02/conservatives-speak-with-one-voice.html
Alan Keyes says Romney is responsible for same-sex marriage in Massachusetts!
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=60022
http://massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/record/
So I've heard . . . but just 'cause someone says it, doesn't make it so. Here's a good legal analysis of what happened in Massachusetts.
Teej,
Good points re. a "brokered convention." Regrettably, Huckabee and McCain hold similar views on a host of fiscal issues and on being guided by populist ideology.
The latest Tennessee poll has Huckabee in first at 24%, McCain in second at 23%, and Romney at a distant third. Huckabee maintains a substantial lead in Arkansas. Huckabee's poll numbers have quickly risen in the other Southern states as well since the California debate. McCain has been campaigning in Massachusetts and been garnering support there. It is unlikely that Romney will win all of Massachusetts' delegates.
anon,
It depends on what poll you look at. Rasmussen has it in Tennessee as McCain 30%, Romney 28%, and Huckabee at 23%. Massachusetts has a huge lead for Romney but the breakdown of split delegates may not give him all of them. Romney is surging in California, up 8 points in the poll just released today. Colorado has a solid Romney lead in polls I saw in the past couple of days. Utah has Romney dominant. Alaska and Montana and North Dakota have less data but Romney appears to be surging there as well. Even Arizona has Romney within a stone's throw of McCain. Missouri and Georgia and Tennessee and Minnesota are in play for Romney, and I wouldn't count Illinois out. I think there are other areas of possibility for Romney as well, but this is just for starters.
Yes. Polls are a lot like "statistics."
I'm curious about how they determined (for the Rasmussen poll) that a respondent was a "likely voter). In the poll cited by Anonymous, they just asked them (people 18 and older) whether they planned to vote. That's weak.
Also, Sean Hannity just had both Zogby and Rasmussen on his show - two of the most prominent pollsters in America - and in their words, as they look at the poll numbers across the country, Mike Huckabee has "no chance" of becoming the Republican nominee, but he does have a very real chance of being a spoiler for Romney and handing it to McCain.
Hello I just entered before I have to leave to the airport, it's been very nice to meet you, if you want here is the site I told you about where I type some stuff and make good money (I work from home): here it is
Alabama:
McCain 37%
Huckabee 35%
Missouri:
McCain: 33%
Huckabee: 31%
Romney: 28%
Why I'm Voting for Mike Huckabee
By Gregg Jackson
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GreggJackson/2008/02/04/why_im_voting_for_mike_huckabee
NRO:
Rhetoric vs. Record
Romney’s life problem.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGYyZWE4OGI5YzNlZTc1M2M2OTRiYmMzMjEzMDlkNzA=
The Mitt Romney Deception
http://massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/record/
For everyone of these you can post, I can post an opposing viewpoint. I think trying to tear down Mitt Romney's life is not fair nor does it reflect some key realities.
For example, his family life is so very commendable compared with most politicians these days. It doesn't take long listening to his wife and sons to sense their sincere love and dedication to him.
Look at people who have worked closely with him. The only ones you heat complaints from are those with a political axe to grind.
You know how easy it is for politically motivated people to smear someone. I don't think we should fall for it. We should look at the signs from those closest to him, and in that regard, Romney could not come out stronger.
Post a Comment