For the most part no one make any mistakes and gaffs tonight. All acquitted themselves pretty well. The general consensus of the panel on MSNBC was that on the economic issues Romney came out on top. I’m not sure I agree with that but he did do well. McCain seemed to be in a daze at the beginning but he warmed up as he went along.

At the outset, the MSNBC panel seemed to think the candidates would take the opportunity to gang up on Romney since he’s the front runner going in. I thought they might gang up on McCain. Ultimately, however, no one was ganged up on and it might have been the most civil of all the Republican debates to date.

Little was said tonight about border security or the war against Islam fascism. The primary focus of the questioning, after Russert asserted how bad the Republican Party has been, was on the issue of the economy. Huckabee pointed out that of all the candidates on the stage, he was the only one saying there was a problem back in New Hampshire. He said that all the other candidates claimed the economy was sound then.

On the question of whether the candidates agreed with the stimulus package that has been agreed upon, most said they did but they’d go farther. Only Huckabee questioned the package, asking where the money would come from and assuming we’d borrow it from China. He said he wondered whose economy would be helped the most. Romney even followed up on that later and gave credit to Huckabee for bringing up the question of China as a competitor to America. Paul also took issue with the stimulus package but he takes issue with virtually everything.

To be fair, Paul did make some good points tonight. He pointed out yet again that the Republican Party used to be for the elimination of the Department of Education but now they work to grow it. I’ve said the same thing many times. On most domestic issues I’m in agreement with Paul but on foreign policy I still think he’s plain dangerous.

An interesting portion of the debate was when the candidates asked question of each other. Only Romney used the opportunity to make a speech in the process of asking a question. In fact, it appeared for a minute or so that he didn’t understand what he was supposed to be doing. Interestingly McCain chose to ask Huckabee about the FairTax. Specifically he asked what Huckabee’s response was to critics who claim that the FairTax would unfairly hurt those at the bottom of the economic ladder. That’s about as softball a question as I could imagine anyone asking and Huckabee handled it easily. McCain listened like he really wanted to understand. I still wonder whether it was a blunder on McCain’s part or whether he deliberately set Huckabee up to give a good answer in the hope that he would gain points over Romney.

Ron Paul asked McCain a very esoteric question about a panel of economic advisors. It was tedious and seemed intended to make McCain look ignorant on economic issues. McCain managed to answer the question without dealing with the panel Paul mentioned and, indeed, I’m sure not one in 100 in the audience had any idea what Paul was talking about.

The unifying theme of the evening was opposition to Hillary Clinton. Most of the candidates had something to say about Clinton and several were specifically asked about campaigning against her and Bill if they became the nominee. Probably the best line of the night was Romney’s response to that question when he said he didn’t want to think about Bill Clinton in the White House again with nothing to do.

One of the most interesting moments actually followed the debate when Chris Mathews was questioning Giuliani about the second amendment. Mathews was incredulous that Giuliani would actually believe the second amendment means what it says. He seemed to think that Giuliani didn’t really believe that but was just saying it because he was running for the Republican nomination. One could easily see how Mathews might fell that way considering Giuliani’s approach to guns as mayor or New York City.

I don’t think there were any big winners or losers tonight. My candidate, Huckabee, did pretty well I thought, but so did the rest. I don’t expect this debate will have changed a lot of minds, though it might influence some in Florida who have yet to make up their minds. As I said above, it was probably the best MSNBC debate to date and i enjoyed watching it. They made a good decision in excluding Chris Mathews from the questioning.

Giuliani had a solid lead in Florida before the early primaries.  Some polls had him over 36%.  Then the early primaries happened and Giuliani was not playing in any of them.  That changed the political landscape.  Now Giuliani, who has spent heavily in Florida, is tied for third with Huckabee who hasn’t spent much and isn’t campaigning there.  Pretty much everyone believes that if Giuliani doesn’t win Florida his campaign is over.  I think it likely he’ll come in forth. 

The polls show Romney and McCain in a statistical tie for first in Florida.  I suspect Romney will handily defeat McCain in the sunshine state, giving McCain a likely second place finish.  Of course, the large liberal northeastern snow birds could tilt that the other way. Second is as good as last in this winner take all state and if that is where McCain ends up it hurts him a lot.  Huckabee will be third which will give him no delegates but it will still energize his campaign because he will again have done it without much money, meaning he has real, solid support.

What does all that mean going into Super Tuesday?  I think it will be a three man race at that point with Romney leading the pack.  McCain and Huckabee will be fighting for second place.

There are, of course, some wildcards in play.  Where will Thompson supporters go?  They should go to Huckabee since both Huckabee and Thompson were going for the same constituency.  Some will go to Romney because he is the most conservative of the front runners (if you don’t consider Huckabee a front runner).  Some, like ALa of Blonde Sagacity, seem determined to go with McCain, primarily I think, because of his war record.  I’m mystified by that since these people consider themselves conservatives but they can ignore McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, etc.  But many of them bought pretty much anything Thompson said and Thompson attacked Huckabee relentlessly.  That was no surprise considering Huckabee was his main opponent.  They were, after all, reaching out to the same constituency.  Once again, violation of Reagan’s eleventh commandment takes its toll.

Then there’s the small group who supported Duncan Hunter.  Hunter is now endorsing Huckabee, which has to really irk some of the pundits on the right as well as Thompson supporters.

I still think Huckabee has a decent shot but I concede he has an uphill battle and the odds are against him.  If, as I am predicting, Giuliani comes in third or forth in Florida, he is toast.  His support has already shrunk considerably and without a win in Florida it will pretty much dry up.  That leaves a three man race with Romney, McCain and Huckabee going into Super Tuesday.

I am convinced that McCain cannot win overall in states that have closed primaries.  In the South Carolina primary McCain did not do well among those who consider themselves conservative or very conservative.  He also did not do well among those who are pro-life.  Additionally, Protestants and those who attend church regularly went largely for Huckabee (Source).  I said last week, McCain barely won South Carolina and it took independents crossing over to give him that win and had Thompson not been in the race Huckabee would likely have won anyway.  None of this bodes well for McCain going forward.  The best thing he has is the claim of momentum coming out of South Carolina and I’m not convinced he really has any momentum, though the media has worked hard to generate some.

Based on what is known now, I believe Romney is the most likely winner on Super Tuesday.  How well Huckabee does will depend on his ability to stretch a dollar and enlist the active support of the organizations that already exist in the FairTax community and the evangelical community.  That carried him in the Iowa Straw Poll, it carried him in the Iowa Caucus and it has the potential to carry him on Super Tuesday.  The question is, will those organizations mobilize?  If they do Huckabee could defy the odds and the pundits and be positioned to take the nomination.  If they do not, Romney wins on Super Tuesday.  Either way the best McCain can hope for is second and that would mean the end of his candidacy.  Indeed, if Romney is the clear winner after Super Tuesday he will likely be the nominee.  As much as that thought does not appeal to me, it is infinitely preferable to a McCain win.  Still, I have hope, if not giddy optimism, that Huckabee can pull this off.

If, by some miracle, McCain emerges from Super Tuesday a winner, the Republican Party is in real trouble!  More on that possible outcome in another post.

Because it was still quite close I don’t think second place does too much damage to Huckabee.  And, because independents won it for McCain, I’m not convinced that will translate to states that hold closed primaries.  I certainly hope it won’t because McCain is many things but conservative is not one of them.

Thompson came in a distant third.  Had he been a close third he might have still had a decent position but he was 13-14 points behind Huckabee.  In my view that pretty much ends it for Thompson.  He may hang in there a little longer but his campaign is effectively over.

Listening to FOX News the consensus seems to be that after today the race has been reduced to McCain, Romney and Giuliani.  I pray that isn’t the case considering none of them is conservative.  They further believe that if Giuliani doesn’t win Florida it will be down to McCain and Romney  If that eventuality occurs, I’ll have to do some serious soul searching about how I will respond.  I am a conservative and I don’t know that I could vote for McCain under any circumstances.

I simply do not buy the argument from most of the talking heads on FOX News that this is the end of the road for Huckabee.  Second is not what he wanted but the fact is he’s still viable.  Florida is next and neither Huckabee nor McCain is going to win there.  Next is Super Tuesday and lot of states do not have open primaries.  I don’t believe McCain can win in the south without independents and Huckabee will win in those states.  What is more likely in my judgement is a spread of delegates following Super Tuesday that has Huckabee squarely in the pack along with others, none with enough delegates to take them over the top.

It’s going to be a while before we know who the Republican nominee is and it could end up in a brokered convention, something we haven’t seen in some time.  If that happens who knows what the outcome will be?  At that point anyone could get the nomination, even Fred Thompson.

COLUMBIA, S.C., Jan. 16 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Today, the following businessmen from Arkansas released a statement in support of former Arkansas Governor, Mike Huckabee: Scott T. Ford, President and CEO, Alltel Corporation; Warren A. Stephens, President and CEO, Stephens Inc.; Madison Murphy, Former Chairman, Murphy Oil Corporation; John Tyson, Chairman of the Board, Tyson Foods, Inc; and French Hill, Chairman and CEO, Delta Trust and Banking Corporation:

"We are a traditionally bi-partisan group of executives of several of the largest corporations headquartered in the State of Arkansas, each with considerable exposure to the Administration of Governor Mike Huckabee. Of late, Governor Huckabee has attracted what we believe to be unwarranted criticism regarding his business record."

"Our experience with Governor Huckabee indicates that he not only values greatly the freedoms of religion and liberty, but of the free market as well. He is an atypical leader who garnered the respect of not only the professional business community but of the working men and women across our State as well."

"When he became our Governor, he inherited our long sub-standard education system, infrastructure, and regulatory climate. Under his leadership, we were able to grow our businesses, increase our employment, reduce our litigation exposure and enjoy, along with all of our fellow Arkansans, a healthier economy, improved schools, updated highways, and new healthcare delivery facilities."

"In our support of Governor Huckabee’s truly conservative, small government business outlook and his pragmatic, yet compassionate style of governing, we invite you to look past the shallow rhetoric of yet another campaign season to see what we have experienced first hand — that with the right political leadership in place, businesses and citizens can jointly prosper and as they do, they contribute so much more to the economic and societal fabric of a community than simply tax revenues."

Source

Here’s how I see it.  McCain was counting on winning in Michigan, or at least running a close second.  As it stands now it looks like he’ll be a distant second.  That hurts him in South Carolina.  The McCain campaign spin is that the large contingent of veterans in South Carolina is well organized and they will carry the day.  I don’t think so.  I think McCain comes in second or third on Saturday.  Those veterans may have done it for him had he won in Michigan but that didn’t happen.

Thompson has really been working hard here the last week and it is clearly paying off.  But he came in behind Ron Paul in Michigan which could hurt him as some see him as a lost cause.  That can only help Huckabee who hasn’t been sitting on his laurels either.  I think Huckabee wins in South Carolina.  Thompson comes in second or third.  If McCain can hold on to some of the numbers he’s built and comes in second with Thompson third that could spell the end of Thompson’s run.  Even Newt Gingrich thinks Huckabee is the man to beat here and he doesn’t see it happening either.

I’ve said before that from an ideological perspective I like Thompson over Huckabee.  I wish Thompson had executive experience though.  For the most part the voters prefer former Governors over former or current Senators.  Unquestionably Huckabee has the executive experience and Thompson doesn’t.  But otherwise I really like Thompson’s positions pretty much across the board.  The problem is, I don’t think he can win.  His abysmal showing in Michigan strengthens that view.  Huckabee, on the other hand, has shown his ability to build support and gain momentum in spite of a lack of funding.  Now he’s raising money at a much faster rate with the added momentum.  Thompson seems to be on fire now but I still think it’s just too late.

The latest Rasmussen poll has McCain with a strong lead in South Carolina, nine points over Huckabee but Real Clear Politics still has gives Huckabee +3.7.  While I generally like the Rasmussen poll I have strong doubts about this one.  I live here and talk to people.  I think I know a little about what’s going on here.  McCain may have a small lead going into today but if it’s actually a lead it will shrink following his distant second place finish in Michigan.  Besides, people in the south aren’t fans of McCain.  I think the Rasmussen poll is way off and I think Saturday will demonstrate that.

Now Newt Gingrich is saying much the same thing.  From This Week with George Stephanopoulos:

We are at the end of the George W. Bush era.  We are at the end of the Reagan era. We’re at a point in time when we’re about to start redefining — as a number of people started talking about, starting to redefine — the nature of the Republican Party, in response to what the country needs.

Rush just didn’t know what to do with that.  He’s been a Gingrich supporter for years and Newt says something like that.  It put Rush in a spot.

Rush had this to say on his show today:

Every one of these Republicans is starting to talk about redefining the party, and this has been going on since the early days of this, not just now. If you recall, all during last year, I told you this was my big concern: that Reaganism and conservatism were going to be redefined so as to fit the mold of whoever these guys on our primary roster are.  One of the things that Newt said is "redefine the nature of the Republican Party in response to what the country needs." Something about that rubs me wrong.  Something about that sort of grates on me.  The Republican Party is supposed to sit out there and I guess (slurps) moisten its index finger, stick it in the air, find out what people want, and be that?  That’s not who we are!  Now, it may be who populists are.  In fact, it is exactly who populists are.  Even if you have no intention of following through on what you plan to do as you promise all these wonderful things to your supporters, as a populist. But this is not what the Republican Party has been.  It’s what the Democrat Party had been.

This fits right in with what’s been going on with the Republican race for the nomination.  The lines are drawn, the assumptions have all been made and everyone is hearing what they expect to hear rather than what is actually being said.

Newt was on Hannity and Colmes tonight and Sean asked him about the comment.  Newt went on the explain that the Republican Party cannot continue trying to hold on to the issues of the eighties.  He pointed out that most of the major concerns we have today didn’t exist when Reagan was in office.  Gingrich made the point that if Reagan was in office today he’d be tackling today’s issues, not the issues of the eighties.  In effect, the Reagan era is over and it’s time for a new era if Republicans want to win.

Newt was NOT denigrating the Reagan legacy or conservatism.  He made it clear that he was always a Reagan supporter.  But what Rush and others seem to want is Reagan himself.  Too bad.

No one is a bigger fan of Ronald Reagan than I am.  Reagan stood for conservatism long before it was fashionable and he is the model of conservatism.  But we aren’t facing the Soviet Union, Reagan defeated that.  We aren’t facing many of the problems we faced in the eighties.  We have a whole new set of problems and we have to face them head on as a party and decided how we’ll deal with them and articulate that to the electorate.  We can’t do that if we’re constantly bickering over Reagan.

It’s not going to happen but Rush, Laura Ingraham and the rest of the right leaning pundits need to stop living in the past and take a look at the present.  Reagan is dead.  We aren’t going to return to the eighties much as some of those pundits might wish we could.

I want conservatives in office.  But if every candidate that takes a look at the changing landscape ends up characterized as a populist we’re facing a long uphill battle.

During Ronald Reagan’s 1966 campaign for governor of California, Republicans established the so-called Eleventh Commandment: “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.”

It was proposed by State Republican Chairman Gaylord Parkinson to help prevent a repeat of the liberal Republican assault on Barry Goldwater that laid the foundation for Goldwater’s trouncing in the 1964 presidential election. Just as Nelson Rockefeller and his East Coast cronies had branded Goldwater as an “extremist” who was unfit to hold office, so candidate George Christopher and California’s liberal Republicans were leveling similar personal attacks on Reagan. Party liberals eventually followed Parkinson’s advice, and the rest is history.

Source

All the Republican candidates have invoked the name of Ronald Reagan numerous times.  It seems they all want to be associated with the Reagan legacy.  But most have forgotten Reagan’s eleventh commandment.  It is one thing to contrast one’s record with that of another candidate.  it is quite another to resort to character assassination and that is precisely what some have done.

The pundits are even worse and they don’t seem to realize the risk they are taking.  The quote above illustrates why Reagan was unwilling to speak ill of his Republican opponents.  He stuck to issues because he understood that it was important that Republicans won in the end the constant assaults in the primary process made that less likely.

The lesson holds true today but you wouldn’t know it listening to the pundits.  I have to admit that I have been guilty as well.  I’ve made my views on John McCain, for example, very clear.  But as I said in my last post, I have to think about the possibility that McCain will be the eventual nominee.  What do I do then?  Can I reasonably blog in support of McCain at that point after all the negative posts I’ve written about him?  I’m not sure anyone would take such post seriously but I’m quite sure some would use my older posts to argue in favor of whoever the Democrat nominee is.

Therein lies the problem.  I need to tone down my rhetoric against McCain, Romney, et.al. in favor of arguing for my candidate.  I think others need to do the same thing.  otherwise we all contribute to making the Democrats’ job easier and our nominee’s job tougher once the nominees are chosen.

Regular readers will recall that I was an early Thompson supporter. To this day I believe Thompson is a more conservative candidate than Huckabee is, excepting his position on the FairTax. But Fred took so long to enter the race and when he did, he was all but invisible by choice. He gave few interviews and was not to be found in the media. At the same time Mike Huckabee was making his name known and moving up.

I believe that Fred’s showing last Thursday was too little too late. He threw everything he has at Huckabee because they are going after that same voters. It wasn’t enough. Huckabee has the lead and I don’t expect he’ll lose it. In fact, I expect that after the South Carolina primary we may see Fred Thompson drop out of the race. If he doesn’t come in at least second his viability will be in serious jeopardy. If Thompson drops out, who does he endorse and where do his supporters go?

The safe money is on Thompson backing his long time friend McCain. But I suspect many of Thompson’s supporters will have a difficult time moving over with him.

There are plenty of people calling John McCain a conservative. I remember a little online political test I took that said the candidate I agreed the most with was John McCain. That might be true on rhetoric alone but it certainly isn’t true when it comes to his record. John McCain is not a conservative, he is the maverick he’s portrayed himself to be. He’s unreliable when it comes to advancing the conservative agenda. How can Thompson supporters support McCain after Thompson drops out?

If they do not support McCain, where will they go? I can’t see them going with Giuliani who is a social liberal and opponent of the second amendment. What about Romney? Perhaps. But he’s a long time RINO recently converted to conservatism when it suited his ambition. I don’t trust him and I don’t see when conservatives in general should. What does that leave? It leaves Huckabee.

The problem is, Thompson supporters have joined the Huckabee bashing bandwagon. It will be difficult for them to support a guy they’ve invested so much into destroying.

All of you who hate Huckabee need to think about what you will do if he ends up being the nominee. Just like I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about what I’ll do if any of the current slate of RINOs ends up with the nomination. This thing is pretty wide open right now. I think as a party we need to give some serious though to how we’re going to win in November, not just how our candidate can win the nomination.

This isn’t really an analysis post, rather, it’s some of my impressions for tonight.

The biggest problem with John McCain is his inherent inability to admit that he has even been wrong.  He’s implied he was wrong on immigration reform by switching his position to border enforcement, yet he steadfastly refuses to admit that what he supported previously was amnesty.  Chris Wallace hammered this point home and McCain still claimed he’d never supported amnesty and never would.  Now McCain says he just wants to move on.  Well Senator, admit the facts and moving on will be far easier.

Huckabee was again asked about his support of in-state tuition for the children of illegals and whether his recently announced plan for immigration didn’t “punish the children for the sins of the parents” just like denying in-state tuition would.  Huckabee vehemently denied that it would.  This is an issue on which I disagree with Huckabee and his response to the question seemed particularly strained.  He did, however, point out that Reagan signed the amnesty bill in the 80s.

The fact is, everyone one of the candidates in the forum except Fred Thompson, have significant weaknesses on the issue illegal immigration.  Giuliani ran a sanctuary city, McCain supported the amnesty bill, Huckabee supports in-state tuition and Romney had illegals working at his house.

Thompson’s point was clearly the best.  Our policy must not encourage more illegal immigration.

Overall I think all the candidates came out okay tonight.  No one committed a big gaff and no one hit a home run.  The focus group on FOX said Romney clearly won.  I completely disagree with them and so did all the pundits.  It was a great informational forum and I think the real winner was the voters who watched.  If anyone lost tonight it was probably John McCain.  He didn’t look good on immigration or taxes.  On taxes he still maintains his vote against the Bush tax cuts was right because he wanted to reign in spending.  I’m with him on spending but that’s like a drowning man refusing to raise his nose out of the water because he can’t also raise his mouth.  Okay, drown then!

As for my candidate, Huckabee, he did fine overall.  He clearly defended himself once again against Romney’s “half truths” as Huckabee put it.  He isn’t likely to win New Hampshire but he will do good enough there and perhaps better than expected.  He’s in this race for the foreseeable future and he will be a force to be reckoned with.

Tomorrow I’ll make my predictions for the New Hampshire primary.

Suddenly I’ve become very aware of the very same thing on the right.  For several weeks it’s been lock step slamming of Huckabee with virtually the same language.  I noticed the consistency a couple of weeks ago but today I noticed a new twist and it follows the exact same pattern the left uses.

On caucus night I noticed that Laura Ingraham started calling Huckabee a populist.  Then she tied Huckabee to Obama with the populist label.  Since then I’ve seen the same language used by virtually every commentator on the right, including the comparison between Huckabee and Obama. 

Earlier this evening Laura Ingraham was filling in for Bill O’Reilly on FOX News.  She coined a new term, Barack-abee, saying Huckabee and Obama are both populists and implying that there is no difference between them.  Later this evening, on the way to the store, I was listening to the Rusty Humphries show on the radio.  He followed the same pattern but he took it a step further.  Humphries made the statement that populism always leads to something like Nazism.

The level of the rhetoric is escalating.  I mentioned in a previous post that I thought the tone was moderating.  It appeared so on caucus night but that is most certainly not the case.  I don’t know who’s writing the talking points but whoever it is is definitely afraid of Huckabee.  I can’t remember there ever being such a concerted effort on the right to derail a Republican.  And if they can’t do it with the facts they are perfectly willing to resort to demagoguery.  That’s just what this is.

I have no problem with anyone who has made up their mind for someone other than Huckabee.  After all, we’re all different and not everyone is going to agree.  But I have a real problem with demagogues whether they’re on the left or the right.  And I’m rapidly losing respect for a number of commentators on the right whom I’ve previously had tremendous respect for.  If Rush jumps on the same bandwagon come Monday I may have to give up talk radio altogether.

Yes, evangelicals and churches mobilized in Iowa and that certainly helped Huckabee.  But the assumption that they mobilized because Huckabee is “one of them” is, I think, misleading.  The fact is Huckabee came in a strong second in the Iowa Straw Poll several months ago, not because of churches and evangelicals, but because of his strong support of the FairTax.  It just so happens that for the most part evangelicals are also strong supporters of the FairTax.  but they are not the only strong supports of the FairTax.

It may well be that Huckabee won’t win in New Hampshire.  But I think it quite likely that he will do well even if he doesn’t win.  Moving on the South Carolina puts Huckabee back in the drivers seat again because there is an incredible FairTax organization in South Carolina and the vast majority of those FairTax supporters are also Huckabee supporters.  I know this because I’m part of the South Carolina FairTax organization.

I was at the FairTax rally in Columbia, SC back in May.  It was held across the street from the Koger Center where the Republican debate was taking place the same night.  We had something like 9,000 people at that rally.  We marched around the Koger Center, silencing all other groups while we marched.  Indeed, small groups of supporters of the various candidates were in awe of the crowd we had.  Many spoke to me, completely amazed that we had such support and so many people there.

The media virtually ignored that rally.  Watching debate coverage that night it was striking to see video of numerous pockets of supporters for each candidate and no video whatsoever of the FairTax marchers.  We were ignored.

We are still being ignored by the pundits on both sides and the media.  With few exceptions the FairTax and its supporters have been given virtually no credit for Huckabee’s meteoric rise.  But the reality is it is FairTax supporters that brought Huckabee that strong second place in the Iowa Straw Poll and it is FairTax supporter who have lifted Huckabee to the national stage.  And so long as Huckabee continues to be the most articulate supporter of the FairTax, they will continue to lift him up.

I heard this verbalized yesterday on a radio talk show.  I can’t remember which show it was but the guest was saying that both Thompson and Romney has looked at the FairTax and liked it but bowed to advisors who convinced them it was a losing issue.  He claimed that both regretted listening to that advice.  I don’t know if that is true or not.  Having attended a couple of Thompson events it seems unlikely to me that Thompson ever even understood the FairTax, much less liked it.  All I know is, the FairTax is a winning presidential issue and Huckabee has tapped into it.

To be sure there are lots of other very important issues and over the next few weeks Huckabee will be thoroughly scrutinized on all of them.  He may or may not survival that scrutiny.  But so far the myriad charges against him haven’t stuck and he’s continued to rise in popularity.  Rush has said that Huckabee supporters aren’t interested in hearing anything negative or factual about Huckabee because they’ve made up their minds.  Perhaps.  But the same could be said (and I will say it) about all those “conservative” pundits who have been slamming Huckabee the last last few weeks.  Some of them have slightly moderated their tone in the last few days.  I suspect that’s because they are realizing that not only have they been unsuccessful in derailing Huckabee but they are going to have to deal with him going forward and that might be a little easier if they don’t have such an adversarial position but that’s pure speculation.

That bottom line is, the pundits and opponents of Mike Huckabee will continue to underestimate him so long as they don’t understand why he’s doing as well as he is.  The FairTax is the biggest key.  Yes, evangelicals support him and that helps.  But that wouldn’t support him if there wasn’t a lot of common ground on key issues and one of those issues if the FairTax.

I nailed Huckabee.  He won with a significant margin.  I was off on Romney and McCain.  McCain didn’t get the bounce I expected because Thompson did better than I expected.  While I would have liked to see Romney come in third, I’m not at all unhappy with the outcome.  I’m glad Thompson ended up in a tie with McCain and I’m really glad Huckabee did so well.

I don’t know that Thompson will be able to hold on past New Hampshire.  He did better than I expected today but I don’t think he did well enough.  At this point I still think Huckabee is the best bet for conservatives, despite all the claims by Rush and others that he’s not a conservative.  No, he’s not Reagan, Rush is right about that.  No one in this race is Reagan.  But I’m excited about Huckabee.

Just a note about the Democrat caucus.  That Hillary came in third is HUGE!  I’m no fan of Edwards (he’s totally vapid) but I was rooting him on tonight.  Hillary’s campaign is in no way derailed but this is a real hit and she’ll have to rethink he campaign strategy now.  It will be interesting to see what she does next.

More tomorrow.

Caucuses don’t exactly involve votes per se.  Instead caucus goers gather in a large room around their candidate.  Any candidate that doesn’t have at least 15% of the caucus goers is ruled not viable and their supporters physically move to the area of their second choice. That’s where it gets interesting and it’s what causes pundit predictions to sometimes be incredibly wrong.  Predicting who will have less than 15% isn’t too difficult but predicting where their supporters will go is not so easy.

On the Democrat side Dennis Kucinich has already told his supporters to support Obama should he not make the first cut, which is likely.  Indeed on both sides there will be a number of candidates who will not meet the 15% threshold and all their supporters will move to someone else.  That makes predictions difficult.

I don’t plan to make predictions on the Democrat side, primarily because I don’t really care.  I’m much more interested in the Republican caucus.

Mitt Romney has spent a boat load of money to buy the Iowa caucus and a couple of months ago the conventional wisdom was that he would walk away with it.  Today Romney finds himself in a dead heat with Mike Huckabee even though he’s outspent Huckabee by something like 20 to 1.  The pundits are pretty much universally saying everything depends on turnout.  Which candidates can get their voters out to the caucus will determine the outcome.  I agree with that to a point but I think there is more at play here.

The Iowa Straw Poll in August was an eye opener for many.  Romney was widely expected to win, as he did, but no one predicted Huckabee to come in second.  Since the Iowa Straw Poll is mostly about buying votes Romney clearly had the edge.  No one could compete with the money he could spend on the effort.  Huckabee, on the other hand, had virtually no money to spend, yet he came in a strong second.  There were a couple of reasons for that showing and keep in mind that Huckabee supporters pretty much had to pay their own way to the poll unlike Romney supporters.

First, Huckabee’s very outspoken support of the FairTax was probably the primary reason he showed so well.  FairTax supporters are well organized and they mostly support Huckabee because he supports the FairTax so strongly and articulately.  While there has been some acknowledgement of the roll of the FairTax by the pundits in the media, I believe they broadly underestimate how big that roll actually is.

Second, Huckabee unapologetically supports the issues so called “values voters” care about.  He is pro life, pro family, pro second amendment and against gay marriage.  He’s also an outspoken Christian and makes no bones about it.  That scares some people who think any Christian will usher in a theocracy but evangelicals by and large are behind him.

The latest polls all have Romney and Huckabee in a tie while no one else has even 15% in the polls.  So Romney and Huckabee will certainly make the first cut.  Who will be out after the first round? 

Giuliani and Paul will not make the first cut.  Predicting where their supporters will go is somewhat difficult.  Giuliani supporters will likely split between McCain (should he make the first cut) and Romney but Paul supporters are anyone’s guess.  As rabid as those folks are they could pack up and go home, not moving to any candidate.  If Thompson does not make the first cut his supporters will almost universally go to Huckabee.  Romney is viewed as a RINO and Thompson supporters are real conservatives.  They will not support the RINO.

McCain has more than 15% in only one poll but I think it likely he will make the first round.  If he does not his supporters likely will not go for Romney because Romney has now gone after McCain in some of his ads. That gives most of those supporters to Huckabee if it comes to that in the first round.

Back to the turnout question.  Remember how FairTax supporters buoyed Huckabee in the Iowa Straw Poll?  I predict the same thing will happen in the caucus.  I believe that in the first round Huckabee will have a significant lead over Romney.  That will have some impact on the second round as the supporters whose candidates don’t make the first cut decide where to move their support.

Thompson is really the wild card.  If he makes the first cut Huckabee could be hurt in the second round and it is then possible that Romney or even McCain could take the lead.  I consider than an unlikely but possible outcome.

I predict the first round goes to Huckabee by a fairly wide margin.  Romney will be second and McCain third in the first round.  All of Thompson’s supporters will go to Huckabee, Giuliani’s supporters will split between McCain and Romney and Paul’s supporters (those who stay) will go to McCain.

In the second round Huckabee’s support grows the most because he gets all of Thompson’s supporters.  Romney gains the least in the second round and McCain ends up in the middle.

The end result will be Huckabee first, McCain second and Romney third.  That will leave the Romney campaign shell shocked and scrambling to regroup for New Hampshire.  Romney will dramatically increase spending in New Hampshire and the number of negative attack ads he runs will increase dramatically as well.

These are, of course, only predictions.  They could be wrong and indeed, almost certainly will be wrong in some details.  I chose to be pretty specific about how this will go which increases the opportunities to be wrong.  But I think the analysis is pretty sound and it will be interesting on Thursday to see how it turns out and how close I come to the actually results.

Stay tuned for caucus results analysis.

In an email to supporters Huckabee told about his trip back to Arkansas to make a few campaign ads, one of which was a negative ad against Mitt Romney.  Huckabee has been accused lately of going negative when all he’s been doing is defending himself against  slew of negative ads run by Romney.  And in the middle of that, Huckabee announced that he would not run the negative ad he made.

That was truly a stroke of genius because it allows Huckabee to have his cake and eat it too!  He is sticking to his promise not to run negative ads while still making sure the negative information gets out.  Not that Romney isn’t doing a good enough job of that himself.  With his onslaught of negative and dishonest ads Romney has invited responses that can only hurt him.  And in the process Romney’s money gets more and better exposure for Huckabee.  In the last few days Huckabee has been all over the news programs defending himself against Romney and Romney has been largely ignored.

Meanwhile, the latest polls have Huckabee leading in Iowa, demonstrating just why Romney feels the need to go on the attack.  With less than two days to go, Romney is running scared and Huckabee continues to move up in the polls.

Stay tuned for more on the Iowa caucus.

It’s going to be an interesting years.  Who will win the White House?  Will the Democrats expand their margin in Congress or will the Republicans be able to capitalize on the missteps of a lack luster Democrat Congress?  These an other questions will be addressed in the weeks and months ahead.  I hope you’ll come along for the ride and maybe even participate rather than just read what I have to say.

It has always been my goal to stimulate conversation and discussion, not just get readers.  That’s why I have comments open, I want to hear what you think.  I’m open to Democrat opinions too, just don’t expect me to agree very often.  But I’m open to discussion.

As for the conservatives in the audience, we have to buckle down and get to work if we’re going to bring the Republican Party around to our way of thinking.  We have to support conservative candidates with our money and our energy.  Without that support we will have nothing to complain about when RINOs run the party and conservatives aren’t elected.  It’s up to us folks.

I’m looking forward to 2008.  I’m looking forward to following and blogging the primaries and the election.  It’s going to be a very interesting year!

I’ve been a Huckabee supporter for some time now.  I’ve heard most all the criticisms and I’ve heard Huckabee’s defense of those criticisms.  Take ethics charges in Arkansas.  Like attacks against Newt Gingrich and Tom Delay on the national level, Democrats always resort to spurious ethics charges when when they can’t defeat a Republican on the merits.  I have no problem believing this is the case in Arkansas.  In the case of the wedding registry issue, Huckabee’s explanation is completely credible and sensible.  Opponents who stick to that charge look stupid, just like Giuliani’s constant charge that Romney hired illegals when he did no such thing.  Giuliani looked stupid then and Huckabee opponents look stupid sticking with spurious and silly charges.

On the immigration question I take issue with Huckabee.  I think he is wrong about the children of illegal immigrants but I respect his position because I have anguished over the question of what to do with kids who’ve been here nearly all their lives.  They don’t know any other country and they are not responsible for the situation they are in, their parents are.  I disagree with Huckabee’s approach because it rewards and encourages illegal immigration but I understand where he’s coming from and this one issue is not a deal breaker for me.

There is one charge, leveled by Ann Coulter and others, that Huckabee wants to use the government to implement Jesus’ plans for the poor, that gives me serious pause.  If true that would be a real deal breaker for me.  I have no patience for social gospel advocates and I won’t have patience for Huckabee if I find he’s a social gospel adherent.  But so far I’ve seen no evidence that it is true.  Indeed, Huckabee has said that he’s running for President, not pastor in chief.  Yes, he will make decisions based on his worldview.  That seems to scare the pants off some people.  But the fact is, everyone running will make decisions based on their worldview, Christian or not.

I’ve been reading the criticism and looking for evidence but so far I’m not seeing it.  I’ve been quiet for a while now because, honestly, I was afraid some of this stuff might be true.  But so far all I see is accusations.  In every case Huckabee has responded and responded well.  The one time he seemed somewhat flummoxed was in a interview with Laura Ingraham.  But the reality is Ingraham was extremely combative from the start and Huckabee has little chance to finish an answer.  It was clear to anyone listening that Ingraham was gunning for Huckabee.

Coulter also got some mileage from Huckabee’s plan to bring music and the arts back to education.  She carries on like that’s just the silliest idea ever introduced.  But it seems to me that Huckabee is simply talking about a liberal arts education, something most of our founding fathers strongly supported.  There is something of a resurgence of the idea among private schools today and it’s an idea I support.  The idea is that you cannot have a well rounded education without covering arts, literature, music, foreign language, history, science and math.  Modern thinkers want to focus solely on science and math and maybe a little language thrown in for good measure.  I believe the liberal arts approach is superior and it was unbecoming of Coulter to treat it like it was silly.  I’m not sure where she got her undergrad but I suspect it might have been a liberal arts school.

Now let me be clear.  I’m a fan of Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter and many others who are taking pot shots at Huckabee.  In virtually every case it seems clear to me that they have already made up their minds for someone else.  Ingraham is a case in point.  I’ve heard her interview Mitt Romney.  She threw softball questions one after the other.  Not once did she go after him on anything.  Clearly Romney is her guy.  Now that’s fine but she isn’t being real honest about that fact.  She’s acted as if she’s unbiased regarding Republican candidates when she clearly is not.  It’s human nature to see anyone who threatens your chosen candidate as the enemy but that alone doesn’t make the criticism valid.  It requires evidence and there seems to be precious little of that.

So far the only one I’ve seen who truly seems unbiased is Rush Limbaugh.  If he’s picked a candidate I am hard pressed to tell who it might be.  The Huckabee campaign takes on El Rushbo at their peril.

I will continue to watch the situation carefully.  If there is something that might change my mind about Huckabee I want to know about it.  Yes, he’s my guy.  But I am willing to switch if he turns out not to be the real deal.  To date I’ve seen nothing to sway me.  And lest you think I’m not as willing to change as I say I am, recall that I started out supporting Fred Thompson so I’ve already switched once.  I’ll switch again if new information comes along that convinces me a I should.

For now I’m just disgusted with the constant “conservative” attacks on Huckabee.  I think it’s a mistake and it’s damaging to the party.

Conventional wisdom is nothing more or less than what most people think. Or at least most people within a specific group. It is certainly possible that conventional wisdom on a particular subject is the best course but I think it is unlikely. Conventional wisdom says you should limit your risk, taking only those risks that don’t cost much if you are wrong. That may lead you to a safe retirement but it won’t lead you to be a millionaire.

The conventional wisdom in Republican circles seems to be that Rudy Giuliani is the only candidate who can beat Hillary Clinton. Why is that? What makes Giuliani the one guy who can beat Hillary? It appears to be that he is so tough when it comes to foreign policy and terrorism. His strategy has been to create just the thinking that leads to the common conventional wisdom. He has worked to scare the Republican base into believing he can defeat both the terrorists and Hillary Clinton and no one else can. His strategy has certainly worked thus far but is the resulting conventional wisdom accurate?

I submit that it is not and I have several reasons for thinking so.

First, I think it doubtful that Giuliani can defeat Clinton in the first place. Everyone places their hopes on the polls but there are several problems with that, not the least of which is that the actual election isn’t for another year and polls are worthless that far out. Additionally, the polls only look at what the pollsters are interested in looking at. So, for example, there has been no poll pitting Hillary Clinton against, say, Mike Huckabee as was pointed out in a previous Republican debate.

Another reason for doubting that Giuliani can defeat Clinton is my belief that very many social conservative and evangelical Christians simply will not vote for him. Pat Robertson may have endorsed him but that isn’t going to go very far. I think James Dobson is more on the right track in terms of what evangelical Christians and social conservatives are likely to do. They will take one of two courses. They will vote for a third party candidate or they will stay home. Either course leads to a Clinton victory in ’08. We saw similar results in both of Bill Clinton’s elections where he never had a majority of the vote. Indeed, Bill Clinton never would have won without the presence of Ross Perot in the elections.

The simple fact is, Rudy Giuliani is not a conservative. Socially he is a liberal and he does not hide that fact. He has made certain concessions like saying he will nominate justices in the mold of Scalia or Roberts but there is no certainty that he won’t change his mind considering how he feels about abortion, gay marriage and other social issues. In essence he would have to betray his own beliefs to follow through on his promise and I have little faith that he will do that.

A second reason for disbelieving that Giuliani is the only candidate who can beat Clinton is that when candidates with solid conservative records run on conservative platforms, they win. Giuliani does not fit that description. He is closer to Democrats than Republicans on a host of issues. In the end, why vote for a Republican who acts like a Democrat when you can get the genuine article?

I’ve said over and over that the reason Republicans lost in ’06 was that they had abandoned conservative principles. As the minority they had long held to conservatism but as the majority they governed much like Democrats. They hardly passed on a chance to expand government. So, rather than Reagan’s goal of eliminating the federal Department of Education we got No Child Left Behind, a massive expansion of the Department of Education. Never mind the fact that there is no Constitutional authority for that department. Republicans spent like their lives depended on it. And it all cost them the majority.

Now we have a Democrat Congress that has the lowest approval rating of any Congress since ranting have been taken. As bad as the Republicans were, the Democrats are worse. That presents an enormous opportunity if only we can take advantage of it.

The conventional wisdom also says that the Democrats will expand their majorities on Congress in ’08 but I don’t see that as inevitable. If Republicans would only coalesce around a solid conservative platform and nominate a solid conservative candidate for President, they could take back control of Congress and keep the White House. That isn’t going to happen by nominating Rudy Giuliani.

It is time to throw out conventional wisdom. It is time to step out and embrace conservatism. That is the winning strategy.

The only thing I can come up with is this visceral fear that only Giuliani can beat Hillary Clinton. Certainly many feel that way but I wholeheartedly disagree with them. In fact, I believe that ONLY a solid conservative can beat Hillary Clinton. But that is beside the point here.

The fact is, Robertson has sold his soul for this endorsement. Not that Pat Robertson is all that credible but what credibility he had is gone now. I’m sure there are some people who would follow the man straight into hell but I think most evangelicals will see this as a total compromise with the devil.

I’ve been critical of James Dobson for his public stand against anyone who isn’t a total social conservative but that criticism is not because I disagree with him. My criticism is that Dobson has made a habit recently of saying things publicly that were better said in the pulpit. In truth, I have a real problem with any candidate who is not a social conservative and I doubt that I could vote for one. The very real probability is that many evangelicals will stay home come election day if Giuliani is the Republican nominee. They simply will be unable to pull the lever for him and rather than vote for someone worse they just won’t vote at all.

As implied above, Pat Robertson hasn’t has much credibility except with his faithful following for some time. He has a habit of running off at the mouth and saying some pretty ridiculous things. But this really tops the charts. I cannot fathom how a follower of Christ, someone who holds the sanctity of life so dear and fights for the traditional family, can come out and publicly endorse a man who stands in opposition to these principles.

Truth be told, I’m not sure what I will do come election day if Rudy is the Republican nominee. But I know there is not chance that would work to put him in that position. That Robertson is working to put him in that position is just inexcusable.

Blogged with Flock

When I spoke to Mark May [sic-Mays], he and I thought this probably wouldn’t make much money-a letter, written by Democrat Senators, complaining about something…[T]he [final] bid [was] more than two million for this… Never did we think that this letter would bring money of this nature… I don’t know what we could do more important than helping to ensure that children of our fallen soldiers and police officers who have fallen in the line of duty have the opportunity for their children to have a good education.

These are the words of Senate Majority Leader “Dingy” Harry Reid. I cannot imagine the nerve required to actually take credit for the $4.2 million raised. Reid and the 41 Senators who signed the letter were challenged by Rush Limbaugh to individually match the winning bid, just as Limbaugh himself was doing. The winning bid ended up being $2.1 million so with Rush’s match the total was $4.3 million. Reid didn’t match a single cent! But the man still took credit for it. He has no shame!

Reid is following in the footsteps of his predecessor, Tom Daschle. You will recall that Daschle was continually shocked at anything conservatives did. You will also recall that Daschle received his walking papers from his constituents in 2004. Reid is on track to follow Daschle right out of office. Power Line Blog yesterday reported that Reid’s approval rating in Nevada is below President Bush’s and it appears to be falling.

Reid and his Democrat colleagues in Congress have yet to figure out that the American people are sick and tired of partisanship for the sake of partisanship. Even a poll on the DailyKOS asking the question, “Do you approve of the way Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is doing his job?” has Reid with 82% saying no with more than 15,000 responses as of 7:30 this evening.

I would not argue against partisanship when there is a clear difference on policy. But Congressional Democrats, lead by Reid and Pelosi, are determined to take any action to deny President Bush a victory if they can and it is taking a toll on them. Congressional approval ratings are consistently lower than President Bush’s, taking away the ability of the Democrats to point to Bush’s low ratings. Doing so focuses attention on their own even lower ratings.

Republicans, on the other hand, are benefiting right now. Whether you are agree with them or not, they appear to be taking principled positions rather than engaging in politics as usual like the Democrats. Should Democrats continue on their current path into the ’08 elections it will present an opportunity to Republicans. Conventional wisdom says that Republicans will suffer more losses in the House and Senate in ’08. That view is further bolstered by the fact that so many Republican incumbents in Congress have announced they will not seek reelection next year. Yet the environment is ripe for Republicans, if they can unify behind a conservative message and solid candidates, to spank the Democrats. Should that happen, it will impact the Presidential election as well. We are accustomed to candidates riding a presidential candidate’s coat tails but this time around it could conceivably be the other way around. This isn’t a prediction so much as it is a possible strategy if Republicans will only do it.