Posted on 10/31/2007 2:19:28 PM PDT by Eric Blair 2084
Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, of late, has been the subject of endless punditry among Republican insiders. Some insist he is the new dark horse who can grab the nomination while others contend that he’s an irrelevant creation of a bored press corps.
In truth, he is neither.
Despite the rave reviews for his debate performances and his crushing win over Mitt Romney in the straw poll of religious conservatives who actually attended the Family Research Council (FRC) Voter Values Summit, Mr. Huckabee is limited.
He has raised a fifth of what Ron Paul has collected. He lacks appeal in urban states, holds views which are antithetical to fiscal conservatives and lacks any foreign policy experience. His odds of actually capturing the nomination are roughly equivalent to the chance that Rudy Giuliani would get through a debate without using the phrase “when I was mayor of New York City.”
Yet it would be a mistake to ignore Mr. Huckabee. Even without winning, he’s likely to factor heavily in the primary, posing a threat in particular to the candidacies of Mr. Romney and Fred Thompson.
Polling in Iowa shows Mr. Huckabee’s stock rising after he placed a respectable second in the Ames Straw Poll. After his surprising showing at the FRC event, some state polling in Texas and in Georgia had him tied or ahead of Mr. Romney, while a recent Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll showed him leading Mr. Romney nationally among religious conservatives.
His plain-spoken appeal and social conservative credentials make him a viable alternative to Mr. Romney in Iowa and to Mr. Thompson in South Carolina. Neither state requires huge media buys and both have high concentrations of evangelical conservatives--the type of voter that embraced him at the FRC. Moreover, as the self-proclaimed David to these two Goliaths, Mr. Huckabee need not actually get more votes than his better known opponents to declare a moral victory.
By contrast, after inflating his lead in Iowa through incessant visits and enormous expenditures on paid ads, Mr. Romney has raised expectations which a close second place by Huckabee could easily undermine. Similarly, he could harm the Thompson bid simply by diminishing Mr. Thompson’s margin of victory in South Carolina.
But beyond all that, Mr. Huckabee is a walking, talking advertisement for his opponents’ flaws.
Mr. Romney’s elastic views and slick presentation seems that much worse to social conservatives next to Mr. Huckabee, a Baptist preacher whose fire-and-brimstone invocation of religious values makes the Romney message seem plastic and contrived.
And Mr. Thompson, he of the forgettable public appearances, lethargic schedule and distain for retail politics, suffers badly when compared to Mr. Huckabee’s considerable charm and energy. It often seems that Mr. Huckabee is the actor and Mr. Thompson the small-state governor.
Mr. Huckabee may not have the profile or resources to win the nomination, but he could do serious damage to two contenders who have yet to get their political acts together. In that regard, he may well live up to his hype.
How about “Mike Bloomberg without the money”?
But, Eric, but Eric, I just now saw Mr. Huckabee being interview by BOR, and he said that he would not force anything on anyone (but, of course, he was only talking about religious beliefs).
Thanks, I didn’t know that. Good piece of history. Has anybody done it since?
I have BOR on Tivo, I have to watch that interview.
BOR said Mr. Huckabee was at 6%-8% in the polls, and Mr. Huckabee agreed. It’s media hype for a story.
A nice interview — nothing special though.
The first interview that BOR had was with Kucinich regarding Hillary Clinton’s tough time at last evening’s debate. Kucinich was actually coherent this evening.
IMHO, that way things are shaping up Huckabee has the best chance to stop Guiliani.
sw
If you have read Thompson's record and position on moral issues and don't think they are "conservative" enough than you are not a "moral values voter", you are a marginalized fanatic. If you don't believe in Federalism, than take it out on the Founders of our Country who wrote the Constitution based on this principle. The fringe, on both sides, might have enough numbers to affect the nomination process. Hillary has way too much of a lead for it to effect her. The radical theocratic vote might have enough numbers to deny the nomination to a conservative, like Thompson, and throw the nomination to a true liberal, like Guiliani. It will then be liberal against liberal, Guiliani against Clinton. The fringe religious right does not have anywhere near the numbers to deny the presidency to Hillary if Rudy is the Nominee. Hillary will be president. The extremists will get their wish, an extreme president. Unfortunately it will be an extremely liberal president.
October 26, 2007
LITTLE ROCK, AR – A second Rasmussen Research Poll of likely Republican primary voters released Friday shows Mike Huckabee continuing to gain momentum nationally, surpassing Mitt Romney in the polls and coming within striking distance of John McCain
Today's Rasmussen poll numbers show Rudy Giuliani leading nationally with 20%, followed by Fred Thompson at 19%, McCain at 14%, and Huckabee at 12% -- surging past Romney, who has 11%.
"What we're seeing is the power of message over money and mechanics," said Huckabee. "Our supporters are enthusiastic because they believe in my conservative message."
While the other so-called "top tier" candidates have spent millions of dollars, Huckabee's campaign has spent just $1.5 million dollars, he said.
Okay, I’ll have my hubby, GOP_Harley_GUY, put out his cigar. :-(
Hubby wants to know if he can start his Harley (King) IN the garage or OUT of the garage?
He says, “Oh, okay...”
“you are a marginalized fanatic”
Nope, you are just being either obtuse or recalcitrant.
Listen more and talk less. If you don’t, the thing you dread so much will be of your own doing.
Sola, I think a lot of us Thompson fans agree that a Giuliani nomination would be a loser for everyone. I also think if Giuliani gets the Republican nod because "values voters" like yourself (quick to equate Libertarians with Libertines and willing to sacrifice the root concept of "Liberty" to justify imposing their self-righteous vanity on those less "righteous") split the primary vote between Hunter, Thompson, and Romney -- a demonstrated big-government nanny-stater who has shown himself spineless when faced with organized agendas to normalize homosexuality, his moral uprightness and stellar good looks notwithstanding --
... then blame yourselves, not us. Your pride and mulishness will have installed Giuliani, not ours -- because neither are at work in the way we view the role of government with regard to free people.
Pledges and people who demand them annoy me because such pledges can only placate vanities. Past ACTIONS are much more valuable than pledges. I'd love it if Fred was more outspoken against the homosexual agenda, but I also know he would be being inconsistent if he attempted to bring the Federal government to bear on any of it, and that's why I like him.
I KNOW that Romney wasn't outspoken against the homosexual agenda (let alone leftist environmentalism, another important issue in which Thompson has consistently impressed me) back when he was Governor and endorsed a Youth Gay Pride event. I read recently that Fred once voted AGAINST a move to prohibit employers from discriminating by sexual orientation -- in other words, that it's okay for an employer to fire a worker because that worker is too flamboyantly gay. Thompson did something a heck of a lot better than make a pledge -- he acted on his commitment to a core principle that normalizing homosexuality is WRONG. Pledge THAT.
American federal government should not be used to enforce any but the basic and agreed-upon morals -- those forbidding murder, theft, perjury, slavery, breach of contract, abuse. These are problems of real criminality that can truly be addressed by laws.
The trend to normalize homosexuality and to force all taxpayers to fund abortions is NOT a problem of criminality, it's a problem of social values complicated by government coercion in the name of "compassion." You can demand pledges and laws to shake your finger in the noses of the less-righteous until you're blue in the face, and all you'll accomplish is more strife. Instead, we should all be pushing for politicians who advocate the rights of states to deal with these things as their residents deem proper, and things will sort themselves out better than an entire Federal government's brute force. Things better left between God and sinner than between politician and freedom will stay that way.
Thompson is who you should be pulling for, for Pete's sake!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.