Huckabee Challenges Romney for Lead in Iowa, Hauls in $1 Million by Midnight Deadline

Fox News ^ | November 21, 2007 | Carl Cameron

[bulldozer]

The cash register struck a million at midnight for the Cinderella presidential campaign of Mike Huckabee.

According to the former Arkansas governor's Web site, he received $1,043,496.41 in donations in the first 20 days of November, exceeding the campaign's goal of $1 million and inching closer to meeting the monthly goal of $2 million.

The GOP dark horse-turned-contender has been riding a surge of strong polling and buzz in Iowa and played a significant role in hauling in gobs of online donations by the midnight Tuesday deadline.

And Huckabee's good news didn't stop there.

According to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll released Wednesday, the once relatively unheard-of politician is pulling closer to even with front runner Mitt Romney among primary voters in the Iowa Republican caucuses. Twenty-four percent of likely GOP voters in the Hawkeye state told pollsters that Huckabee would be their nominee in the presidential race, while Romney holds a narrow lead with 28 percent.

[tcostell]

It's a shame he isn't straight enough to run as a Democrat.

[ChocChipCookie]

I’m afraid I don’t understand the appeal of Huckabee. At all.

[tcostell]

My read is that he’s socially on the right, but fiscally on the left. He believes government should be doing all kinds of things that would make a person on the far left recoil in horror, and he also thinks government should be doing a bunch of things that would make most libertarian leaning folks on the right do the same.

Basically a vote for him would be a vote to make him Hillary’s pinata in the general election.

[George W. Bush]

The Values Voter bunch. WND is still huge.

I suspect we’ll find some deep-pockets $2300 contributions from big Rudi supporters too. Huckabee is Rudi’s tool to defeat Romney.

[normy]

Well if your an incredibly self righteous person who thinks its ok for government to intrude on the lives Americans as long as its from a Christian or rather Baptist perspective, then you would find Huckabee very appealing.

If your looking for a doey eyed nice guy who makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, he's your guy.

I absolutely think this guy is a pro life Bill Clinton without the sex drive. Wait maybe that makes him Jimmy Carter instead. Yeah, Jimmy Carter made people feel warm and fuzzy and he was a "good Christian man".

As a Christian man who is not good I find Huckabee and those that find him a better Christian than anyone else running rather infuriating, from a Christian perspective.

[codercpc]

It is somewhat straight forward. In this years primary we have a host of candidates that appeal to each voters individual priorities (whatever they may be), yet no one person is a perfect fit for ALL the priorities. Duncan Hunter may be the closest, yet he failed to bust out of the "Congressmen can't get elected" mold. So, I believe, that voters have decided that they will vote for the candidate that best fits their individual priority.

If Social issues (abortion, gay marriage, etc.) are your priority Mike Huckabee is great, as long as you over look his economic policies.

If WOT and Security are your #1, Rudy is your guy, just overlook his social issues.

If executive experience, organization,and good looks (superficial but very important)Mitts the guy, just overlook the "flip-flopping".

If economics, and patriotism are important, McCain is probably your guy, plus he is highly electable. Just overlook immigration and CFR.

Fred has quite a bit of all of the above, but his persona and campaign style just haven't been the hit he had hoped it would be. Plus, I really think people want someone who at least acts like he wants the job. Federalism is also a turnoff to Social Conservatives that disagree on State vs Federal when it comes to their #1 issues.

So in closing, everyone has to give up something this year for the candidate of choice, it just depends what your #1 is vs what you are willing to compromise on.

[HHFi]

I've known him personally for years, and I really like him. He used to be a big favorite of people here at Free Republic, and then for some reason, once he started running for president and challenging their particular favorites (Thompson, Hunter and Paul in particular), they started cherry-picking things out of the past to paint him as an illegal immigration-loving, tax-hiking, big government commie. That's all a load of garbage.

Yeah, he oversaw some tax increases. He was also dealing with a state that had lousy schools, crumbling roadways, court-mandated tax hikes and a 90% Democrat legislature. It's easy to be a pure ideologue when you're just a commentator or one of 100 senators, and you never have to compromise to get anything done.

I don't agree with Gov. Huckabee on every issue myself, but he's a decent, down to Earth guy who treats everyone with respect, including an underpaid radio comedy writer like me (I can't do him any good money or politics wise, but he likes my work, and he treats me with as much respect as the biggest Wall Street bigwig). Even people who don't agree with him on the issues like him personally, which would be a big plus going up against the imperious Hillary. He's also an excellent, quick-witted extemporaneous speaker, which we desperately need. Many of the GOP's problems today are a direct result of the Bush White House's lousy communications skills. They let every attack sit around and fester unanswered until it hardens into common wisdom and becomes impossible to overcome. Somebody with Huckabee's communications skills could go a long way toward fixing that. And I don't think it's anti-business populism to point out that the middle class is hurting while the CEOs are cleaning up. I think that's merely acknowledging reality, and it might just be the key to overcoming the image of Republicans as only caring about Wall Street and being out of touch with Main Street, which might lure back a few disenchanted Reagan Democrats to voting Republican again.

Okay, the rest of you who don't actually know him can go ahead and flame away now, and tell me that you know him better than I do. Rest assured, however, I won't be reading it. It's just the same stuff over and over, and I've read enough of it already.

[normy]

How many of the other candidates have you met and which ones treated you poorly?

I know you haven't read that question before.

[BearArms]

I’m afraid I don’t understand the appeal of Huckabee. At all.

I think his appeal is that he is one of the very few authentic social conservatives running who looks like he has any kind of a chance. Many social conservatives want to vote for one of their own this time, rather than for a nakedly opportunistic politician who's just telling them what they want to hear (Romney), or for one who talks up federalism as a way to wash his hands of socially conservative causes (Thompson). Huckabee's rise is a direct consequence of Thompson's failure to launch, IMO.

[traderrob6]

Ain’t it the truth...

http://exposingtheleft.blogspot.com/2007/11/mike-huckabee-supported-bill-to-give.html

[King of Florida]

My read is that he’s socially on the right, but fiscally on the left.

Kind of like Bizarro Giuliani. Although I assume he's not on the side of terrorists.

[spectre]

Wow, clap, clap. A hit and run post.

You want to vote for someone because he has a quick wit, you like him, and he treats you with respect? You perceive he's been unfairly targeted, so shame on us?

Brillant!

sw

[CitizenUSA]

Carl Cameron’s enthusiasm for Huckabee is blatant. We conservatives hate it when the MSM acts as cheerleaders for liberal candidates. It’s no better, in my opinion, when Fox reporters do the same for Republicans.

Carl Cameron appears in no small way fair and balanced. BTW, it’s very easy to skew a report by emphasizing facts that support your guy while ignoring facts that support the other guy. I find it pretty strange that the enthusiasm for Huckabee mostly preceded his recent gains in the polls. I submit his rise is mostly due to enthusiastic reporting in the media.

Case in point on Fox...last night’s discussion about Fred Thompson’s campaign. At the beginning of the discussion, Fox showed a national poll with Fred in 2nd place after Guiliani. They subsequently ignored the fact Fred is the 2nd most popular Republican candidate in the nation and focused on how his campaign is essentially hopeless. Why? Because he’s only scoring 4% in NH! Now THAT is most certainly not fair and balanced reporting.

Now many people bash Fred saying the man lacks a “fire in his belly.” Well, how can the candidate prove his fire when the MSM keeps reporting how he (the 2nd most popular Republican candidate in the nation) is DOA?

Finally, what do these media jerks really know about anything? They look pretty, they speak well, and they have journalism degrees. Big deal! Unfortunately, they have a lot of power, which they don’t deserve and definitely haven’t earned, to shape these races.

[CitizenUSA]

BearArms wrote: “or for one who talks up federalism as a way to wash his hands of socially conservative causes (Thompson).”

Or could it possibly be because the founding fathers set up a wonderful form of government called federalism that Fred believes is best for the country? There’s absolutely no evidence to support the concept he supports federalism as a way to “wash his hands” of socially conservative causes.

BTW, the social conservatives already had a candidate of their own named Bush. He’s quite socially conservative, for what it’s worth.

[sticker]

Simple, he is someone the media can promote to help drive wedges into the Republicans. The same way that the media, the left and the tinfoil brigade have acted like ru paul is a serious Republican threat. The whole thing is nothing but an effort to ensure there is so much hate in the Republican voters that they will stay home in November and the RAT is elected.

[TNCMAXQ]

Gov Huckabee seems like a decent guy though I think he has made some mistakes. If he is the nominee I will vote for him because the alternative would be far worse. His choice of a running mate is important too as I would hope he would pick someone more solidly conservative.

Beyond the concerns about nanny-statism, I am worried that Huckabee, like President Bush, is a little too eager to be friends with the Dems. He seems to have the attitude that we should all work together without realizing the other side doesn’t want that, they only want to destroy us.

His response on race during that Tavist D. Smiley debate was a little worrisome too. If I read the transcript correctly he sounded pretty much like a Democrat. I would rather hear a GOP candidate speak strongly about America becoming one by playing down our racial differences, treating everyone equally, and taking on the loud mouth rabble rousers like Sharpton.

[hope]

The appeal is the fact that the rest are so pitiful.

[normy]

So according to social conservatives its what you say not what you do? The most socially conservative candidates with records to back it up are McCain, Fred, and Hunter. I do not know what Mike has done that was so socially conservative but I do know the three I mentioned have records to look at, not just doey eyed speeches. I also know that Fred, Hunter and McCain are the most conservative on taxes,spending. I also know that Fred and Hunter are the most conservative record wise on border security and illegal immigration.

I can say for sure that Fred and Hunter and probably Rudy wont raise taxes. I can say they also probably don't believe its the governments job to regulate the lives of ordinary Americans. I can say that McCain, Hunter Fred and probably Rudy would veto pork.

If you take all the positions conservatives care about, McCain, Fred, and Hunter are your most conservative. McCain has border issues and a love of Senators that doesn't jive with us so that leaves Fred or Hunter as your most proven, socially and economically conservative candidates.

One more thing, I saw Chuck Norris's endorsement video on You Tube and while funny, the fact I hunt has nothing to do with my right to keep and bear arms. I wonder if Mike considers that to be the case and if not, why have Chuck say that in his endorsement video. I know Fred and Hunter understand the role of government and I know they understand the rights of all people come from God and that the right to keep and bear arms isn't in the Constitution so Americans will always have a right to hunt.

[dano1]

Agree with your analysis in Post 7 above.

IMHO, something that hurt Fred was that he started so high in the polls that, (and this would be understandable given the circumstances at the time), but Fred may have been overconfident when he first entered the race given that he was starting out near the top of the polls.