Archive for December, 2007

Two New Huck Ads

Posted by: Jason | December 31st, 2007 · 6:16 PM

I’m still working on finding the mysterious attack ad created in response to Mitt Romney’s campaign. It was created for this week, almost unveiled at an “enough is enough” press conference this morning in Iowa, but then taken off the air at the last minute by Huckabee’s choice to not run a negative campaign. For now, here are two new ads that’ll play in both Iowa and New Hampshire this week.

Add us: Digg | Del.icio.us | Technorati

The Duo: Huckabee/McCain Would Make a Great Ticket

Posted by: Jason | · 2:19 AM

Just a little late night statement before bed… I think Mike Huckabee and John McCain would make an excellent ticket together. It strikes me as interesting just how much these two men need each other, beyond their bi-state mutual tag team against Mitt Romney right now. Place the ticket in any order, one compliments the other in a seriously needed way.

If Governor Huckabee is able to somehow pull out a win in Iowa this week, despite an onslaught from the media and establishment Republicans alike, he will undoubtedly become the favorite to carry South Carolina, Florida, and the southern states beyond. If such a crazy scenario were to happen, something we never saw coming months ago, his need would be for a name-recognized running mate, not too far off from his particular brand of maverick politics, who specializes in national security. John McCain would simply be perfect, and would immediately ease any national security concerns over the Arkansas governor, reminiscent of Cheney’s agreeing to serve with Bush.

If Huckabee’s recent stardom fades this week, after countless attacks from Mitt Romney, and if he places second in Iowa, his stock may plummet, leaving room for a newly surging John McCain to compete long term as the truce conservative post-New Hampshire (Mitt Romney is still not acceptable to the party and will not win the nomination). If McCain, under this scenario, were to become the nominee, his main fault line lies with an old split with Christian conservatives. Having Huckabee as a running mate would not only give the ticket an exciting speaker to compliment McCain’s humble style, but would feature the “only” man who could shore up and convince the Christian base of a McCain candidacy.

Either one of these two gets the nomination, I foresee the other joining the cause shortly after.

Add us: Digg | Del.icio.us | Technorati

Huck on Meet The Press

Posted by: Jason | · 1:36 AM

Going into this Sunday’s interview on Meet The Press, I’m sure other Mike Huckabee fans, like myself, were curious to see how the governor would fair against Tim Russert’s tough journalism, namely on the subject of foreign policy which has been a soft spot for his campaign lately.

Any recent candidate on MTP has suffered nothing short of a thorough grilling, so I was anxious to see how Huck would defend his foreign credentials after a week’s worth of attacks on the subject. He did a fantastic job, and yet again, proves himself as being the most capable and deep-thinking man in the race for the Republican nomination, save maybe Senator John McCain.

Add us: Digg | Del.icio.us | Technorati

Huh?

Posted by: Jason | · 12:02 AM

(image: abcnews)

OK… Can anyone out there who once supported Fred Thompson please do the rest of the conservatives a favor and throw their support to a guy that might actually win the nomination, like Mike Huckabee or John McCain, in the hope that the two fakes, Rudy and Romney, won’t get it?

Here are some new comments fresh out of the Sioux City Journal today. Fred Thompson, when asked about running for president:

“I am not consumed by personal ambition. I will not be devastated if I don’t do it,” he said. “I’m not particularly interested in running for president.”

He goes even further into the abyss:

But he said others convinced him to run.

“I approached it from a standpoint … of kind of a marriage. You know if one side of the marriage has to be really talked into the marriage, you know it probably ain’t going to be a good deal for either one of them. But if you mutually think that this is a good thing — in this case you think it’s a good thing for the country — then you have an opportunity to do some wonderful things together,” he said.

Interpretation: Fred was just being Fred one day, laying around the house, half asleep with a bag of doritos on his chest as he sat in his lazy boy, when suddenly, his young and ambitious wife Jeri walks into the room, every so dashingly, politely telling him that he’s got a race to run if he ever wants a shot in the bedroom again.

This, my friends, is the only logical reasoning I can figure in my own mind as to why Fred Thompson ever ran for president.

Add us: Digg | Del.icio.us | Technorati

What do these men have in common?

Posted by: Jason | December 30th, 2007 · 2:37 PM

1. Governors of geographically electable states.

2. No foreign policy experience as candidates for president.

3. All three either attempted to, or did raise taxes, during their tenures as governor.

4. Controversial support surrounded their candidacies.

5. They were underestimated.

Just four days away from the first official state contest, the Iowa caucuses, Republicans have a choice to make on which candidate is best qualified, most serious, and able to make the inner judgments necessary that make a good president. I believe of the five top tier candidates, that Mike Huckabee is the most qualified to meet that criteria.

We talk of mistakes made in the campaign, that Governor Huckabee hasn’t the foreign policy know-how to be our president. To this claim I would say this: Think of the campaigns of many a governor running for president, in particular, these two fine Republican presidents above in George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan. In the case of George W. Bush, here was a man, largely ignorant of foreign concerns abroad during his own campaign, who couldn’t provide the name of the Pakistani general who had recently overtaken his nation in coup during an interview (we know him today as General Pervez Musharraf). An important detail I’d say considering the events of today, yet President Bush was eventually elected president, overseeing one of the most dangerous times in American history. Likewise, in the case of Ronald Reagan, despite a history of writings and serious stances on Communism, this candidate showed perhaps the worst debate performance in history against his opening clash with Walter Mondale. He would later recover, but had we considered a talking point mistake or two as a true linkage to his abilities, we might have missed out on ending of the Cold War.

These candidates are men, and as such are subject to mistakes. Whether that means Governor Huckabee should have said “sympathies” rather than “apologies” in his heartfelt statement after a brutal assassination in Pakistan, or a young Governor of Texas should have known the name of the Canadian Prime Minister to his north during an interview, the gravity and the soul of the man remains the most important criteria to consider in these presidential contests.

As proven again, in his recent appearance this morning on Meet The Press, while perhaps not the most experienced in foreign policy (though I would say more impressive than candidates Romney and Giuliani), Mike Huckabee continues to do what he does best, which is to speak with more gravity and consideration for real human issues than any other candidate. It is why despite the outcome of the coming Iowa election, I am proud to support him as the best “man” qualified for the job of president.

Let’s compare this to Mitt Romney, a man in which National Review has charged as more serious. How serious is it in fact, when a man will say anything to get elected? Where in issues of foreign policy, merely showing an example of toughness is all that matters. When just after a suicide bombing, which took the life of a beloved political figure in the state of Pakistan, the only reply is a position of strength, and not compassion and understanding for a people, many of which had just lost all hope of democratic reform. I say shame on Mitt Romney, for he continues to prove himself a capable man, but one who only puts that talent towards his own political fortunes and not the entirity of the American people, or the human race for that matter.

On Rudy, a man the media claims to have a one-up on the Arkansas governor when it comes to foreign issues, I ask, what business is it of a mayor of New York City to know of foreign events, any more than it is a governor of a southern state? Does merely seeing a terrorist attack in person, rather than on television, prepare you more for the handling of complicated foreign affairs? And what of these opinions of Mayor Giuliani? As a citizen who gets to vote in the coming primary election, what I hear from the mayor are mere talking points, suggestions that we should “stay on offense” in the War On Terror, without any real substance of understanding the complicated matters of the world and the human conditions which spawn terrorism itself. Rudy is awash in cheesy sound bites, reminiscent of the Bush Administration’s tendency to overly use terms like “freedom is on the march” in place of real articulations that help his people understand the mission itself. Should we doubt the polls are so negative towards Iraq, when the common man on the street couldn’t pinpoint the cause we fighting for in a matter of 10 seconds? Mike Huckabee’s communication skill will be more than helpful in solving this dilemma.

Republicans, if you want a man that uses the tragedy of 9/11, albeit within the context of an honorable performance, but despite a shell which encases a hollow and immoral individual that disagrees with every major movement conservative on actual policy, Rudy Giuliani is your man. If you don’t care for principle, and would allow yourselves to be fooled by a politician in the moderate mold of Christie Todd Whitman, who has literally changed every major position, on guns, religion, abortion, gay rights, taxes, and a whole host of others, who would use you as pawns in a game of personal ambition, than Mitt Romney is your candidate.

Governor Mike Huckabee isn’t perfect. But if you analyze the imperfections, you will find them less intolerable than the others. On taxes, he did raise them in Arkansas. Once at the command of his own state supreme court, which demanded education expenses be increased, the other, after a state-wide referendum passed by 80% which sought to rebuild roads and infrastructure in a state which ranked dead last in the area. You’ll also want to note that after the funds were raised, the governor recut taxes after it wasn’t any longer needed. On immigration, while it is true that the governor fought to allow the “children” of illegals to gain scholarships to Arkansas schools, the bill never passed, and it was only for those who had been in the state for a period of time, who performed exceptional in schools. We can disagree with that belief, or we can look to Mayor Giuliani or Governor Romney’s sanctuary policies in their respective states and cities. Contrasting, Governor Huckabee’s border plan is second to none in this race in terms of getting tough on the border and companies which hire illegals. Go beyond those two concerns, and you will find a man who is more conservative on guns, social issues, reform of the IRS, and securing the border, than any other candidate. Who speaks with more inspiration, with a conviction from real personal experience, and with a likability comparable to the great Ronald Reagan.

Normally, I tend to distance myself from homemade campaign videos. But I want you to watch this quick two minute speech of Mike Huckabee’s at the CPAC convention earlier this year, set to music by an apparent fan. It’s not the best of quality, but I think it gives a rational perspective towards what the foreign policy vision of Mike Huckabee would be. Without question, in a time of slogans and misunderstanding as to what type of enemy we face in Iraq, Afghanistan and beyond, this CPAC speech presented a great moment for Huckabee in that it showed him to be the most Reaganeque in his ability to communicate, to inspire people to an understanding of what we face, and what we need to do to win. I truly believe that if we pass this candidate up, for the sake of buffoon politicians like Mitt Romney, we are doing this country a great disservice. If we do, it’ll been the equivalent of our passing on Reagan for the sake of nominating Gerald Ford in 1976.

Add us: Digg | Del.icio.us | Technorati

Truce Candidate?

Posted by: Jason | December 29th, 2007 · 1:09 AM

(image: johnmccain.com)

Sure, he kinda sucks on some issues, but is John McCain shaping up to be the truce candidate for the Republican Party? It sure seems that way if you listen to chat circles of late. Let’s explore the pros and cons of McCain.

Cons: Voted against the Bush tax cuts, McCain-Feingold, pro-amnesty for illegals, tends to meddle in cheesy bipartisan deals like the “Gang of 14″, he’s 72 years old.

Pros: Probably the strongest war hawk (as proven in his early criticism of Rumsfeld), most likely to flip out and bomb Iran, preached spending cuts long before the Bush presidency, has pledged to extend the Bush tax cuts to avoid a tax increase, is technically pro-life (though not a movement conservative), all polls show him being the most competitive against the Democratic nominee.

Obviously, the McCain comeback story can only be complimented by a Huckabee win in Iowa (thus resulting in a Romney meltdown before New Hampshire). Under such a scenario, with Rudy now on the rocks, McCain may very well take the mantle as the establishment choice with foreign policy credentials compared to Huckabee’s lack thereof. We’ll watch this story with interest.

Add us: Digg | Del.icio.us | Technorati

Don’t worry… It’s cool.

Posted by: Jason | · 12:38 AM

For those of you worried about Mike Huckabee’s lack of foreign policy experience, the guys at RedState have obtained photographic evidence that Huckabee once stayed at a Holiday Inn Express. It’s cool…

RedState Story

Add us: Digg | Del.icio.us | Technorati

I may boycott Bill Bennett’s morning show

Posted by: Jason | December 28th, 2007 · 12:00 PM

(image: mikechurch)

Enough with the line in the sand politics!

Bill Bennett was discussing the primary race this morning when I heard him make a disturbing comment. Next week, in the lead up to the Iowa caucuses, Bennett will host the Republican presidential candidates for a discussion on his morning show. The problem? He isn’t inviting Governor Huckabee.

After my shock and confusion in hearing this, I was interested in paying attention to a Huckabee supporter who had called in to clarify. Laying out the facts, the caller suggested Bennett change his mind, due to Huckabee’s lead in states like Iowa, South Carolina, southern states including Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and others, and his being ahead in some national polls as well.

“I don’t care” the host replied. “He’s not a serious candidate”.

Bennett goes on to name the listing of participants, which included one Duncan Hunter, the congressman from California. Now call me crazy, and believe me, I like Duncan Hunter personally, but it seems to me that Hunter isn’t considered a “serious” candidate in any reasonable circles. Am I wrong on this? Because I can’t name a single state the man polls over 2% in. Yet the governor from Arkansas, having an arguably clear path to the nomination post-Iowa, isn’t invited?

Mr. Bennett, and others… This continued “line in the sand politics” is getting out of control. As a Republican who supports Mike Huckabee for various reasons, including his having, in my opinion, the most solidly conservative record next to Fred Thompson, these trends are providing nothing but confirmation of an inner-establishment bias towards evangelical candidates that emphasize social issues over taxes.

The mere fact that radio shows such as yours and others are making your political endorsements, not through rational debate, but through outright shunning of particular candidates, is telling.

I will make the exact same point as I have in many other posts about this topic. That first, many establishment Republicans are purposely overlooking the flaws of candidates Giuliani, Romney, and McCain, in favor of highlighting particular flaws of equal concern in Mr. Huckabee.

While Governor Huckabee may have raised taxes in particular circumstances in Arkansas, so has Mitt Romney in Massachusetts, who not only raised taxes and fees, but didn’t support the Bush tax cuts. While Governor Huckabee may have allowed the children of illegal immigrants to apply for similar benefits as other legal residents, Mayor Giuliani had a sanctuary policy which actually encouraged illegals to enter his city. While we talk of a lack of foreign policy experience in Mr. Huckabee, just as governors Reagan and Bush II once had before they were nominated, this is hardly an issue set apart from his rivals in Romney and Giuliani, neither of which have foreign policy experience as state and local executives. Yet this is ignored.

I suppose those fervently against Mike Huckabee can wake me on the day when his support of two issues in the past (state tax increases and benefits for the children of illegals), outweighs such flaws as an outright change of all positions as in the case of Mr. Romney, outright liberal governing and historically liberal positions as in the case of Mr. Giuliani, and the numerous flaws of John McCain such as his opposition to the Bush tax cuts, his membership in the Gang of 14 which stymied the advancement of conservative judges, McCain/Feingold’s attack on the first amendment, various statements about a belief in man-made global warming, and an amnesty for illegals bill co-sponsored with Ted Kennedy.

Add us: Digg | Del.icio.us |