Thursday, November 29, 2007
New Huckabee News site up
My brother Jacob and I have launched a news site dedicated to gathering information about Mike Huckabee. We call it HuckNews.com. Check it out at HuckNews.com
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
State Rep. Mark Martin Condemns NRTL for Unwise Endorsement
My friend Mark Martin sent this to me last night. He's one of the many rank-and-files upset at NRTL.
Rep. Mark Martin, R-Prairie Grove, issued the following statement regarding the National Right To Life Endorsement of former Sen. Fred Thompson:
The Declaration of Independence states in simple eloquence a philosophy of government that is profound. The founders believed that Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness were unalienable rights endowed by the Creator. They believed that the primary reason for Governments to be instituted is to secure those rights. The Constitution institutes the government of the United States for exactly that purpose.
Slaves and free Africans embraced the principles of liberty and equality embedded in the Declaration as their own best hope for freedom and better treatment.
Republicans have a long and proud history of establishing Constitutional amendments to insure the unalienable right for liberty by supporting and promoting the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th amendments. In 1976, the Republican Party once again adopted a plank in its platform to insure a critical right, by Constitutional amendment, for a group not empowered to defend that right themselves. That is, the Right to Life.
I am proud to be a part of the political party that promoted and protected the Right to Liberty for slaves, the right to vote for Americans of African descent, and the Right to Vote for women. I am proud to be part of the political party that now seeks to protect the Right to Life for the most innocent and defenseless group ever to have their God given rights trampled.
By endorsing a candidate who rejects a Constitutional amendment for the Right to Life, the “National Right to Life” organization betrays not only their principles, but also its very name.
While Sen. Thompson is moderately pro-life, there are three or four other candidates who stand head and shoulders above him on Pro-Life issues. Mr. Thompson’s position — which admits that life begins at conception, then turns his back protecting that life — is perhaps worse and certainly more illogical than those who deny life begins at conception. At least those people may be deceived or misinformed, but they are not cold blooded in their carelessness of ending what they believe to be life. It would have been better if the NRTL had not endorsed any candidate at all.
I have very dear friends whose daughter was diagnosed with juvenile diabetes when she was only two years old. Because of their commitment to the principle of protecting innocent life, they do not support destroying embryos for research. They say, “The ends do not justify the means.” Why should they of all people be expected to be committed to the principle of right to life when the NRTL organization is so cavalier in their willingness to compromise principle?
Issue advocacy groups, such as NRTL, should defend the absolute principles upon which they are founded. Attempted divination of the future and/or gambling on a pragmatic choice undermines the credibility of the group and limits their ability to claim authority for that cause.
I am saddened by the endorsement made by the NRTL and call for pro-life individuals to join me in redirecting my financial support to other pro-life organizations. Furthermore, I plead with the Arkansas Right to Life organization to repudiate the endorsement made by the national organization.
Rep. Mark Martin, R-Prairie Grove, issued the following statement regarding the National Right To Life Endorsement of former Sen. Fred Thompson:
The Declaration of Independence states in simple eloquence a philosophy of government that is profound. The founders believed that Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness were unalienable rights endowed by the Creator. They believed that the primary reason for Governments to be instituted is to secure those rights. The Constitution institutes the government of the United States for exactly that purpose.
Slaves and free Africans embraced the principles of liberty and equality embedded in the Declaration as their own best hope for freedom and better treatment.
Republicans have a long and proud history of establishing Constitutional amendments to insure the unalienable right for liberty by supporting and promoting the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th amendments. In 1976, the Republican Party once again adopted a plank in its platform to insure a critical right, by Constitutional amendment, for a group not empowered to defend that right themselves. That is, the Right to Life.
I am proud to be a part of the political party that promoted and protected the Right to Liberty for slaves, the right to vote for Americans of African descent, and the Right to Vote for women. I am proud to be part of the political party that now seeks to protect the Right to Life for the most innocent and defenseless group ever to have their God given rights trampled.
By endorsing a candidate who rejects a Constitutional amendment for the Right to Life, the “National Right to Life” organization betrays not only their principles, but also its very name.
While Sen. Thompson is moderately pro-life, there are three or four other candidates who stand head and shoulders above him on Pro-Life issues. Mr. Thompson’s position — which admits that life begins at conception, then turns his back protecting that life — is perhaps worse and certainly more illogical than those who deny life begins at conception. At least those people may be deceived or misinformed, but they are not cold blooded in their carelessness of ending what they believe to be life. It would have been better if the NRTL had not endorsed any candidate at all.
I have very dear friends whose daughter was diagnosed with juvenile diabetes when she was only two years old. Because of their commitment to the principle of protecting innocent life, they do not support destroying embryos for research. They say, “The ends do not justify the means.” Why should they of all people be expected to be committed to the principle of right to life when the NRTL organization is so cavalier in their willingness to compromise principle?
Issue advocacy groups, such as NRTL, should defend the absolute principles upon which they are founded. Attempted divination of the future and/or gambling on a pragmatic choice undermines the credibility of the group and limits their ability to claim authority for that cause.
I am saddened by the endorsement made by the NRTL and call for pro-life individuals to join me in redirecting my financial support to other pro-life organizations. Furthermore, I plead with the Arkansas Right to Life organization to repudiate the endorsement made by the national organization.
The Fred Mistake
With Thompson Endorsement, National Right to Life Proves Its Irrelevance
By Lucas Roebuck
In what may prove to be a crippling folly for the organization, National Right to Life will endorse actor Fred Thompson for president by the time you read this, according to Fox News.
The decision to endorse Thompson represents what could be a colossal mistake for the pro-life organization. First, the NRTL's estimation that Thompson is most electable pro-life candidate is based on bad data and even worse conventional "wisdom." Second, by endorsing a candidate who doesn't support a constitutional ban on abortion, NRTL has unwittingly alienated many grassroots supporters whose financial contributions make NRTL possible. Thirdly, if the NRTL's endorsement fails to revitalize Thompson's falling star, then the move will prove what many naysayers in the pro-life movement have been suggesting for a while now — NRTL has become irrelevant.
Thompson most electable?
According to my sources, the primary reason that many of the state delegates at the NRTL meeting voted for Thompson was because they saw Thompson as the most electable Pro-Life candidate. I assume that a lot of the belief in Thompson's electability was based on poll numbers. In a candidate guide released by NRTL, the Rasmussen Reports daily presidential tracking poll is cited — specifically the Oct. 7 figures, which put Thompson at 24 percent one point ahead of Pro-Choice candidate Rudy Giuliani.
(Note: I think the NRTL people got some of Oct. 6 and 7 figures mixed up, so I am citing the actual Oct. 7 figures as seen here.)
Thompson has been an unimpressive candidate since his dramatic late entry into the GOP foray. In fact, since Oct. 7, he has lost more support than any other candidate. As of Nov. 12, according to Rasmussen, Thompson had fallen 10 points to 14 percent. Gov. Mitt Romney has remained even at 14 percent, matching Thompson. Giuliani has picked up some of Thompson's support, rising from 23 to 27 percent. The once left-for-dead campaign of Sen. John McCain has also has been rising, from nine percent to 13 percent. The most ardently Pro-Life candidate, Mike Huckabee (whom I support), shot up from 6 percent to 10 percent.
According to Rasmussen, in the general election, Thompson doesn't have an edge against Hillary Clinton when compared to other GOP candidates. Here are the latest numbers verses Hillary: Thompson (42) Clinton (48); Giuliani (42) Clinton (48); Romney (42) Clinton (47); Huckabee (43) Clinton (46); McCain (47) Clinton (45).
So let's see: McCain, Huckabee and Romney are more likely to beat Clinton than Thompson. So this makes Thompson more electable how? Okay forget national polls. Let's look at some of the early states. In Iowa, Thompson is fourth, according to the Real Clear Politics aggregate poll. In New Hampshire, Thompson is fifth, and only two tenths of a percent ahead of Rep. Ron Paul. South Carolina is a bright spot for Thompson; he's in third.
NRTL cuts off its roots
As news of the Thompson endorsement started hitting the online world Monday afternoon, the anger of some of the rank-and-file pro-life voters heated up. Thompson was already in the target of pro-life supporters for comments he made last week to journalist Tim Russert about the Republican platform plank supporting a constitutional ban on abortion. In short, Thompson is against extending 14th Amendment protections to unborn children. Read the transcript here.
While this should win Thompson applause and endorsements from the National States Right Club, why such a soft position earns the stamp of approval from National Right to Life is a head scratcher. Thompson did have a 100 percent pro-life voting record in the Senate, but why would NRTL prop someone up who doesn't believe the responsibility of the federal government is to protect life?
An e-mail from a religious conservative activist sent to me today groused that if Thompson is endorsed by NRTL, the author would have nothing more to do with NRTL. An Arkansas state legislator is so incensed with the endorsement, he told me plans to issue a statement Tuesday calling on the Arkansas state Right to Life to disassociate itself from the national endorsement when the official word comes down. Expect more to follow.
Proving its irrelevance
NRTL's brass first started banging heads with the members of the Pro-Life rank-and-file when they opposed efforts in South Dakota to pass legislation to ban abortion in 2006. I don’t even want to go into how asinine NRTL was for publicly opposing the ban (because they didn't think the Supreme Court was stacked enough to overturn Roe v. Wade.) Pro-Life activists, including me, have been continually frustrated with NRTL's strategy of hoping that someday the courts will be stacked in favor of an overturn — and shouldn't be challenged until then. But when will then be?
We have no guarantee that it will ever be — which is why a Constitutional amendment protecting life is needed to end the infanticide. Even with a pro-life president and a GOP controlled congress (until 2006), getting guaranteed pro-life judges appointed was nearly impossible. The only way to guarantee the courts wont sway back and forth forever on the abortion issue is to pass a Constitutional amendment — which Thompson opposes.
Thompson's weak position on abortion is why, in the end, the NRTL endorsement will be meaningless. Unless Thompson magically revives his fortunes, he won't survive the GOP primary past January — February at the latest. Thompson's people are hoping the endorsement will help him win over conservatives who are divided between him, Romney and Huckabee.
That hope may be misplaced. Having already ceded its moral high ground for the sake of political expediency in South Dakota, NRTL is about to flush any political ground it gained down the toilet with the Thompson endorsement.
The obvious disclaimer applies: Anything can happen in politics. But based on current trajectories, NRTL and Thompson have placed their hopes on falling stars.
##30##
By Lucas Roebuck
In what may prove to be a crippling folly for the organization, National Right to Life will endorse actor Fred Thompson for president by the time you read this, according to Fox News.
The decision to endorse Thompson represents what could be a colossal mistake for the pro-life organization. First, the NRTL's estimation that Thompson is most electable pro-life candidate is based on bad data and even worse conventional "wisdom." Second, by endorsing a candidate who doesn't support a constitutional ban on abortion, NRTL has unwittingly alienated many grassroots supporters whose financial contributions make NRTL possible. Thirdly, if the NRTL's endorsement fails to revitalize Thompson's falling star, then the move will prove what many naysayers in the pro-life movement have been suggesting for a while now — NRTL has become irrelevant.
Thompson most electable?
According to my sources, the primary reason that many of the state delegates at the NRTL meeting voted for Thompson was because they saw Thompson as the most electable Pro-Life candidate. I assume that a lot of the belief in Thompson's electability was based on poll numbers. In a candidate guide released by NRTL, the Rasmussen Reports daily presidential tracking poll is cited — specifically the Oct. 7 figures, which put Thompson at 24 percent one point ahead of Pro-Choice candidate Rudy Giuliani.
(Note: I think the NRTL people got some of Oct. 6 and 7 figures mixed up, so I am citing the actual Oct. 7 figures as seen here.)
Thompson has been an unimpressive candidate since his dramatic late entry into the GOP foray. In fact, since Oct. 7, he has lost more support than any other candidate. As of Nov. 12, according to Rasmussen, Thompson had fallen 10 points to 14 percent. Gov. Mitt Romney has remained even at 14 percent, matching Thompson. Giuliani has picked up some of Thompson's support, rising from 23 to 27 percent. The once left-for-dead campaign of Sen. John McCain has also has been rising, from nine percent to 13 percent. The most ardently Pro-Life candidate, Mike Huckabee (whom I support), shot up from 6 percent to 10 percent.
According to Rasmussen, in the general election, Thompson doesn't have an edge against Hillary Clinton when compared to other GOP candidates. Here are the latest numbers verses Hillary: Thompson (42) Clinton (48); Giuliani (42) Clinton (48); Romney (42) Clinton (47); Huckabee (43) Clinton (46); McCain (47) Clinton (45).
So let's see: McCain, Huckabee and Romney are more likely to beat Clinton than Thompson. So this makes Thompson more electable how? Okay forget national polls. Let's look at some of the early states. In Iowa, Thompson is fourth, according to the Real Clear Politics aggregate poll. In New Hampshire, Thompson is fifth, and only two tenths of a percent ahead of Rep. Ron Paul. South Carolina is a bright spot for Thompson; he's in third.
NRTL cuts off its roots
As news of the Thompson endorsement started hitting the online world Monday afternoon, the anger of some of the rank-and-file pro-life voters heated up. Thompson was already in the target of pro-life supporters for comments he made last week to journalist Tim Russert about the Republican platform plank supporting a constitutional ban on abortion. In short, Thompson is against extending 14th Amendment protections to unborn children. Read the transcript here.
While this should win Thompson applause and endorsements from the National States Right Club, why such a soft position earns the stamp of approval from National Right to Life is a head scratcher. Thompson did have a 100 percent pro-life voting record in the Senate, but why would NRTL prop someone up who doesn't believe the responsibility of the federal government is to protect life?
An e-mail from a religious conservative activist sent to me today groused that if Thompson is endorsed by NRTL, the author would have nothing more to do with NRTL. An Arkansas state legislator is so incensed with the endorsement, he told me plans to issue a statement Tuesday calling on the Arkansas state Right to Life to disassociate itself from the national endorsement when the official word comes down. Expect more to follow.
Proving its irrelevance
NRTL's brass first started banging heads with the members of the Pro-Life rank-and-file when they opposed efforts in South Dakota to pass legislation to ban abortion in 2006. I don’t even want to go into how asinine NRTL was for publicly opposing the ban (because they didn't think the Supreme Court was stacked enough to overturn Roe v. Wade.) Pro-Life activists, including me, have been continually frustrated with NRTL's strategy of hoping that someday the courts will be stacked in favor of an overturn — and shouldn't be challenged until then. But when will then be?
We have no guarantee that it will ever be — which is why a Constitutional amendment protecting life is needed to end the infanticide. Even with a pro-life president and a GOP controlled congress (until 2006), getting guaranteed pro-life judges appointed was nearly impossible. The only way to guarantee the courts wont sway back and forth forever on the abortion issue is to pass a Constitutional amendment — which Thompson opposes.
Thompson's weak position on abortion is why, in the end, the NRTL endorsement will be meaningless. Unless Thompson magically revives his fortunes, he won't survive the GOP primary past January — February at the latest. Thompson's people are hoping the endorsement will help him win over conservatives who are divided between him, Romney and Huckabee.
That hope may be misplaced. Having already ceded its moral high ground for the sake of political expediency in South Dakota, NRTL is about to flush any political ground it gained down the toilet with the Thompson endorsement.
The obvious disclaimer applies: Anything can happen in politics. But based on current trajectories, NRTL and Thompson have placed their hopes on falling stars.
##30##
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Morris: Huckabee can win Iowa
Political analyst Dick Morris, who has ties to when Clinton was in Arkansas, is now making the case that Huckabee could win Iowa. Read his article here.
His column echoes some points I made about Huckabee's road to victory a few months ago in this newspaper column. Read about the Huckabee Calculus here.
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Robertson in Bed with Giuliani
Is the 700 Clubber relevant anymore?
By Lucas Roebuck
Whatever behind-the-scenes deal led to has-been evangelical leader Pat Robertson endorsing former New York City mayor Rudi Giuliani smells quite Faustian. What’s unclear is who is devil in this awkward pact.
Pro-life and anti-gay marriage activists are scratching their collective heads on this one. Why would Robertson, who once said the Sept. 11 attacks were God’s punishment on America for abortions and Internet porn, support Giuliani — who is pro-choice, pro-gay and not exactly the poster boy for marital fidelity?
Robertson — who did not address the huge gap between him and Giuliani on social issues — cited Giuliani’s record polishing the Big Apple and hard line on the War on Terror as reasons for the endorsement. Also, Robertson implied he believed that Giuliani is the only GOPer who could beat Sen. Hillary Clinton.
Since when did ideologue Robertson become an ends-justify-the-means Machiavellian?
The left-leaning media* understand evangelical Christians about as well as the Grand Ayatollah understands barbeque, so journalists pin much importance on the blessing of Robertson. Although Robertson once held sway over millions of evangelicals, his influence peaked nearly two decades ago and is a mere shadow today. Still, he offers “good” sound bites and is colorful, so the media — especially TV — eat him up.
While endorsements are not meaningless, evangelical Christians are not the mindless sheep following whatever charismatic TV personality happens to be all the rage. Evangelicals — I count myself as one — are intellectually disciplined, issue-focused and politically proactive.
Evangelicals don’t oppose abortion, etc., because Robertson or other evangelical “leaders” tell us we should be opposed to these things. To the contrary, historically, grassroots evangelicals have empowered people like Robertson and even President George W. Bush because they supported our issues. This is why abortion flip-flopper former Gov. Mitt Romney, Sen. John McCain, Giuliani, and actor Fred Thompson have come crawling, holding out their hats to evangelicals, claiming they support our issues
Former candidate Sen. Sam Brownback and freshly-minted top-tier candidate former Gov. Mike Huckabee don’t need to get blessings of evangelical leaders because they are both true evangelicals. (Disclosure: I am supporting Huckabee for president.)
I was a guest on a radio show in Detroit recently discussing Huckabee’s candidacy, when another guest, Joe Carter of EvangelicalOutpost.com, posited an interesting theory about why evangelical “leaders” weren’t rushing to back evangelical candidates. Here’s my Reader’s Digest version: People like Robertson are empowered when candidates have to come crawling to them for a Papal blessing. Candidates like Huckabee and Brownback don’t need evangelical certification, so they don’t go into political debt to the “leaders” of the evangelical movement.
Romney, McCain, Giuliani and Thompson are simply allies of convenience with evangelical Christians. Politicians like Brownback and Huckabee are evangelical Christians.
So what about the Beat Hillary mantra? If the polls are to be believed, then none of the GOP candidates will beat Clinton. But polls often prove wrong because campaigns make a difference. This time in 2003, I was salivating at the possibility that Howard Dean would be the Democrat nominee. His star burnt out even before Iowa, the first contest of 2008.
With the right campaign and a little luck (or providence), Romeny, McCain, Giuliani, Thompson and even Huckabee could beat Clinton. Clinton might not even be the nominee — she’s losing ground right now in Iowa.
Maybe the beat Hillary argument is just an excuse to hide the fact that Robertson’s endorsement of Giuliani is not about what’s right or even about Giuliani. Could Robertson’s endorsement be mostly about himself?
* The left-wing media bias continues to be proven by reputable studies. The most recent is a joint survey released by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and Harvard's Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy. According to the study, newspapers have a positive tone of coverage of Democrat candidates 59 percent of the time, while Republican coverage is positive only 26 percent of the time. The study looked at network news, cable news, PBS news and NPR news, and all of them, to different degrees, portrayed Democrats in a better light than Republicans.
By Lucas Roebuck
Whatever behind-the-scenes deal led to has-been evangelical leader Pat Robertson endorsing former New York City mayor Rudi Giuliani smells quite Faustian. What’s unclear is who is devil in this awkward pact.
Pro-life and anti-gay marriage activists are scratching their collective heads on this one. Why would Robertson, who once said the Sept. 11 attacks were God’s punishment on America for abortions and Internet porn, support Giuliani — who is pro-choice, pro-gay and not exactly the poster boy for marital fidelity?
Robertson — who did not address the huge gap between him and Giuliani on social issues — cited Giuliani’s record polishing the Big Apple and hard line on the War on Terror as reasons for the endorsement. Also, Robertson implied he believed that Giuliani is the only GOPer who could beat Sen. Hillary Clinton.
Since when did ideologue Robertson become an ends-justify-the-means Machiavellian?
The left-leaning media* understand evangelical Christians about as well as the Grand Ayatollah understands barbeque, so journalists pin much importance on the blessing of Robertson. Although Robertson once held sway over millions of evangelicals, his influence peaked nearly two decades ago and is a mere shadow today. Still, he offers “good” sound bites and is colorful, so the media — especially TV — eat him up.
While endorsements are not meaningless, evangelical Christians are not the mindless sheep following whatever charismatic TV personality happens to be all the rage. Evangelicals — I count myself as one — are intellectually disciplined, issue-focused and politically proactive.
Evangelicals don’t oppose abortion, etc., because Robertson or other evangelical “leaders” tell us we should be opposed to these things. To the contrary, historically, grassroots evangelicals have empowered people like Robertson and even President George W. Bush because they supported our issues. This is why abortion flip-flopper former Gov. Mitt Romney, Sen. John McCain, Giuliani, and actor Fred Thompson have come crawling, holding out their hats to evangelicals, claiming they support our issues
Former candidate Sen. Sam Brownback and freshly-minted top-tier candidate former Gov. Mike Huckabee don’t need to get blessings of evangelical leaders because they are both true evangelicals. (Disclosure: I am supporting Huckabee for president.)
I was a guest on a radio show in Detroit recently discussing Huckabee’s candidacy, when another guest, Joe Carter of EvangelicalOutpost.com, posited an interesting theory about why evangelical “leaders” weren’t rushing to back evangelical candidates. Here’s my Reader’s Digest version: People like Robertson are empowered when candidates have to come crawling to them for a Papal blessing. Candidates like Huckabee and Brownback don’t need evangelical certification, so they don’t go into political debt to the “leaders” of the evangelical movement.
Romney, McCain, Giuliani and Thompson are simply allies of convenience with evangelical Christians. Politicians like Brownback and Huckabee are evangelical Christians.
So what about the Beat Hillary mantra? If the polls are to be believed, then none of the GOP candidates will beat Clinton. But polls often prove wrong because campaigns make a difference. This time in 2003, I was salivating at the possibility that Howard Dean would be the Democrat nominee. His star burnt out even before Iowa, the first contest of 2008.
With the right campaign and a little luck (or providence), Romeny, McCain, Giuliani, Thompson and even Huckabee could beat Clinton. Clinton might not even be the nominee — she’s losing ground right now in Iowa.
Maybe the beat Hillary argument is just an excuse to hide the fact that Robertson’s endorsement of Giuliani is not about what’s right or even about Giuliani. Could Robertson’s endorsement be mostly about himself?
* The left-wing media bias continues to be proven by reputable studies. The most recent is a joint survey released by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and Harvard's Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy. According to the study, newspapers have a positive tone of coverage of Democrat candidates 59 percent of the time, while Republican coverage is positive only 26 percent of the time. The study looked at network news, cable news, PBS news and NPR news, and all of them, to different degrees, portrayed Democrats in a better light than Republicans.
Friday, November 02, 2007
EXCLUSIVE: Former Ark. State Legislator on Huckabee, Illegals, and Drivers Licenses.
Note: My good friend and former state legislator, Doug Matayo, has this insightful post on Huckabee's work to fight illegal immigrants from getting drivers licenses.
By Doug Matayo
Act 2210 of 2005 was signed into law by Governor Huckabee. The legislation made it illegal for a driver’s license to be issued to anyone who could not prove legal residency in Arkansas.
Over two years before the controversy swirling over New York Governor Spitzer’s desire to allow illegal aliens to receive state documentation in the form of a state issued driver’s license, as Mike Huckabee’s floor leader, I sponsored and we passed legislation to stop illegals from getting licenses. Huckabee signed it into law.
Huckabee recognized this issue is about INTEGRITY. The integrity of the state to issue documents that are authentic and to avoid fraudulent attempts for people to receive state benefits they are not entitled too. Also this will cut down on voter fraud since a license cannot be issued to a non-resident (and state issued ID is typically produced at the polls to verify identity). But some of Huckabee’s detractors are still not happy with Huckabee’s immigration stances.
In a Wall Street Journal article, a former Republican legislator – Randy Minton – stated Huckabee was for amnesty, sanctuary cities and open borders. Apparently, Mr. Minton wasn’t paying attention when Matayo and Huckabee moved Act 2210 forward to keep all non-legal residents of Arkansas from getting state issued identification. Apparently, Mr. Minton didn’t read the papers when Huckabee signed into law legislation which allowed state troopers to partner with the Department of Homeland Security to arrest illegal immigrants and enforce federal immigration law. Obviously, Mr. Minton isn’t letting these facts get in the way of his continual personal and vitriolic attacks on Mr. Huckabee.
Now the immigration “hawks” do have Huckabee on one issue. Huckabee sponsored a state version of the federal “Dream Act” which was just recently defeated in the U.S. Senate. This bill did not pass through the state senate and is not law.
On this issue Huckabee has two options. One, continue to explain it in painful detail and try (in vain) to convince “Joe Six-pack” it is an issue of fairness. Or, he can do a “Mea Culpa,"
Apologize and move on and say it’s not something he will push as president. Politically, the second option is the best. Why move forward with a momentum stopper issue like this one?
My counsel to my governor is to run strong on the positive accomplishments of his administration and say a sincere apology on the items that didn’t work out. The American people are willing to overlook the occasional misstep and are looking toward leadership where a leader isn’t afraid to say, “I’m sorry… I missed it… but I’ll work hard to do it right next time.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
