Well into the second year of my exodus from the Natural State, my family and I always enjoy the chance to get back and visit friends and relatives. We’re glad to be back in Arkansas for the holidays. Unfortunately, somewhere between Boise and Wichita I caught a flu bug, so I’ve been spending most of my time kneeling at the porcelain throne instead of catching up with Arkansas friends.
While I’m pretty confident I will recover by next week, some of the GOP presidential campaigns may be on life support come Jan. 3. The Iowa Caucuses has ended the aspirations of many a presidential hopeful (Howard Dean comes to mind ) and launched others into destiny and an office on Pennsylvania Avenue (Jimmy Carter ).
Here’s my prognosis of each campaign’s chances in Iowa:
Gov. Mitt Romney: The CEO / governor son of a CEO / governor has one person standing between him and an Iowa victory: Pastor / governor Mike Huckabee, son of a firefighter. Romney has been spending like a sailor in Iowa, hitting Huck with a barrage of negative campaign ads and mailers. Although Romney trails Huckabee in almost every poll, Huckabee does not have a commanding lead. Romney can come in a close second and still survive Iowa. However, if he comes in a distant second, with Huckabee besting Romney by a spread of, say, 10 points, the Romney campaign might start thinking about picking out its casket. My educated guess, however, puts Romney just two or three points behind Huckabee in the final Iowa wash, meaning Romney will live to fight another day.
Gov. Mike Huckabee: After taking a full barrage of hits from the Romney, Rep. Ron Paul and senator / actor Fred Thompson campaigns for nearly a month now, Huckabee has shown that the “ Huckaboom” is more than flirtation from disenchanted voters. The best chance for the long-term health of the Huckabee campaign is a clean win in Iowa. Huckabee isn’t doing as well in the Granite State primaries, so he’ll need some powerful momentum to carry him to South Carolina, the next state he could cleanly win. A victory in Iowa will solidify his support in states like Florida and Michigan, where Huckabee has been surprisingly competitive in the polls. My prediction: Huckabee wins Iowa, but not as strong as he would like, making him rely on South Carolina as the watershed vote to send him ahead of the pack for the GOP nomination.
Actor / Sen. Fred Thompson: I like Fred Thompson. If Huckabee wasn’t in the race, Thompson would probably be my choice. But Thompson is going to have to catch fire like no other to do well in Iowa. According to the Real Clear Politics aggregate polling data, Thompson is fourth in Iowa, behind Sen. John McCain. Thompson supporters I have talked to have told me he is betting on success in other states down the road. That’s a long bet. Thompson is sixth in New Hampshire, behind even libertarian Paul. He’s third in South Carolina, only a fraction of a point ahead of McCain, and 15 points behind Huckabee. Will Florida save Thompson ? Thompson is fifth there — and in Michigan. One bright spot: In Nevada he’s in fourth place. Never mind.
Sen. John McCain: McCain is polling third in Iowa right now, which isn’t enough to keep him alive because his only downstate hope is New Hampshire, where he is second. However, if McCain pulls a magical second in Iowa, and then wins New Hampshire, the campaign that was once written off for dead will have new life. But the likelihood of McCain pulling of that miracle second in Iowa is almost nil.
Mayor Rudy Giuliani: Of all the candidates who are claiming that Iowa doesn’t matter to their overall campaign strategy, Giuliani is the only one this statement is true for. Tied with Huckabee in the national polls, Giuliani will pull fourth or fifth in Iowa and move on to greener pastures.
Rep. Ron Paul: I have to include Paul in this list because his hard-core supporters would spam me for weeks if I didn’t. Paul is an important voice for the GOP right now, but his Sept. 10, 2001, mentality will keep him from ever winning the nomination. Paul has not busted double digits in any state that is polling so far. Still, he has enough money and support to stay alive until the convention, and possibly to fund a third-party run (although he has denied such plans ).
Lucas Roebuck is a former managing editor of the Northwest Arkansas Times and the Siloam Springs Herald-Leader.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Huckabee “Attacks” on Mormons a Media Fabrication
Huckabee “Attacks” on Mormons a Media Fabrication
http://hucknews.com/index.php/huck/story/huckabees_attacks_on_mormonism_manufactured_by_media/
By Lucas Roebuck
HuckNews.com editor
The collective groupthinking media seem hell-bent on telling this FALSE narrative: Mike Huckabee is playing the "Mormon card" to attack Mitt Romney. The media want to see a Mormon verses evangelical Christian smack down, and they have collectively proven they are willing to spin the smallest slip to provoke their holy war.
Let's start with the truth about what Huckabee has said. Huckabee has never said that people should not vote for Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon. In fact, Huckabee has consistently said religion should not be an issue.
Still, everywhere Huckabee goes, the media keep asking him about Mormonism. (Why don't they ask Romney what he thinks about Baptist views on Biblical infallibly?)
Here's an exchange he had Sunday with Chris Wallace of Fox News.
---QUOTE----
WALLACE: ... do you think it's intolerant -- do you think it's prejudice -- for voters ... to consider the tenets of Mormonism in judging Mitt Romney?
HUCKABEE: I do think that's inappropriate. I think people should judge Mitt Romney on his record. Is he consistent? Does he say and believe the things now that he said and believed before? That's what ought to be the criteria. I don't think his Mormonism ought to be a factor in it. And I wouldn't vote for or against somebody because they were Mormon. It simply wouldn't be that big of an issue for me. If it is for others, they'll have to explain that. It isn't for me, and it shouldn't be for anyone.
---END QUOTE---
Here's an AP account by Libby Quaid.
---QUOTE---
Earlier this month in Iowa, Huckabee wouldn't say whether he thought Mormonism -- rival Romney's religion -- was a cult.
"I'm just not going to go off into evaluating other people's doctrines and faiths. I think that is absolutely not a role for a president," the former Arkansas governor said.
While he said he respects "anybody who practices his faith," Huckabee said that what other people believe -- he named Republican rivals Romney, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton -- "is theirs to explain, not mine, and I'm not going to."
He also resisted wading into theology when pressed to explain why some evangelicals don't view the Mormon faith as a Christian denomination.
--END QUOTE---
Here is the now infamous exchange between Huckabee and a NYT reporter, in context, that has the punditocracy accusing Huckabee of using religious bigotry to attract voters.
---QUOTE
I asked Huckabee, who describes himself as the only Republican candidate with a degree in theology, if he considered Mormonism a cult or a religion. "I think it's a religion," he said. "I really don't know much about it." I was about to jot down this piece of boilerplate when Huckabee surprised me with a question of his own: "Don't Mormons," he asked in an innocent voice, "believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?"
---END QUOTE
The Jesus/devil comments were the fodder that the media needed to spin their false narrative into truth, but I'll get to that in a bit.
The New York Times reporter was right about the boilerplate response. Huckabee's line has always been that he doesn't want to get into a Mormon/Christian fight -- that theology is not relevant for choosing the president of the United States. But being the groupthink drink-from-the-same well sort of folks, the reporters keep asking the same stupid questions.
Some of the pundits have accused Mike Huckabee of being disingenuous when he says he doesn't know enough about Mormonism. How could a Southern Baptist leader not know about the tenets of what most evangelical Christians consider a cult? I suppose it's possible Huckabee knows more about Mormonism than he lets on, but I disagree about what his alleged motives are (for not telling us what he knows/thinks?)
Obviously trying to avoid a question that a) has no relevance to the election and b) would make Huckabee look mean spirited, Huckabee's gracious response would be to plead ignorance. In the polite society outside the world of slash-and-burn journalism, apparently people avoid inconsequential divisive issues unless they are germane to the subject at hand.
So, back to the Jesus/devil comments. The various pundits so want to believe that Huckabee was trying to disparage Mormons by asking the question. Here's how Huckabee explained the comments to CNN.
----QUOTE -----
Speaking with CNN Wednesday, Huckabee expressed disbelief that the comment has caused an uproar.
"We were having a conversation over several hours, the conversation was about religion and he was trying to press me on my thoughts of Mitt Romney's religion, and I said 'I don't want to go there.'" Huckabee said.
"I really didn't know. Well, he was telling me things about the Mormon faith, because he frankly is well-schooled on comparative religions. As a part of that conversation, I asked the question, because I had heard that, and I asked it, not to create something -- I never thought it would make the story."
Huckabee, who has surged into first place in Iowa, also reiterated that he doesn't think a candidate's religion should be an issue in the campaign.
---END QUOTE----
Also, why is asking a question about the relation between Satan and Jesus is attacking Mormonism. Was it attacking Christianity when Wolf Blitzer asked Huckabee if the earth was literally created in six days? Even if the question was rhetorical, it's not like Huckabee would have been spreading lies about Mormonism. Here is a link to the official LDS web site on the topic.
Here's an excerpt:
--QUOTE---
Jess L. Christensen, Institute of Religion director at Utah State University, Logan, Utah. On first hearing, the doctrine that Lucifer and our Lord, Jesus Christ, are brothers may seem surprising to some -- especially to those unacquainted with latter-day revelations. But both the scriptures and the prophets affirm that Jesus Christ and Lucifer are indeed offspring of our Heavenly Father and, therefore, spirit brothers. Jesus Christ was with the Father from the beginning. Lucifer, too, was an angel "who was in authority in the presence of God," a "son of the morning." (See Isa. 14:12; D&C 76:25-27.) Both Jesus and Lucifer were strong leaders with great knowledge and influence. But as the Firstborn of the Father, Jesus was Lucifer's older brother. (See Col. 1:15; D&C 93:21.)
---END QUOTE---
So Huckabee points out (intentionally or unintentionally) a tenet of Mormon theology that apparently is true. Its not like he asked if Mormons are racist hate-mongers, etc. (They're not! For the most part, Mormons are nice people!)
There is no story here. Huckabee says religion is not a voting issue. Romney agrees. Huckabee has apologized to Romney for any perceived slam of Mormonism. Romney has accepted the apology.
Please, let's debate immigration, abortion, tax reform, health care, Iraq policy.
##30##
http://hucknews.com/index.php/huck/story/huckabees_attacks_on_mormonism_manufactured_by_media/
By Lucas Roebuck
HuckNews.com editor
The collective groupthinking media seem hell-bent on telling this FALSE narrative: Mike Huckabee is playing the "Mormon card" to attack Mitt Romney. The media want to see a Mormon verses evangelical Christian smack down, and they have collectively proven they are willing to spin the smallest slip to provoke their holy war.
Let's start with the truth about what Huckabee has said. Huckabee has never said that people should not vote for Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon. In fact, Huckabee has consistently said religion should not be an issue.
Still, everywhere Huckabee goes, the media keep asking him about Mormonism. (Why don't they ask Romney what he thinks about Baptist views on Biblical infallibly?)
Here's an exchange he had Sunday with Chris Wallace of Fox News.
---QUOTE----
WALLACE: ... do you think it's intolerant -- do you think it's prejudice -- for voters ... to consider the tenets of Mormonism in judging Mitt Romney?
HUCKABEE: I do think that's inappropriate. I think people should judge Mitt Romney on his record. Is he consistent? Does he say and believe the things now that he said and believed before? That's what ought to be the criteria. I don't think his Mormonism ought to be a factor in it. And I wouldn't vote for or against somebody because they were Mormon. It simply wouldn't be that big of an issue for me. If it is for others, they'll have to explain that. It isn't for me, and it shouldn't be for anyone.
---END QUOTE---
Here's an AP account by Libby Quaid.
---QUOTE---
Earlier this month in Iowa, Huckabee wouldn't say whether he thought Mormonism -- rival Romney's religion -- was a cult.
"I'm just not going to go off into evaluating other people's doctrines and faiths. I think that is absolutely not a role for a president," the former Arkansas governor said.
While he said he respects "anybody who practices his faith," Huckabee said that what other people believe -- he named Republican rivals Romney, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton -- "is theirs to explain, not mine, and I'm not going to."
He also resisted wading into theology when pressed to explain why some evangelicals don't view the Mormon faith as a Christian denomination.
--END QUOTE---
Here is the now infamous exchange between Huckabee and a NYT reporter, in context, that has the punditocracy accusing Huckabee of using religious bigotry to attract voters.
---QUOTE
I asked Huckabee, who describes himself as the only Republican candidate with a degree in theology, if he considered Mormonism a cult or a religion. "I think it's a religion," he said. "I really don't know much about it." I was about to jot down this piece of boilerplate when Huckabee surprised me with a question of his own: "Don't Mormons," he asked in an innocent voice, "believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?"
---END QUOTE
The Jesus/devil comments were the fodder that the media needed to spin their false narrative into truth, but I'll get to that in a bit.
The New York Times reporter was right about the boilerplate response. Huckabee's line has always been that he doesn't want to get into a Mormon/Christian fight -- that theology is not relevant for choosing the president of the United States. But being the groupthink drink-from-the-same well sort of folks, the reporters keep asking the same stupid questions.
Some of the pundits have accused Mike Huckabee of being disingenuous when he says he doesn't know enough about Mormonism. How could a Southern Baptist leader not know about the tenets of what most evangelical Christians consider a cult? I suppose it's possible Huckabee knows more about Mormonism than he lets on, but I disagree about what his alleged motives are (for not telling us what he knows/thinks?)
Obviously trying to avoid a question that a) has no relevance to the election and b) would make Huckabee look mean spirited, Huckabee's gracious response would be to plead ignorance. In the polite society outside the world of slash-and-burn journalism, apparently people avoid inconsequential divisive issues unless they are germane to the subject at hand.
So, back to the Jesus/devil comments. The various pundits so want to believe that Huckabee was trying to disparage Mormons by asking the question. Here's how Huckabee explained the comments to CNN.
----QUOTE -----
Speaking with CNN Wednesday, Huckabee expressed disbelief that the comment has caused an uproar.
"We were having a conversation over several hours, the conversation was about religion and he was trying to press me on my thoughts of Mitt Romney's religion, and I said 'I don't want to go there.'" Huckabee said.
"I really didn't know. Well, he was telling me things about the Mormon faith, because he frankly is well-schooled on comparative religions. As a part of that conversation, I asked the question, because I had heard that, and I asked it, not to create something -- I never thought it would make the story."
Huckabee, who has surged into first place in Iowa, also reiterated that he doesn't think a candidate's religion should be an issue in the campaign.
---END QUOTE----
Also, why is asking a question about the relation between Satan and Jesus is attacking Mormonism. Was it attacking Christianity when Wolf Blitzer asked Huckabee if the earth was literally created in six days? Even if the question was rhetorical, it's not like Huckabee would have been spreading lies about Mormonism. Here is a link to the official LDS web site on the topic.
Here's an excerpt:
--QUOTE---
Jess L. Christensen, Institute of Religion director at Utah State University, Logan, Utah. On first hearing, the doctrine that Lucifer and our Lord, Jesus Christ, are brothers may seem surprising to some -- especially to those unacquainted with latter-day revelations. But both the scriptures and the prophets affirm that Jesus Christ and Lucifer are indeed offspring of our Heavenly Father and, therefore, spirit brothers. Jesus Christ was with the Father from the beginning. Lucifer, too, was an angel "who was in authority in the presence of God," a "son of the morning." (See Isa. 14:12; D&C 76:25-27.) Both Jesus and Lucifer were strong leaders with great knowledge and influence. But as the Firstborn of the Father, Jesus was Lucifer's older brother. (See Col. 1:15; D&C 93:21.)
---END QUOTE---
So Huckabee points out (intentionally or unintentionally) a tenet of Mormon theology that apparently is true. Its not like he asked if Mormons are racist hate-mongers, etc. (They're not! For the most part, Mormons are nice people!)
There is no story here. Huckabee says religion is not a voting issue. Romney agrees. Huckabee has apologized to Romney for any perceived slam of Mormonism. Romney has accepted the apology.
Please, let's debate immigration, abortion, tax reform, health care, Iraq policy.
##30##
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Beck Gets Huck's Mormon Position Wrong
I am sure that Glenn didn't mean to misrepresent Mike Huckabee, but Beck got Huck's position on if Mormonism should be a voting issue all wrong. Huckabee said on Fox News this Sunday that Romney's Mormonism should not play a roll a person's voting decision. Popular conservative talk show host Glenn Beck, a Mormon, reported on his radio show Monday that Huckabee said, "Well, I don't know if I wouldn't vote for a Mormon." Here are samples the transcripts.Roebuck Report: Glenn Beck, who has been neutral to positive on Mike Huckabee, unloaded a double barrel shotgun on Huck in a monologue on his show Monday, and in the process, grossly misstated Huckabee's views on Mormon candidates. I am sure that Glenn didn't mean to misrepresent Huckabee, but Beck got Huck's position on if Mormonism should be a voting issue all wrong. Huckabee said on Fox News Sunday that Romney's Mormonism should not play a roll a person's voting decision. Popular conservative talk show host Glenn Beck, a Mormon, reported on his radio show Monday that Huckabee said, "Well, I don't know if I wouldn't vote for a Mormon." Beck did not name his source. Here are samples the transcripts:
Excerpt from GLENN BECK MONDAY RADIO SHOW MONOLOGUE
(http://www.glennbeck.com/news/12102007b.shtml)
BECK: ... I have a real problem with him actually saying, "Well, I don't know if I wouldn't vote for a Mormon." How dare you. How dare you. You're a leader. Your theology is going to stop you from voting for somebody who is a good man? Mike, that's beneath you. ...
Excerpt from FOX NEWS SUNDAY
(http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316253,00.html)
WALLACE: ... do you think it's intolerant — do you think it's prejudice — for voters — I'm not asking you; for voters to consider the tenets of Mormonism in judging Mitt Romney?
HUCKABEE: I do think that's inappropriate. I think people should judge Mitt Romney on his record. Is he consistent? Does he say and believe the things now that he said and believed before? That's what ought to be the criteria. I don't think his Mormonism ought to be a factor in it. And I wouldn't vote for or against somebody because they were Mormon. It simply wouldn't be that big of an issue for me. If it is for others, they'll have to explain that. It isn't for me, and it shouldn't be for anyone.
Maybe Beck was referring to some other statement besides the Fox News interview. I sent an e-mail to Beck asking him. Hopefully, it won't get buried in his INBOX.
##30##
Excerpt from GLENN BECK MONDAY RADIO SHOW MONOLOGUE
(http://www.glennbeck.com/news/12102007b.shtml)
BECK: ... I have a real problem with him actually saying, "Well, I don't know if I wouldn't vote for a Mormon." How dare you. How dare you. You're a leader. Your theology is going to stop you from voting for somebody who is a good man? Mike, that's beneath you. ...
Excerpt from FOX NEWS SUNDAY
(http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316253,00.html)
WALLACE: ... do you think it's intolerant — do you think it's prejudice — for voters — I'm not asking you; for voters to consider the tenets of Mormonism in judging Mitt Romney?
HUCKABEE: I do think that's inappropriate. I think people should judge Mitt Romney on his record. Is he consistent? Does he say and believe the things now that he said and believed before? That's what ought to be the criteria. I don't think his Mormonism ought to be a factor in it. And I wouldn't vote for or against somebody because they were Mormon. It simply wouldn't be that big of an issue for me. If it is for others, they'll have to explain that. It isn't for me, and it shouldn't be for anyone.
Maybe Beck was referring to some other statement besides the Fox News interview. I sent an e-mail to Beck asking him. Hopefully, it won't get buried in his INBOX.
##30##
Target Huckabee
Hatchet
By Lucas Roebuck
If you missed the news let me fill you in: Mike Huckabee is the new national front-runner in the race for the GOP nomination.
As of last Wednesday's Rasmussen Daily Presidential Tracking poll of likely GOP voters Huckabee leads Rudy Giuliani, 20 percent to 17 percent. Huckabee's meteoric rise from fifth place to first place, if sustained, will prove two important political theorems. First, that the social conservative voting bloc is the most powerful group of kingmakers in the GOP. Second, that the leading conservative voices in the media do not have much influence over the rank-and-file GOP voters. (Disclosure: I am supporting Huckabee. )
Social conservatives have long been looking for a candidate to call their own in this race. Rudy Giuliani, while respected by social conservatives, has always been a last choice because of his unabashed pro-choice and homosexual rights history. Mitt Romney's flip-flopping on the issue of abortion hurt his claim to be the social conservative standard-bearer. Romney's belief in the religion founded by Joseph Smith is another. John McCain tried to mend fences with social conservatives, but many have not forgotten the figurative finger he gave the group in 2000.
Social conservatives were hoping that the late entry of actor and former U. S. Sen. Fred Thompson could give them a candidate they could support. But when Thompson finally did get in the race he didn't show much fire in the belly. He also admitted that he did not support a constitutional ban on abortion, a foundation of the pro-life movement. Even the National Right to Life endorsement could not save Thompson, who has plummeted in the polls since entering the race. Thompson's failure to rally social conservatives to his cause led this bloc to coalesce around Huckabee, who has slowly been building support and national name identification. This support reached a critical mass a few weeks ago, leading to the "Huckaboom." If Huckabee goes all the way, the power of grass roots social conservatives in the GOP will be cemented.
Worthless Pundits
The second undeniable reality if Huckabee secures the GOP nomination is that conservative pundits and activist groups in the mainstream and alternative media have little influence over the nomination process. The list of "conservative "critics that has come out against Huckabee is long and deep. Not that Huckabee hasn't had support from many conservatives as well, but the "conservative "attacks on Huckabee over the past few weeks have been relentless. From the beginning, the Club for Growth has been gunning for Huckabee, even before his rise - even running attack ads against Huckabee in Iowa. The Club for Growth has been misrepresenting Huckabee's record by telling partial truths. In spite of the attacks, Huckabee rose from second-tier to first-tier status.
Right as Huckabee was really catching steam a month ago, John Fund of The Wall Street Journal published a damning piece on Huckabee (which, again, used partial truths to smear Huckabee ). After the Fund piece, Huckabee continued to rise. But the list of Huckabee attackers continued, reading like a Who's Who's List of Conservative Columnists: Robert Novak, George Will, Michelle Malkin, and Ann Coulter all wrote negative things about Huckabee in the past few weeks.
Some of their critiques were valid, while others were compilations of half-truths. Some complained that Huckabee was too open borders (Malkin); others complained that Huckabee was not open borders enough - a protectionist (Will). Although some media-perpetuated stereotypes (see the YouTube debates ) about social conservatives suggest that they are sheep following their leaders, Huckabee's surge - if he sustains this level of support - shows that social conservatives are much more prone to independent thinking. Huckabee's continued strength continues to undermine the collective influence of the conservative punditocracy.
Arkansas Critics
Now that the national media is digging into Huckabee's past, I have been amused to see how Huckabee's "enemies"in the state's extreme left and right groups have come together to criticize the governor. I laugh every time the Arkansas Times, a liberal alternative weekly in Little Rock with a circulation around 30, 000, is quoted as if it is the voice of Arkansas. The Arkansas Times, staffed with Democrats, has been peeing in Huckabee's proverbial pool for years. The Times is no independent voice. I also chuckle at the out-of-state conservative bloggers who are against Mike Huckabee quoting left-of-center Ernie Dumas' critiques of Huckabee, as if he's a card-carrying antitaxer. Dumas claims Huckabee is more liberal than Bill Clinton. Uh-huh. If you buy that, let's talk about some beachfront property for sale in Arizona.
The right-of-center critics, most of whom have never forgiven Huckabee for his alleged softness on illegal immigrants, have also been hammering Huckabee, providing fodder for the national media. Again, these critics seem unable to shape public opinion or represent it. Rasmussen polled Arkansas for their presidential choices, and guess what ? Huckabee would beat Hillary Clinton if the election were held today, 48-42. Huckabee beats Barack Obama, 54-35. Rasmussen reports," Huckabee is viewed favorably by 66 percent of Likely Voters in Arkansas, and unfavorably by 31 percent. "If the Huckaboom continues, we'll see just how influential the rank-and-file social conservatives are - and how weak the pundits and local critics are.
Lucas Roebuck is a former managing editor of the Northwest Arkansas Times and the Siloam Springs Herald-Leader.
By Lucas Roebuck
If you missed the news let me fill you in: Mike Huckabee is the new national front-runner in the race for the GOP nomination.
As of last Wednesday's Rasmussen Daily Presidential Tracking poll of likely GOP voters Huckabee leads Rudy Giuliani, 20 percent to 17 percent. Huckabee's meteoric rise from fifth place to first place, if sustained, will prove two important political theorems. First, that the social conservative voting bloc is the most powerful group of kingmakers in the GOP. Second, that the leading conservative voices in the media do not have much influence over the rank-and-file GOP voters. (Disclosure: I am supporting Huckabee. )
Social conservatives have long been looking for a candidate to call their own in this race. Rudy Giuliani, while respected by social conservatives, has always been a last choice because of his unabashed pro-choice and homosexual rights history. Mitt Romney's flip-flopping on the issue of abortion hurt his claim to be the social conservative standard-bearer. Romney's belief in the religion founded by Joseph Smith is another. John McCain tried to mend fences with social conservatives, but many have not forgotten the figurative finger he gave the group in 2000.
Social conservatives were hoping that the late entry of actor and former U. S. Sen. Fred Thompson could give them a candidate they could support. But when Thompson finally did get in the race he didn't show much fire in the belly. He also admitted that he did not support a constitutional ban on abortion, a foundation of the pro-life movement. Even the National Right to Life endorsement could not save Thompson, who has plummeted in the polls since entering the race. Thompson's failure to rally social conservatives to his cause led this bloc to coalesce around Huckabee, who has slowly been building support and national name identification. This support reached a critical mass a few weeks ago, leading to the "Huckaboom." If Huckabee goes all the way, the power of grass roots social conservatives in the GOP will be cemented.
Worthless Pundits
The second undeniable reality if Huckabee secures the GOP nomination is that conservative pundits and activist groups in the mainstream and alternative media have little influence over the nomination process. The list of "conservative "critics that has come out against Huckabee is long and deep. Not that Huckabee hasn't had support from many conservatives as well, but the "conservative "attacks on Huckabee over the past few weeks have been relentless. From the beginning, the Club for Growth has been gunning for Huckabee, even before his rise - even running attack ads against Huckabee in Iowa. The Club for Growth has been misrepresenting Huckabee's record by telling partial truths. In spite of the attacks, Huckabee rose from second-tier to first-tier status.
Right as Huckabee was really catching steam a month ago, John Fund of The Wall Street Journal published a damning piece on Huckabee (which, again, used partial truths to smear Huckabee ). After the Fund piece, Huckabee continued to rise. But the list of Huckabee attackers continued, reading like a Who's Who's List of Conservative Columnists: Robert Novak, George Will, Michelle Malkin, and Ann Coulter all wrote negative things about Huckabee in the past few weeks.
Some of their critiques were valid, while others were compilations of half-truths. Some complained that Huckabee was too open borders (Malkin); others complained that Huckabee was not open borders enough - a protectionist (Will). Although some media-perpetuated stereotypes (see the YouTube debates ) about social conservatives suggest that they are sheep following their leaders, Huckabee's surge - if he sustains this level of support - shows that social conservatives are much more prone to independent thinking. Huckabee's continued strength continues to undermine the collective influence of the conservative punditocracy.
Arkansas Critics
Now that the national media is digging into Huckabee's past, I have been amused to see how Huckabee's "enemies"in the state's extreme left and right groups have come together to criticize the governor. I laugh every time the Arkansas Times, a liberal alternative weekly in Little Rock with a circulation around 30, 000, is quoted as if it is the voice of Arkansas. The Arkansas Times, staffed with Democrats, has been peeing in Huckabee's proverbial pool for years. The Times is no independent voice. I also chuckle at the out-of-state conservative bloggers who are against Mike Huckabee quoting left-of-center Ernie Dumas' critiques of Huckabee, as if he's a card-carrying antitaxer. Dumas claims Huckabee is more liberal than Bill Clinton. Uh-huh. If you buy that, let's talk about some beachfront property for sale in Arizona.
The right-of-center critics, most of whom have never forgiven Huckabee for his alleged softness on illegal immigrants, have also been hammering Huckabee, providing fodder for the national media. Again, these critics seem unable to shape public opinion or represent it. Rasmussen polled Arkansas for their presidential choices, and guess what ? Huckabee would beat Hillary Clinton if the election were held today, 48-42. Huckabee beats Barack Obama, 54-35. Rasmussen reports," Huckabee is viewed favorably by 66 percent of Likely Voters in Arkansas, and unfavorably by 31 percent. "If the Huckaboom continues, we'll see just how influential the rank-and-file social conservatives are - and how weak the pundits and local critics are.
Lucas Roebuck is a former managing editor of the Northwest Arkansas Times and the Siloam Springs Herald-Leader.
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
Four Issues for the Candidates
We're just a month away from the first contest of the 2008 election, the Iowa Caucuses, where, according to a Rasmussen Poll released Wednesday, Mike Huckabee leads the GOP pack (28 percent to Mitt Romney's 25 percent ) and Hillary Clinton holds a slight lead over Barack Obama.
Unfortunately, several issues / ideas that could be critical to the future of our country are getting as much attention from the top tier candidates as the captain of the academic team got from the captain of the cheerleading squad (i. e. zilch ).
1. Nuclear Power Nuclear power is a winning issue. Pushing radioactive cookers solves so many of the problems facing America right now my isotopes are deteriorating just trying to figure out why a candidate would not want to get ahead on this issue. Nuclear power isn't just a Deus Ex Machina. It's the real deal.
First, nuclear power is the best choice for the environment. If we started implementing nuclear power in the ratios that France is doing right now, we could not only replace our coal-burning facilities, but we'd also have enough electricity to power the next generation of zero-emission electric cars. We could meet the Kyoto goals to curb greenhouse gases without even trying.
Nuclear power could really reduce our dependency on foreign energy sources, important to both our economy and our national security. What's the best thing we can do to shut down anti-American jihadism ? Let's stop feeding oil tyrants like Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Sick of the oil companies picking your pocket ? Nuclear power (plus electric cars ) will give them real competition.
Sure, some older voters are still a bit scared about our friend, the atom, but nuclear power technology is safer than ever before and has a proven track record. Young voters will eat nuclear power up like glowing gummy worms.
2. Social Security Solving the Social Security problem is largely ignored by candidates because the solution involves three unpopular possibilities: 1 ) Raising taxes; 2 ) Cutting benefits; and / or 3 ) Scrapping the entitlement all together. Unlike nuclear power, Social Security is a lose-lose proposition, but the longer we ignore the issue the worse it gets. Telling the country that we can't afford to guarantee perpetual incomes after retirement, especially because people are living longer, is going to take some real straight-talking leadership.
Some leaders are really good at telling people what the want to hear (* cough * Clinton ), but the legendary leaders are those who can tell the people the hard, straight news and help them to swallow it. I am not sure that any of the major candidates fall into this second category, which may be why no one wants to be the messenger. Still, we all know Social Security is going to implode. Who has a plan to lead us through this mess ?
3. Balanced Budget The American Credit Card is maxed out. While some presidential candidates have signed a pledge to not raise taxes (a good thing ), who is willing to sign a pledge to veto any unbalanced budget ? Unfortunately, balancing a budget means cutting things, like social programs, war spending and farm subsidies - each having its own voting bloc. As much as the average voter probably wants our nation to run a balanced budget, many of us would be unwilling to give up our entitlements and public services to reach that end.
The more we keep unbalanced books, the more we force our children to pay for today's meal ticket tomorrow. Where are the top-tier candidates speaking out on this issue ?
4. The Impotence of the United Nations Speaking of programs to cut, the time has come to pull the plug on American support of the United Nations. The organization has proved itself to be more effective at spewing anti-Semitic, anti-American rhetoric than at ensuring world security. Cataloging the list of U. N. failures would take volumes, and yet we continue to dump billions of dollars and even more political capital on an organization that is too easily abused by tyrants and gross violators of human rights.
(I am promoting isolationism. I would suggest a new organization replace the United Nations that represents only democratically elected governments. )
The formation of the United Nations, well-intended as it was, took the backing of a president. The undoing of the United Nations will take the same. Which top-tier candidate has any real proposal for U. N. reform, or replacing the organization with something that has a wee bit more moral credibility ?
Unfortunately, several issues / ideas that could be critical to the future of our country are getting as much attention from the top tier candidates as the captain of the academic team got from the captain of the cheerleading squad (i. e. zilch ).
1. Nuclear Power Nuclear power is a winning issue. Pushing radioactive cookers solves so many of the problems facing America right now my isotopes are deteriorating just trying to figure out why a candidate would not want to get ahead on this issue. Nuclear power isn't just a Deus Ex Machina. It's the real deal.
First, nuclear power is the best choice for the environment. If we started implementing nuclear power in the ratios that France is doing right now, we could not only replace our coal-burning facilities, but we'd also have enough electricity to power the next generation of zero-emission electric cars. We could meet the Kyoto goals to curb greenhouse gases without even trying.
Nuclear power could really reduce our dependency on foreign energy sources, important to both our economy and our national security. What's the best thing we can do to shut down anti-American jihadism ? Let's stop feeding oil tyrants like Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Sick of the oil companies picking your pocket ? Nuclear power (plus electric cars ) will give them real competition.
Sure, some older voters are still a bit scared about our friend, the atom, but nuclear power technology is safer than ever before and has a proven track record. Young voters will eat nuclear power up like glowing gummy worms.
2. Social Security Solving the Social Security problem is largely ignored by candidates because the solution involves three unpopular possibilities: 1 ) Raising taxes; 2 ) Cutting benefits; and / or 3 ) Scrapping the entitlement all together. Unlike nuclear power, Social Security is a lose-lose proposition, but the longer we ignore the issue the worse it gets. Telling the country that we can't afford to guarantee perpetual incomes after retirement, especially because people are living longer, is going to take some real straight-talking leadership.
Some leaders are really good at telling people what the want to hear (* cough * Clinton ), but the legendary leaders are those who can tell the people the hard, straight news and help them to swallow it. I am not sure that any of the major candidates fall into this second category, which may be why no one wants to be the messenger. Still, we all know Social Security is going to implode. Who has a plan to lead us through this mess ?
3. Balanced Budget The American Credit Card is maxed out. While some presidential candidates have signed a pledge to not raise taxes (a good thing ), who is willing to sign a pledge to veto any unbalanced budget ? Unfortunately, balancing a budget means cutting things, like social programs, war spending and farm subsidies - each having its own voting bloc. As much as the average voter probably wants our nation to run a balanced budget, many of us would be unwilling to give up our entitlements and public services to reach that end.
The more we keep unbalanced books, the more we force our children to pay for today's meal ticket tomorrow. Where are the top-tier candidates speaking out on this issue ?
4. The Impotence of the United Nations Speaking of programs to cut, the time has come to pull the plug on American support of the United Nations. The organization has proved itself to be more effective at spewing anti-Semitic, anti-American rhetoric than at ensuring world security. Cataloging the list of U. N. failures would take volumes, and yet we continue to dump billions of dollars and even more political capital on an organization that is too easily abused by tyrants and gross violators of human rights.
(I am promoting isolationism. I would suggest a new organization replace the United Nations that represents only democratically elected governments. )
The formation of the United Nations, well-intended as it was, took the backing of a president. The undoing of the United Nations will take the same. Which top-tier candidate has any real proposal for U. N. reform, or replacing the organization with something that has a wee bit more moral credibility ?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
