Huckabee is for real

[ScreamingEagle]

John McIntyre
Thu Nov 29

It is not about Iowa only any more. Mike Huckabee has a real shot to be the Republican nominee.

A month ago after the Values Voters conference I opined:

I don't know that Mike Huckabee will win the GOP Iowa Caucus, but right now he looks like a solid choice to finish second, and at 5-1 I like his odds to win Iowa outright.

The chart below shows Huckabee's impressive move up to 3rd in the latest RCP Average in Iowa. Coupled with his overwhelming win in the Values Voters (onsite) straw poll this weekend, the potential emergence of Mike Huckabee into the first tier is a significant development in the GOP race.

Well that potentiality has materialized. And at roughly 10-1 to win the Republican nomination (he is trading in 3rd place at 11.7 at Intrade) I like his odds to be the GOP nominee.

The GOP race is usually characterized as either a two-person contest (Giuliani vs. Romney) or a wide open field among the five viable candidates (Giuliani, Romney, Thompson, Huckabee and McCain). However, what we are fast approaching is a three-man race between Huckabee, Romney and Giuliani.

In general this is very bad news for Mitt Romney. A strongly viable Huckabee will steal voters Romney has to have to be able to beat Giuliani as the primary calendar moves into the post-New Hampshire contests. Ironically it may be Romney's money, campaign infrastructure, coupled with his strength in New Hampshire that keeps his campaign alive long enough to prevent the anti-Giuliani forces in the GOP from rallying around Huckabee. Back in July I speculated that this type of three way dynamic splitting the anti-Rudy vote was one of Giuliani's path's to the nomination.

Just like Giuliani was the key to McCain's demise, Thompson may be what sinks the Romney campaign. This would effectively leave a two-person race between the New Yorker and the Tennessean, with Romney perhaps siphoning just enough conservative votes that allows the pro-choice, thrice married Rudy Giuliani the pathway to the GOP nomination.

What we have developing is Huckabee stepping in and filling the void in the GOP field that was available to Thompson in the summer - a void that his inept campaign has been unable to fill. So perhaps instead of the Tennessean sinking the Romney campaign it could very well be the Arkansan.

For the Romney campaign the silver lining in Huckabee's move into the first tier -- and it is not an unimportant silver lining -- is that Huckabee has totally shaken up the expectations for Iowa on the GOP side. Because of this resetting of expectations in December, if Romney is able to hold off Huckabee in Iowa it will be a huge win for his campaign. A win that would allow the Romney campaign to get the kind of momentum they were looking for when they originally laid out their sling-shot strategy to the nomination. (Win Iowa, win New Hampshire, win Michigan, make it a two-person race against Giuliani, combine the early wins with Romney's personal wealth to overwhelm Rudy).

However, what has to make the Romney campaign very nervous is this chart in Iowa.

Intrade now has Huckabee at 55.1 and Romney at 38.0. Those markets are correctly pricing the race. Romney is now the underdog in Iowa.

An important signal to watch for over the next month will be whether Huckabee overtakes Romney in the national polls leading up to Iowa. If that were to happen concurrently with Huckabee continuing to head toward a win in Iowa that would be an important tell that Republican voters are moving toward ultimately a Huckabee vs. Giuliani showdown.

Giuliani remains the favorite, but at 10-1 odds that would be a showdown that Mike Huckabee might just be able to win.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20071129/cm_rcp/huckabee_is_for_real

 

[midcan5]

As wacky as I see Huckabee at least he is honest - I love his policy of arming everyone so when the black helicopters come all you conservatives will be ready.

 

[Meemer]

Oh, just wait a while.
Some will catch on to his gubernatorial history of strange economics.
He sure does know how to play the game. "Christian leader." Will they fall for that one one more time?

 

[jillian]

I'm just wondering if anyone else sees something wrong with the concept of an evangelical preacher being president.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

He's for real, all right--a real, bonafide, right-wing socialist.

http://www.taxhikemike.org/

 

[Stephanie]

He's for real, all right--a real, bonafide, right-wing socialist.

http://www.taxhikemike.org/

Wrong...he's a bonafide left wing socialist...

No Huckabee for me...the man is a fraud...

Please look at his record...Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter mixed with an R next to his name...

 

[Shogun]

i tellya.. the gravitational forces just PUUUUULLS some of you people away from middle ground, doesn't it?

 

[Larkinn]

Some of you need to figure out that someone who is mostly a right with conservative, with a few non right-wing conservative values thrown in, does NOT make someone either left wing or a socialist.

Both of those claims are absurd.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I'm just wondering if anyone else sees something wrong with the concept of an evangelical preacher being president.

Really? Exactly what's wrong with that "concept"?

I knew this objection from the so-called "secularist" lefties would rear its ugly head eventually...once they can the religious symbols, it's only a matter of time before they can religious people from "secular" government positions whether it be in office or the courts or government jobs or wherever else…they are goose-stepping (whether these "intellectuals" realize it or not) toward religious oppression as well as oppression of free speech.

 

[mattskramer]

Really? Exactly what's wrong with that "concept"?

I knew this objection from the so-called "secularist" lefties would rear its ugly head eventually...once they can the religious symbols, it's only a matter of time before they can religious people from "secular" government positions whether it be in office or the courts or government jobs or wherever else…they are goose-stepping (whether these "intellectuals" realize it or not) toward religious oppression as well as oppression of free speech.

Let the people decide. It is a presidential election, after all. Conservatives are allowed to vote too. If the general public wants a “devoutly religious” person as president, so be it. If the voting public does not want a “devoutly religious” person as president, so be it.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Let the people decide. It is a presidential election, after all. Conservatives are allowed to vote too. If the general public wants a “devoutly religious” person as president, so be it. If the voting public does not want a “devoutly religious” person as president, so be it.

Exactly. There is nothing in the Constitution that says a former preacher can't become President.

PS: however, the anti-American ACLU might read in something....

 

[mattskramer]

Exactly. There is nothing in the Constitution that says a former preacher can't become President.

Section 1 of Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution states that a President must be a natural born citizen of the united States, be at least 35 years old, and have lived in the U.S. for at least 14 years

In addition, the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that a President may not serve more than 2 terms of 4 years each, even if they have only served as President for 2 or more years of one of those terms.

Based on these specific criteria, with no other specified exclusion or limitation, even an ex-felon can be president.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Some of you need to figure out that someone who is mostly a right with conservative, with a few non right-wing conservative values thrown in, does NOT make someone either left wing or a socialist.

Both of those claims are absurd.

When I say that he is a right-wing socialist, I simply mean this: he does not seem to be very interested in smaller government at all, but at the same time he is not some long-haired save-the-whales hippie from San Francisco, he is a populist good-ol-boy blue jeans and cowboy boots southern preacher type of socialist...much like our current president. He may share the cultural outlook of conservatives, but at the end of the day, you've still got bigger government and higher taxes.

 

[William Joyce]

I'm just wondering if anyone else sees something wrong with the concept of an evangelical preacher being president.

How about an Orthodox Jew being Vice President?

How about an Orthodox Jew being the AG?

How about a Jew with Israeli citizenship being the director OUR COUNTRY's Homeland Security?

How about Jews occupying a disproportionate number of spots in the Congress?

How about Israeli citizens dictating American's war policy from a special office in the Pentagon?

I think I see your point!

 

[jillian]

How about an Orthodox Jew being Vice President?

How about an Orthodox Jew being the AG?

How about a Jew with Israeli citizenship being the director OUR COUNTRY's Homeland Security?

How about Jews occupying a disproportionate number of spots in the Congress?

How about Israeli citizens dictating American's war policy from a special office in the Pentagon?

I think I see your point!

Actually, that's a pretty sucky analogy. Orthodox? So what. Tell me the Grand Rebbe of the Libovitch is running for President, I'll say the same thing as I said about Huckabee.

In particular, Haw Haw, evangelicals think it's their G-d given duty to spread the "WORD" to us poor heathens. I'm not particularly interested in my president using his podium as a place to preach sunday school because he thinks it's his mandate.

Not that you'd understand that given your warped mentality. But that's cool.... although I am truly hoping I didn't go to law school with you. I'd hate to think I worked side by side with someone like you.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Not only is he a big tax and spender, he's also a mush-headed bleeding heart too:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZALxUx6SkWA[/ame]

 

[mattskramer]

How about an Orthodox Jew being Vice President?

How about an Orthodox Jew being the AG?

How about a Jew with Israeli citizenship being the director OUR COUNTRY's Homeland Security?

How about Jews occupying a disproportionate number of spots in the Congress?

How about Israeli citizens dictating American's war policy from a special office in the Pentagon?

I think I see your point!

They are allowed, per the constitution, to be president provided the people elect them. Personally, al other things being relatively equal, I think that I’d prefer an agnostic as president.

 

[Toro]

I could support Huckabee.

I like the guy, even if I don't always agree with him. I also don't think he'd BS you, like a few of the other candidates.

 

[onedomino]

Evangelicals are not known for their religious tolerance. Some (maybe all) Evangelicals believe, for example, that everyone that is not of their faith is going to hell and that includes Mother Theresa and every Jew, Catholic, and Buddhist that ever lived. To me, that kind of thinking is less like religion and more like a cult. Beyond Evangelicals, name another religious group that also excludes all other religions from the grace of God. Evangelicals believe the Bible literally. Fine. That is up to them. But no one for whom I will ever cast a vote for President will be in such a state of real-world denial that they can maintain that Biochemical Evolution on Earth does not exist and that the Earth is only 6000 years old. How can someone that is either so uneducated, or has that capacity for self-delusion, be trusted with the Presidency? I think Huckabee seems like a fine person. I like his personality. But his capacity for self-delusion is manifest and I will not vote for him for President.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Actually, that's a pretty sucky analogy. Orthodox? So what. Tell me the Grand Rebbe of the Libovitch is running for President, I'll say the same thing as I said about Huckabee.

In particular, Haw Haw, evangelicals think it's their G-d given duty to spread the "WORD" to us poor heathens. I'm not particularly interested in my president using his podium as a place to preach sunday school because he thinks it's his mandate.

Not that you'd understand that given your warped mentality. But that's cool.... although I am truly hoping I didn't go to law school with you. I'd hate to think I worked side by side with someone like you.

So because a candidate might refer to God or his faith, you think he should not run for President? Liberal "tolerance" is a joke. What you really want is the religion of secularism.

I think Romney got it right today.

Romney: No religious test needed
December 6, 2007

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said Thursday he should not be judged on his Mormon faith, and that religion would not sway his decisions in the White House.

"No authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions," Romney said during a highly-anticipated speech at the George Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas.

In a much-anticipated speech, Romney urged religious tolerance among Americans but said he would not distance himself from his faith.

"There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines," Romney said. "To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith, for if he becomes president, he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths."

He also defended expressions of faith in politics, citing examples stretching back to John Adams.

"The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square," Romney said.

Romney said he believes in the separation of church and state, but that in recent years some have take the concept "beyond its original meaning" and regarded religion as "merely a private affair with no place in public life."

"It's as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America — the religion of secularism. They are wrong."

Yet religion should not dictate government, he said.

"If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest," Romney said.

"When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God," Romney said, echoing the speech John F. Kennedy made in 1960 when he sought to become the nation's first Catholic president. The library is about 95 miles from Houston, where Kennedy delivered the speech on faith and politics.

Some potential supporters "would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it is more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts," he said. "That I will not do."

He added, "Some believe that such a confession of my faith will sink my candidacy. If they are right, so be it. But I think they underestimate the American people."

Romney warned repeatedly of the dangers of religious intolerance.

"The diversity of our cultural expression, and the vibrancy of our religious dialogue, has kept America in the forefront of civilized nations even as others regard religious freedom as something to be destroyed," Romney said. "In such a world, we can be deeply thankful that we live in a land where reason and religion are friends and allies in the cause of liberty, joined against the evils and dangers of the day."

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071206/NEWS07/71206024/0/NEWS06