0
   

A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

 
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Oct, 2007 01:22 pm
John McCain, meanwhile, deserves kudos for sticking to his guns on torture even in an environment as hostile to his message as the "Values Voters Summit" was: he received "a stony reception for his inclusion of war on terror detainees in his call to treat all life as sacred".

Meanwhile, if you're contemplating a President Fred Thompson, contemplate this:

Quote:
While [Fred Thompson] cites his voting record in the Senate as solidly pro-life, he says it wasn't until his late-in-life child with his second wife that he was really on-board with the pro-life movement: "[..] After seeing a sonagram of my child ... I will never feel exactly the same again. My heart now is fully engaged with my head. As president of the U.S. no legislation will pass my desk that funds or supports this procedure without my veto."

On appointing pro-life, socially conservative judges, he says if one nominee can't clear the Senate, "you ought to send another one just like him." And he'll keep sending them. "It's a fight we can have all day long, and we will win in the end if we're persistent."

On what he would do in his first 100 days in office: "I don't really know." But, he says, "I know what I would do the first hour. I would go in the Oval Office, close the door, and pray for the wisdom to know what was right, and the strength to do what is right."


And then there is this sad testimony on the state of the "heart" of the religious right:

Quote:
This "religion in politics" panel is painful. Dueling old white guys on whether unborn people or living people are the most important issue for evangelicals, and whether Christians need to worry about the planet.

Jim Wallis: Poverty should be the biggest concern for evangelicals.

Richard Land: [A]ll the evangelicals I know think abortion is the most important issue.

Wallis: 30,000 kids die each day from preventable disease. "That breaks the heart of God, it should break our hearts too."

Land: Well, [..] "if mothers would marry the fathers of their children, that would eliminate more poverty than anything we could do."

Wallis: It shouldn't be a choice -- both should matter to evangelicals. "We must not pit the unborn against the poorest children of the earth. They are both among the weak."

There was almost no show of support for Wallis' vision of a wider "pro-life" agenda that includes more than just abortion. He also brought up the environment and climate change, where his views were even less popular, eliciting several loud boos.

Wallis: "Climate change threatens human lives, and the environment is clearly on the mainstream of the evangelical agenda."

Land: "The bible says the earth is for human betterment."


(All quotes from the American Prospect's blog Tapped.)
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Oct, 2007 07:04 pm
Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council first announced the overall results of its straw poll. The top four issues for these "values voters" are, from top to bottom: life, marriage, tax cuts, permanent tax relief for families. And the top four candidates in descending order are:

Mitt Romney, 1595 votes or 27.62%
Mike Huckabee, 1565 votes or 27.15%
Ron Paul, 865 votes or 14.98%
Fred Thompson, 564 votes or 9.77%

Rudy Giuliani got 1.85%, and John McCain 1.40%.

But not so fast - that's the results including both the online poll of Family Research Council Action members, and the representatives actually gathered at the summit. Hence Ron Paul's strong showing - his and Romney's supporters both organised to flood the online poll.

If you look at only the votes cast by people at the actual summit, who FRC's Tony Perkins insists are likely to be the leaders in their respective churches or community groups back home, the results look very different:

Mike Huckabee, 488 votes or 51.26%
Mitt Romney, 99 votes or 10.40%
Fred Thompson, 77 votes or 8.09%
Tom Tancredo, 65 votes or 6.83%%
Rudy Giuliani, 60 votes or 6.30%
Duncan Hunter, 54 votes or 5.67%
John McCain, 30 votes or 3.15%
Ron Paul, 25 votes or 2.63%

(The Democratic candidates pooled a collective 10 votes).

----------------------

A new CBS News survey, conducted from Oct. 12-16, however, yielded some very different results.

The poll found that white evangelical voters are most concerned about health care and the Iraq war -- just like voters overall. Abortion and same-sex marriage were at the bottom of the list for both groups. That could be a sign that the chiefs of the religious right, such as those present at the summit, are considerably more rigid in their priorities than its indians.

The difference is echoed in the CBS poll results on presidential preference. When asked who, among the Republicans running, they would like to see nominated, white evangelical voters listed Fred Thompson on top, with 29% support. He was trailed closely by Rudy Giuliani at 26%, while John McCain came in third at 15% and Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee were effectively tied for fourth place, at 7% and 6%. These numbers did not vary significantly from the overall pool of Republican primary voters, with two exceptions: Thompson ran better by 8%, while Romney lagged behind.

So, a very different picture.

However, before Giuliani supporters take too much comfort in this contrast, the CBS poll also found that 17% of evangelicals said there was no way they would vote for Giuliani, while 22% said it was too early to judge; and only 29% said they would "definitely" vote for him.

----------------------

Still on a somewhat related note, Mel Martinez has resigned as head of the Republican National Committee. Kevin Drum remarks:

Quote:
The splintering of the GOP continues apace. Mel Martinez has resigned as head of the Republican National Committee because, according to the New York Times, "he was increasingly uncomfortable as the face of the party." Peter Wallsten of the LA Times explains a little less delicately:

    A statement by Martinez released by the RNC did not mention the immigration issue or the courtship of Latino voters....But Martinez's frustration was well known. He had warned that a continuation of the GOP's 2006 tactics ?- airing anti-illegal immigration television ads that many believed used ethnic stereotypes ?- could doom the party's hope of competing for the country's fastest-growing voter bloc. ....The top Republican candidates for president, former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, are promising to be tougher on illegal immigration.
The big immigration debate earlier this year has blown over, so why resign now? The answer is in the last paragraph: if you were one of the party's few Hispanic leaders, how would you feel watching the leading Republican presidential candidates practically tripping over each other week after week to declare undying fealty to the GOP's angry white guy nativists? It's yet another of the special interest checkboxes I mentioned yesterday [..]. Martinez had had enough, so he quit.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Oct, 2007 05:57 pm
More fodder for the "Lazy Fred" meme as Thompson calls it a night after a four-minute speech - and Giuliani is still lunatic, insisting that if Hillary were president, American health care would become like Cuban health care.

Quote:
For Thompson, It Was Florida in Four Minutes

New York Times
October 21, 2007

ORLANDO, Fla. ?- Rudolph W. Giuliani, the first to speak before more than 1,000 Republicans here Saturday night for their annual party convention, worked the crowd into a near frenzy as he lashed out at the specter of a President Hillary Clinton.

Senator John McCain, who spoke next, held the audience rapt as he described the struggle in Iraq, as well as his own experience with war and suffering, in detail and with evident emotion.

Mitt Romney, who focused on the importance of family, brought his wife, Ann, and son, Tagg, on stage: real live family members to show he is a real live family man.

When it came time for Fred D. Thompson, the crowd was primed, having listened to his rivals deliver speeches, lasting about 20 minutes each, that the candidates each obviously thought played to their strengths.

Mr. Thompson walked slowly onto the stage, kissed his wife, Jeri, on the cheek, made a joke or two, claimed to be a "consistent conservative" ?- and said good night. He spoke for four minutes.

"I was really kind of shocked," said Linda Hoffman, 47, who wore stickers for all the candidates on her blazer, reflecting her indecision. "We were all hoping he would say something we could get behind, but there was nothing."

The four speeches, and the reaction of the activists gathered here for the Florida Republican Party's biggest annual event, provided a distillation of the strengths of the leading candidates, as well as their weaknesses. While all voiced a similar outlook philosophically, they were a study in contrasts, both in substance and style.

In their speeches was an indication of the paths their campaigns are following as they continue to woo undecided primary voters.

The raucous and festive nature of the gathering, on the eve of another Republican debate (scheduled for Sunday night at 8 p.m.), also showed how Florida's decision to move up its primary to Jan. 29 has placed the state at the center of the political calculus of the Republican campaigns.

The Democrats have decided to boycott the state's early primary, a decision Republicans promise to exploit in the general election. Already, the impact of that decision can be felt. The Democratic Party holds its own annual convention next weekend and not a single presidential candidate will attend.

"The Republican candidates are crawling all over the state," said Jim Greer, the chairman of the Florida Republican Party. As the party tries to attract independent voters, he said he will raise the Democratic Party's decision not to compete here "every chance I get."

The four leading Republicans thought this weekend's gathering was important enough for their campaigns to spend $100,000 each simply for the privilege of speaking at Saturday night's rally.

Mr. Giuliani, coming here shortly after addressing skeptical Christian conservative leaders at a summit in Washington, was clearly energized by the friendly reception he got from the crowd here. In fact, Mr. Giuliani has spent more time than the other candidates in Florida, making this state a bellwether of his presidential bid. His campaign believes that as long as no other candidate sweeps the previous four early voting states -- Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Michigan -- and he has strong showings in most if not all of them, winning Florida will give him momentum to take a number of the larger states with many electoral votes that hold contests on Feb. 5.

His campaign recruited more than 100 volunteers to work the Republicans gathered here this weekend.

"In 2000 you saved us from Al Gore," Mr. Giuliani said at the rally. "We are going to need you in 2008 to save us from Hillary Clinton."

"Unlike the Democrats, I am not going to boycott Florida," he said.

Mr. Giuliani eschewed the podium, pacing back and forth the lengthy stage, gesticulating intensely as he continued the rip into Mrs. Clinton, saying that patients would have to visit a "Hillary bureaucrat" before picking a doctor and, if she were president, American health care would become like Cuban health care.

He was evidently so happy with and energized by his own performance that he literally leapt of the stage when he was done, swinging himself down the railing past the first few steps into the crowd.

Mr. McCain did not offer nearly as much red meat. Introduced by a video highlighting his experience as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, he also eschewed a script and the podium. But as he settled into his speech, often leaning comfortably on the side of the podium with one arm, he grew more emotional as he spoke about both the struggle to defeat terrorism and, specifically, the war in Iraq.

"They are implacable, they are cruel," he said of America's enemies. "They will cut off people's heads and they will record it."

Citing his lifetime of experience dealing with security issues, he catalogued the four years of "failed strategy" in Iraq, arguing that he was alone among his rivals in speaking out about the evident problems before the Bush administration changed strategy.

The crowd, so riled up only moments ago by Mr. Giuliani, whose supporters far outnumbered Mr. McCain's, fell almost completely silent listening to the former soldier talk of war.

Mr. Romney shifted the focus to family [..]. His wife Ann addressed the crowd as well.

"We have seen the heart of America," she said. "I am here to report to you that that heart is so good."

Mr. Thompson was introduced by a video, "The Hunt for Red November." His microphone was turned up loud, making his heavy breathing audible.

He recalled why he first ran for the Senate.

"I got to thinking about home and things I learned sitting around the kitchen table," he said. What he learned, he said, was "the importance of the basic American values, conservative values."

"Together," he finished, "we can do something good for America."
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 10:47 am
Walker, Texas Ranger hearts Huckabee.
http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/10/chuck_norris_isnt_endorsing_huckabee_hes_appointing_him.php
There will be killing.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 05:51 pm
From yesterday's debate (Romney):

Quote:
But the question is, who will be able to build the house that Ronald Reagan built -- who will be able to strengthen that house, because that's the house that's going to build the house that Clinton, Hillary, wants to build.


That's the question all right.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 08:30 pm
nimh wrote:
georgeob1 wrote:
unless a third party candidate emerges (such as Ross Perot, who got Clinton elected in 1992)

This is not true, far as I know, despite the number of times it's been repeated, particularly by those on the right for whom it's become sort of an excuse.

The polls at the time, I believe, showed that the Perot voters would have broken down to Clinton and Bush in equal parts had Perot not ran. Which would have had Clinton winning by the same margin as he did.


nimh wrote:
georgeob1 wrote:
My strong recollection and impression is that Ross Perot took a very substantial portion of the Republican electorate with him in the 1992 election. I'm not familiar with the polls you claim to remember, but do know that most of his political organization for the campaign consisted of disaffected Republicans.

There's not necessarily a contradiction.

Most of Perot's voters came from the Republican electorate, yes - people who had voted Reagan before, and Bush in '88. But that doesnt mean that they would have also gone back to the Republicans if Perot hadnt run.

Perot was as successful as he was because of just how disaffected many of these voters were. The polling showed, I believe, that the result was that if Perot hadnt stood in the end, half of his voters would have opted Clinton over Bush as well.


When we were off on this sidebar, I forgot to mention this bit of anecdotal/tangential/whatever-you-call-it indication: that most of the Perot voters of 1992 who returned to the two main parties in 1996 did not return to the Republicans, but voted for Bill Clinton after all instead.

I.e., 1996 compared with 1992:

Bill Clinton, 43,0% ... +6,2
Dole (/Bush), 37,4% ... +3,3
Ross Perot, 8,4% ... -10,5
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 08:31 pm
sozobe wrote:
That's the question all right.

Thats a very confusing question...
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 08:41 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
The prospect of defeat is making the Republican candidates assume more centrist positions and reducing the clout of the extreme elements in the party. The Evangelicals will huff and snort, but I am confident the prospect of either Hillary or Obama will sufficiently mobilize them.

For the Democrats the situation is necessarily the opposite. The prospect of victory will excite the appetites of their extreme elements, giving them a feeling of entitlement with respect to the party platform. This is already evident in the relatively wider spectrum of declared positions among the Democrat candidates, compared to the Republicans. The issue will become more divisive as the final nomination process completes.

I know I am on a bit of a copy/paste bender this long weekend (in Hungary it's still being a long weekend) - I'm catching up on bookmarks. Lots of little things from various sites and blogs that I always still wanted to post here, and never did.

This observation below (again from Kevin Drum, I know - like I said, I'm just catching up with past bookmarks) is in almost direct opposition to George's impression above - and I think closer to the mark at the moment:

Quote:
PANDERING...

[..] This is something that's always bugged me. Ever since the 70s, Democrats have had a reputation for being more a collection of special interests than a real party. Basically, if you wanted to win you had to check off all the right boxes: abortion groups, environmental groups, labor unions, trial lawyers, various ethnic minority groups, etc. etc. There was, needless to say, more than a little truth to this reputation.

For some reason, though, Republicans never shared this reputation, despite the fact that they had plenty of special interest checkboxes of their own: tax cutting groups, the NRA, pro-life groups, evangelicals, the chamber of commerce, etc. etc. I was never quite able to figure out why, but Republicans managed to make it look like all these groups were somehow related by a set of core conservative principles, while Democratic box checking somehow always looked like pure pandering.

But Matt is right: this year, for the first time, the interest group pandering is looking a lot more obvious on the Republican side and a lot less obvious on the Democratic side. Why? I suppose it's more the changing fortunes of the parties than any actual substantive change. With Dems looking like big winners, liberal interest groups are all willing to settle down and just work for victory. Divvying up the spoils can come later. On the GOP side, it's just the opposite: with the party doing so poorly, every group is suddenly way more worried about getting its own scrap of attention than in the past. This means that subtle, dog whistle appeals aren't enough. Conservative interest groups are insecure enough that they want full-on panders, so that's what the candidates are giving them.

There aren't any more conservative check boxes than there have ever been, but the pandering demands are so much greater that their existence is way more obvious than it has been in the past. It doesn't help that many of the leading candidates really aren't natural allies of all the conservative interest groups, which means that they have to pander even more obsequiously than usual in order to prove their bona fides (cf. Mitt Romney, above).
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Oct, 2007 12:43 pm
RedState has banned talk about Ron Paul.

http://www.redstate.com/blogs/leon_h_wolf/2007/oct/22/attention_ron_paul_supporters_life_is_really_not_fair
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Oct, 2007 02:17 pm
Brand X wrote:
RedState has banned talk about Ron Paul.

link

Dude Shocked

I mean, yes the Ron Paulies are mostly insane, but, damn. Feeling defensive are they?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Oct, 2007 02:53 pm
nimh wrote:
Brand X wrote:
RedState has banned talk about Ron Paul.

link

Dude Shocked

I mean, yes the Ron Paulies are mostly insane, but, damn. Feeling defensive are they?


Absolutely. It bothers them that Paul has raised so much money; and on one issue really, the Iraq war.

They don't want to acknowledge that a serious percentage of their base is against the war and won't vote for someone who will continue it.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Oct, 2007 12:08 pm
For those who attend to Fox, it has become fairly apparent over the last two or three weeks that Rudy is the boy of choice for this network. Here's a related bit...
Quote:
Fox News Demands McCain Stop Using Fox Footage ?- But Lets Rudy Use It
By Eric Kleefeld - October 26, 2007, 5:24PM
There an interesting wrinkle in the legal wrangling between John McCain and Fox News. Fox is not only telling the McCain camp to stop using footage from Sunday's debate in an ad ?- they're telling McCain to remove all Fox content from his Web site.

The funny thing about this, as we explain over at the Horse's Mouth, is that they don't seem to have any problems with other campaigns using Fox debate footage and other content on their sites. In fact, the site for Rudy Giuliani ?- a longtime friend of Fox head Roger Ailes ?- is positively festooned with Fox video.

The full story is right here at The Horse's Mouth.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/10/fox_news_tells.php
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Nov, 2007 05:28 pm
Quote:
The Bush Factor

New York Times
October 31, 2007

Mr. Bush is one of the most unpopular presidents since modern polling has been used to measure such things, an idea that was not lost on the Republican candidates participating in the Fox News debate in Florida in mid-October.

Mr. Bush's name was mentioned only twice by the candidates striving to succeed him, once by Representative Ron Paul, a party maverick, and once by Fred Thompson, the former senator from Tennessee. And Mr. Thompson was not speaking of Mr. Bush's accomplishments, but his own. "President Bush called me to help shepherd Chief Justice ?- now Chief Justice John Roberts's nomination through the Judiciary Committee," he said.

Ronald Reagan was mentioned 14 times. Other Republican presidents were mentioned, too, including Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt. But Mr. Bush was given scant attention. [..]

"For historical parallels," [the presidential scholar Richard Norton Smith] wrote in an e-mail message, "you might think about Humphrey and Johnson in 1968, or the disastrous embrace of Wilson by the Cox-Roosevelt ticket in 1920, the awkward distance Adlai Stevenson kept from Harry Truman in 1952, and the lengths to which Gerald Ford went not to mention Richard Nixon's name in 1976." [..]

All of whom lost..

Quote:
More recently, a Gallup poll found Americans' general views of the Republican Party to be far more negative than they are of the Democratic Party. In a Gallup poll in October, 59 percent of those polled said they viewed the Republican party unfavorably. Forty-three percent said they viewed the Democratic party unfavorably.

Tony Fabrizio, the Republican pollster who worked for Robert Dole in 1996 but is not working for any of the 2008 candidates, said that the current Republican candidates can avoid discussion of Mr. Bush's policies for only so long. He also said that much of Mr. Bush's fortunes are tied to public opinion about the war in Iraq.

"The Republican candidates are going to have to address it eventually," he said. "It becomes important for the candidates to try to show some difference with the president. They have a very fine line to walk. They can't stray too far in the primaries, because the president is popular within the Republican party and the support for the war is high within the party."

"But," Mr. Fabrizio said, "when there is a nominee, it will be different."
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Nov, 2007 06:07 pm
Jeb Bush might be popular in Florida, but his name wouldn't pass the bush test in the rest of the country if he decides to run.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Nov, 2007 07:16 pm
On Giuliani's political philosophy, or how he is Cheney squared..:

Quote:
"Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."

'Freedom Is About Authority': Excerpts From Giuliani Speech on Crime
(New York Times, March 20, 1994)

As American Prospect reader L Boom noted, "Did you ever think the above quote would ever be anything other than Orwellian satire instead of a seriously intended thought by a Republican front-runner for POTUS, Rudy Giuliani?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Nov, 2007 08:26 pm
They are power hungry, and will follow in the footsteps of Hitler, Mao, and Stalin.

I'm afraid the American voter is not too wise, and may elect him as president.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Nov, 2007 08:04 pm
Quote:
GOP candidates blow off another minority forum

The Carpetbagger Report
October 30th, 2007

Last month, PBS hosted a Republican presidential candidates' debate at historically black college in Baltimore ?- and all of the top four GOP candidates decided to skip it. This followed close on the heels of a Univision-hosted Republican debate in Miami on Latino issues ?- which was cancelled when all but one candidate declined invitations. The National Council of La Raza asked Republican candidates to address its annual conference in July, but none showed up. The National Association of Latino Elected & Appointed Officials extended similar invitations to the entire GOP field, but only Duncan Hunter agreed to attend.

Minority communities are beginning to think that maybe, just maybe, Republican presidential hopefuls aren't exactly attentive to their concerns.

Given all the attention this has received, the field would be crazy to skip the Congressional Black Caucus Institute's debate, right? Well, as Michael Roston explained, the incessant "scheduling difficulties" have reappeared.

    In recent weeks, Republican presidential candidates have found time in their busy schedules to speak or debate before the Republican Jewish Coalition, "Value Voters," conservative Floridians, even Wyoming Republicans, who hold virtually no sway in the primary race. They've also agreed to appear at the CNN/YouTube debate they at one point shunned. But it appears that some GOP frontrunners are once again letting an opportunity to appear before African-American voters lapse…. The Congressional Black Caucus Institute announced in September that it had scheduled a debate for November 4 on Fox News for Republican presidential candidates. But a spokeswoman for the group confirmed to the Huffington Post that it has now been postponed, with no new date set. […] Republican candidates have cited scheduling conflicts in resisting new proposed dates, [CBC Institute spokesperson Georgella Muirhead] said.
The Huffington Post contacted GOP campaigns, and Mitt Romney was the only top-tier Republican candidate who was even considering the CBC Institute's event.

I'm reminded of a good quote from a month ago that continues to ring true.

    "We sound like we don't want immigration; we sound like we don't want black people to vote for us," said former congressman Jack Kemp (N.Y.), who was the GOP vice presidential nominee in 1996. "What are we going to do ?- meet in a country club in the suburbs one day?"
As for the stated excuses, even Newt Gingrich isn't buying it: "It's just fundamentally wrong. Any of them who give you that scheduling-conflict answer are disingenuous. That's baloney." [..]
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Nov, 2007 08:56 am
Please keep it up, fellas. Hell, even Fred Barnes has a bead on this one and if Fred Barnes is smarter than these campaigns, then that's one heck of an indictment... http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/310sbgqy.asp
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Nov, 2007 04:52 pm
blatham wrote:
Please keep it up, fellas. Hell, even Fred Barnes has a bead on this one and if Fred Barnes is smarter than these campaigns, then that's one heck of an indictment... http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/310sbgqy.asp

You gotta love the slip of the tongue (pen) at the end there:

"Bush needs what political consultant Sig Rogich calls a "moment," an unplanned act that causes people to see someone in a different light. These are rare, but Bush experienced one after 9/11 when he climbed a pile of rubble at Ground Zero with a bullhorn."

Um Razz
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Nov, 2007 07:15 pm
Mike Huckabee may be as conservative as they come when it comes to Bible-thumping, but he's conspicuously not taken the Clintons-bashing line of campaigning - and worse, he's actually taken moderate positions when it comes to socio-economic policy!

So unsurprisingly, the business-interest hard right is going after Huckabee now that he's climbing in the polls.

The Club for Growth has been out in force to lambast Huckabee as a "liberal tax-and-spend governor" who "peppers his campaign speeches with class warfare rhetoric one expects to hear from John Edwards" and wants "to turn the GOP leftward".

Now it's collaged all its accusations into a neat attack video. It's a sequence of TV presenters etc relaying the CFG's accusations - with Huckabee's answer snipped away every time. Classy.

The Club for Growth on Mike Huckabee: A Montage
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

My Fellow Prisoners... - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Afred E. Smith Dinner - Discussion by cjhsa
mccain begs off - Discussion by dyslexia
If Biden And Obama Aren't Qualified - Discussion by Bi-Polar Bear
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain lies - Discussion by nimh
The Case Against John McCain - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
 
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 03/17/2026 at 10:44:34