Question: What does $585,000 buy you? Answer: It bought Mitt Romney backers a smear job against Mike Huckabee orchestrated by Beltway Insiders. The Club for Growth has an affiliated 527 group, Club for Growth.net, running anti-Mike Huckabee ads in early primary states. - At least $585,000 in contributions from Mitt Romney financial backers. - Club for Growth has spent $750,000 against Governor Huckabee in Iowa, South Carolina and Michigan. Here are donors that have donated both to Club for Growth.net* and Mitt Romney: Name: John Childs**Contribution to Beltway Group $100,000 on 11/16/07 $100,000 on 12/31/07 Contribution to Mitt Romney $2,100 on 1/8/07 Name: Bob Perry Contribution to Beltway Group $200,000 on 12/12/07 Contribution to Mitt Romney $2,300 on 3/13/07 Name: Kristen Hertel Contribution to Beltway Group $25,000 on 12/21/07 $25,000 on 1/02/08 Contribution to Mitt Romney $1,000 on 2/6/07 Name: Muneer Satter Contribution to Beltway Group $25,000 on 12/21/07 $25,000 on 1/02/08 Contribution to Mitt Romney $2,300 on 2/6/07Name: Michael Valentine Contribution to Beltway Group $40,000 on 1/3/08 Contribution to Mitt Romney $2,300 on 4/4/07 Name: Travis Anderson Contribution to Beltway Group $25,000 on 12/19/07 Contribution to Mitt Romney$2,100 on 2/8/07 Name: Richard Gaby Contribution to Beltway Group$20,000 on 12/19/07 Contribution to Mitt Romney$1,000 on 2/12/07 * Only represents donors that contributed more than $20,000 to Club for Growth.net in 2007/2008. ** "Boston investor John Childs, who donated $2,100 to Romney in 2007, recently gave 100,000 to the Club for Growth." [Morain, Dan. "Huckabee foes open their wallets for attack ads," The Los Angeles Times. 1 January 2008.] *** All contributor information obtained from Federal Election Commission's electronic database at www.fec.gov. Paid for by Huckabee for President, Inc. www.mikehuckabee.com
read more | digg story
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Monday, January 7, 2008
President Mike Huckabee?
The other republican candidates just can't figure out that the reason Huckabee is the front-runner is because people can relate to him. He is the only one that is gearing his message to the middle class. I have no doubt that the Democrats will make the same mistake against Huckabee in the general election.
by Bill Kristol
Thank you, Senator Obama. You’ve defeated Senator Clinton in Iowa. It looks as if you’re about to beat her in New Hampshire. There will be no Clinton Restoration. A nation turns its grateful eyes to you.
But gratitude for sparing us a third Clinton term only goes so far. Who, inquiring minds want to know, is going to spare us a first Obama term? After all, for all his ability and charm, Barack Obama is still a liberal Democrat. Some of us would much prefer a non-liberal and non-Democratic administration. We don’t want to increase the scope of the nanny state, we don’t want to undo the good done by the appointments of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, and we really don’t want to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory in Iraq.
For me, therefore, the most interesting moment in Saturday night’s Republican debate at St. Anselm College was when the candidates were asked what arguments they would make if they found themselves running against Obama in the general election.
The best answer came, not surprisingly, from the best Republican campaigner so far — Mike Huckabee. He began by calmly mentioning his and Obama’s contrasting views on issues from guns to life to same-sex marriage. This served to remind Republicans that these contrasts have been central to G.O.P. success over the last quarter-century, and to suggest that Huckabee could credibly and comfortably make the socially conservative case in an electorally advantageous way.
Huckabee went on to pay tribute to Obama for his ability “to touch at the core of something Americans want” in seeming to move beyond partisanship. And, he added, Senator Obama is “a likable person who has excited people about wanting to vote who have not voted in the past.” Huckabee was of course aware that in praising Obama he was recommending himself.
I was watching the debate at the home of a savvy, moderately conservative New Hampshire Republican. It was at this moment that he turned to me and said: “You know, I’ve been a huge skeptic about Huckabee. I’m still not voting for him Tuesday. But I’ve got to say — I like him.
And I wonder — could he be our strongest nominee?”
He could be. After the last two elections, featuring the well-born George Bush and Al Gore and John Kerry, Americans — even Republicans! — are ready for a likable regular guy. Huckabee seems to be that. He came up from modest origins. He served as governor of Arkansas for more than a decade. He fought a successful battle against being overweight. These may not be utterly compelling qualifications for the presidency. I’m certainly not ready to sign up.
Still, as the conservative writer Michelle Malkin put it, “For the work-hard-to-get-ahead strivers who represent the heart and soul of the G.O.P., there are obvious, powerful points of identification.” And they speak to younger voters who are not yet committed to the G.O.P. In Iowa, Huckabee did something like what Obama did on the Democratic side, albeit on a smaller scale. He drew new voters to the caucuses. And he defeated Mitt Romney by almost two to one, and John McCain by better than four to one, among voters under 45.
Now it’s true that many conservatives have serious doubts about Huckabee’s positions, especially on foreign policy, and his record, particularly on taxes. The conservative establishment is strikingly hostile to Huckabee — for both good and bad reasons. But voters seem to be enjoying making up their own minds this year. And Huckabee is a talented politician.
His campaigning in New Hampshire has been impressive. At a Friday night event at New England College in Henniker, he played bass with a local rock band, Mama Kicks. One secular New Hampshire Republican’s reaction: “Gee, he’s not some kind of crazy Christian. He’s an ordinary American.”
In general, here in New Hampshire he’s emphasized social issues far less than in Iowa (though he doesn’t waffle when asked about them). Instead he’s stressed conservative economic themes, seamlessly (if somewhat inconsistently) weaving together a pitch for limited government with a message that government needs to do more to address the concerns of the struggling middle class. This latter point seems to be resonating, as headlines in local papers announce an increase in the national unemployment rate amid speculation about a coming recession.
Some Democrats are licking their chops at the prospect of a Huckabee nomination. They shouldn’t be. For one thing, Michael Bloomberg would be tempted to run in the event of an Obama-Huckabee race — and he would most likely take votes primarily from Obama. But whatever Bloomberg does, the fact is that the Republican establishment spent 2007 underestimating Mike Huckabee. If Huckabee does win the nomination, it would be amusing if Democrats made the same mistake in 2008.
by Bill Kristol
Thank you, Senator Obama. You’ve defeated Senator Clinton in Iowa. It looks as if you’re about to beat her in New Hampshire. There will be no Clinton Restoration. A nation turns its grateful eyes to you.
But gratitude for sparing us a third Clinton term only goes so far. Who, inquiring minds want to know, is going to spare us a first Obama term? After all, for all his ability and charm, Barack Obama is still a liberal Democrat. Some of us would much prefer a non-liberal and non-Democratic administration. We don’t want to increase the scope of the nanny state, we don’t want to undo the good done by the appointments of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, and we really don’t want to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory in Iraq.
For me, therefore, the most interesting moment in Saturday night’s Republican debate at St. Anselm College was when the candidates were asked what arguments they would make if they found themselves running against Obama in the general election.
The best answer came, not surprisingly, from the best Republican campaigner so far — Mike Huckabee. He began by calmly mentioning his and Obama’s contrasting views on issues from guns to life to same-sex marriage. This served to remind Republicans that these contrasts have been central to G.O.P. success over the last quarter-century, and to suggest that Huckabee could credibly and comfortably make the socially conservative case in an electorally advantageous way.
Huckabee went on to pay tribute to Obama for his ability “to touch at the core of something Americans want” in seeming to move beyond partisanship. And, he added, Senator Obama is “a likable person who has excited people about wanting to vote who have not voted in the past.” Huckabee was of course aware that in praising Obama he was recommending himself.
I was watching the debate at the home of a savvy, moderately conservative New Hampshire Republican. It was at this moment that he turned to me and said: “You know, I’ve been a huge skeptic about Huckabee. I’m still not voting for him Tuesday. But I’ve got to say — I like him.
And I wonder — could he be our strongest nominee?”
He could be. After the last two elections, featuring the well-born George Bush and Al Gore and John Kerry, Americans — even Republicans! — are ready for a likable regular guy. Huckabee seems to be that. He came up from modest origins. He served as governor of Arkansas for more than a decade. He fought a successful battle against being overweight. These may not be utterly compelling qualifications for the presidency. I’m certainly not ready to sign up.
Still, as the conservative writer Michelle Malkin put it, “For the work-hard-to-get-ahead strivers who represent the heart and soul of the G.O.P., there are obvious, powerful points of identification.” And they speak to younger voters who are not yet committed to the G.O.P. In Iowa, Huckabee did something like what Obama did on the Democratic side, albeit on a smaller scale. He drew new voters to the caucuses. And he defeated Mitt Romney by almost two to one, and John McCain by better than four to one, among voters under 45.
Now it’s true that many conservatives have serious doubts about Huckabee’s positions, especially on foreign policy, and his record, particularly on taxes. The conservative establishment is strikingly hostile to Huckabee — for both good and bad reasons. But voters seem to be enjoying making up their own minds this year. And Huckabee is a talented politician.
His campaigning in New Hampshire has been impressive. At a Friday night event at New England College in Henniker, he played bass with a local rock band, Mama Kicks. One secular New Hampshire Republican’s reaction: “Gee, he’s not some kind of crazy Christian. He’s an ordinary American.”
In general, here in New Hampshire he’s emphasized social issues far less than in Iowa (though he doesn’t waffle when asked about them). Instead he’s stressed conservative economic themes, seamlessly (if somewhat inconsistently) weaving together a pitch for limited government with a message that government needs to do more to address the concerns of the struggling middle class. This latter point seems to be resonating, as headlines in local papers announce an increase in the national unemployment rate amid speculation about a coming recession.
Some Democrats are licking their chops at the prospect of a Huckabee nomination. They shouldn’t be. For one thing, Michael Bloomberg would be tempted to run in the event of an Obama-Huckabee race — and he would most likely take votes primarily from Obama. But whatever Bloomberg does, the fact is that the Republican establishment spent 2007 underestimating Mike Huckabee. If Huckabee does win the nomination, it would be amusing if Democrats made the same mistake in 2008.
Friday, January 4, 2008
Inside Huckabee’s Victory
How the impoverished governor from nowhere beat the mighty Romney machine.
By Byron York
Des Moines, Iowa — On the night before the Iowa caucuses, I dropped by Mike Huckabee’s campaign headquarters on Sixth Avenue in downtown Des Moines. Upstairs, in the phone-bank room, the scene was part political operation and part day care center; supporters who volunteered to make calls for Huckabee had brought their children, who were playing games while their parents worked the phone lists. In a cluttered side room, I sat down with Chip Saltsman, Huckabee’s campaign manager, and Robert Wickers, his media adviser, while four year-old James Yoest, the son of another Huckabee adviser, Charmaine Yoest, slept on a blanket spread across the floor.
Something was up. Saltsman and Wickers gave off a certain sense of serenity; they seemed to know that their man was doing very well. I would have suspected that they had some secret research showing that Huckabee would win the next day, but I knew the campaign didn’t have the money for such luxuries. So I listened as Saltsman gave what was essentially a play-by-play analysis of the Huckabee victory to come.
The campaign’s strategy was shaped by two things, Saltsman said. First was Huckabee’s talent as a communicator, and second was the fact that the campaign was always nearly broke. Put those two together, and you had a campaign constantly searching for free media exposure. “We’ve been criticized sometimes for — after a big event, we went straight to Washington to do media, or we went straight to New York to do media,” Saltsman said. “That was because a lot of those shows wouldn’t have us on unless we did that.”
“We didn’t have any money,” Wickers added.
“Exactly,” Saltsman said. “But we knew that was a big part of the process for us.”
So Huckabee went from show to show, and he came up with other attention-getting moves like devoting his first commercial to the now-famous “Chuck Norris” ad. “Any other campaign, that ad never gets shown,” Saltsman told me, “because you have a conference room full of consultants saying you can’t do it.” At the moment Saltsman was saying that in Des Moines, Huckabee himself was in California, sitting down to talk on The Tonight Show — perhaps the ultimate in free media. A number of commentators thought that was a blunder; Saltsman checked the number of Iowa homes tuned into the show on any given evening and thought it was a pretty good idea.
That disconnect between the conventional wisdom and Huckabee’s strategy worked time and again in the campaign’s favor. The most notable occasion was last week’s news conference in which Huckabee announced that he had created a television ad attacking Mitt Romney but had decided not air it. The national press corps laughed derisively. But Saltsman and Wickers believed that Iowans viewed it differently. What the press saw as too-clever-by-half opportunism, the voters saw as Huckabee saying, “I’ve been hit by lots of negative ads. There’s a temptation to hit back. But you know, I’m just not going to do it. It wouldn’t be right.” Huckabee came out fine.
As they put together a bare-bones, unconventional campaign, foraging on the free-media environment, the Huckabee team kept a close eye on Romney’s organization. They studied publicly available polling, which showed Huckabee moving upward, but they also paid a lot of attention to what Wickers called the Romney campaign’s “body language.” Simply put, in the final days of the race, Team Romney wasn’t acting like a winner. “If you have what you’re promoting as the best ground operation and organization in the state, that means the campaign manager is going to have on his laptop an Excel spreadsheet that identifies every hard-core Romney supporter in every county,” Wickers explained in a conversation after the caucuses. “That says, ‘We’ve got this campaign won. We’re done.’“ But the vibe coming out of the Romney campaign was different. “When Governor Romney was talking about lowering expectations, when he started to say that they were going to come back and win Iowa in November, I knew right there, that’s not a candidate who has information and data that shows he’s going to win,” Wickers told me. And indeed, Romney didn’t.
On the day of the caucuses, I checked Romney’s schedule and noticed that he was set to appear at a Kum & Go — a popular convenience store — in West Des Moines. The convenience store backdrop seemed a bit Huckabee-esque, until I arrived to discover that the event was being held not at a Kum & Go, but at the corporate headquarters of Kum & Go, a company called Krause-Gentle, which also owns a variety of other businesses. The CEO of Krause-Gentle is a Romney fan and invited him to speak there.
Before the event — one in which Romney’s appearance was jarringly preceded by a music system playing Garth Brooks drinking songs — Eric Fehrnstrom, a spokesman who had traveled with Romney all around Iowa, explained his view of the Huckabee campaign. “We’re going up against a loose confederation of fair taxers, and homeschoolers, and Bible study members, and so this will be a test to see who can generate the most bodies on caucus day,” Fehrnstrom said.
“Not that there’s anything wrong with any of those groups?” I interrupted.
“Not that there’s anything wrong, but that’s just a fact,” Fehrnstrom continued. “That’s just where he has found his support. I have a theory about why Mike Huckabee holds public events in Iowa like getting a haircut or going jogging, or actually leaving Iowa and going to California to appear on the Jay Leno show. It’s because he doesn’t have the infrastructure to plan events for him. And when he does do events in Iowa, he goes to the Pizza Ranch, where you have a built-in crowd, so you don’t have to make calls to turn people out. We’re very proud of the organization we have built in Iowa.”
Fehrnstrom, like the rest of Romney’s team, was unfailingly professional. But his analysis pointed to a blind spot in the Romney campaign, a blind spot most likely shared by the candidate himself. For all his money, and all his energy, and all his organizational skills, Romney could not put to rest the doubts many Iowa Republicans felt about his genuineness, or lack of genuineness. As they paid more attention to politics in the days leading up to the caucuses, some of those voters came to believe that Huckabee had more of that indefinable something that they want in a candidate. In the end, the race wasn’t about infrastructure at all — something Romney never figured out but Huckabee knew all along.
By Byron York
Des Moines, Iowa — On the night before the Iowa caucuses, I dropped by Mike Huckabee’s campaign headquarters on Sixth Avenue in downtown Des Moines. Upstairs, in the phone-bank room, the scene was part political operation and part day care center; supporters who volunteered to make calls for Huckabee had brought their children, who were playing games while their parents worked the phone lists. In a cluttered side room, I sat down with Chip Saltsman, Huckabee’s campaign manager, and Robert Wickers, his media adviser, while four year-old James Yoest, the son of another Huckabee adviser, Charmaine Yoest, slept on a blanket spread across the floor.
Something was up. Saltsman and Wickers gave off a certain sense of serenity; they seemed to know that their man was doing very well. I would have suspected that they had some secret research showing that Huckabee would win the next day, but I knew the campaign didn’t have the money for such luxuries. So I listened as Saltsman gave what was essentially a play-by-play analysis of the Huckabee victory to come.
The campaign’s strategy was shaped by two things, Saltsman said. First was Huckabee’s talent as a communicator, and second was the fact that the campaign was always nearly broke. Put those two together, and you had a campaign constantly searching for free media exposure. “We’ve been criticized sometimes for — after a big event, we went straight to Washington to do media, or we went straight to New York to do media,” Saltsman said. “That was because a lot of those shows wouldn’t have us on unless we did that.”
“We didn’t have any money,” Wickers added.
“Exactly,” Saltsman said. “But we knew that was a big part of the process for us.”
So Huckabee went from show to show, and he came up with other attention-getting moves like devoting his first commercial to the now-famous “Chuck Norris” ad. “Any other campaign, that ad never gets shown,” Saltsman told me, “because you have a conference room full of consultants saying you can’t do it.” At the moment Saltsman was saying that in Des Moines, Huckabee himself was in California, sitting down to talk on The Tonight Show — perhaps the ultimate in free media. A number of commentators thought that was a blunder; Saltsman checked the number of Iowa homes tuned into the show on any given evening and thought it was a pretty good idea.
That disconnect between the conventional wisdom and Huckabee’s strategy worked time and again in the campaign’s favor. The most notable occasion was last week’s news conference in which Huckabee announced that he had created a television ad attacking Mitt Romney but had decided not air it. The national press corps laughed derisively. But Saltsman and Wickers believed that Iowans viewed it differently. What the press saw as too-clever-by-half opportunism, the voters saw as Huckabee saying, “I’ve been hit by lots of negative ads. There’s a temptation to hit back. But you know, I’m just not going to do it. It wouldn’t be right.” Huckabee came out fine.
As they put together a bare-bones, unconventional campaign, foraging on the free-media environment, the Huckabee team kept a close eye on Romney’s organization. They studied publicly available polling, which showed Huckabee moving upward, but they also paid a lot of attention to what Wickers called the Romney campaign’s “body language.” Simply put, in the final days of the race, Team Romney wasn’t acting like a winner. “If you have what you’re promoting as the best ground operation and organization in the state, that means the campaign manager is going to have on his laptop an Excel spreadsheet that identifies every hard-core Romney supporter in every county,” Wickers explained in a conversation after the caucuses. “That says, ‘We’ve got this campaign won. We’re done.’“ But the vibe coming out of the Romney campaign was different. “When Governor Romney was talking about lowering expectations, when he started to say that they were going to come back and win Iowa in November, I knew right there, that’s not a candidate who has information and data that shows he’s going to win,” Wickers told me. And indeed, Romney didn’t.
On the day of the caucuses, I checked Romney’s schedule and noticed that he was set to appear at a Kum & Go — a popular convenience store — in West Des Moines. The convenience store backdrop seemed a bit Huckabee-esque, until I arrived to discover that the event was being held not at a Kum & Go, but at the corporate headquarters of Kum & Go, a company called Krause-Gentle, which also owns a variety of other businesses. The CEO of Krause-Gentle is a Romney fan and invited him to speak there.
Before the event — one in which Romney’s appearance was jarringly preceded by a music system playing Garth Brooks drinking songs — Eric Fehrnstrom, a spokesman who had traveled with Romney all around Iowa, explained his view of the Huckabee campaign. “We’re going up against a loose confederation of fair taxers, and homeschoolers, and Bible study members, and so this will be a test to see who can generate the most bodies on caucus day,” Fehrnstrom said.
“Not that there’s anything wrong with any of those groups?” I interrupted.
“Not that there’s anything wrong, but that’s just a fact,” Fehrnstrom continued. “That’s just where he has found his support. I have a theory about why Mike Huckabee holds public events in Iowa like getting a haircut or going jogging, or actually leaving Iowa and going to California to appear on the Jay Leno show. It’s because he doesn’t have the infrastructure to plan events for him. And when he does do events in Iowa, he goes to the Pizza Ranch, where you have a built-in crowd, so you don’t have to make calls to turn people out. We’re very proud of the organization we have built in Iowa.”
Fehrnstrom, like the rest of Romney’s team, was unfailingly professional. But his analysis pointed to a blind spot in the Romney campaign, a blind spot most likely shared by the candidate himself. For all his money, and all his energy, and all his organizational skills, Romney could not put to rest the doubts many Iowa Republicans felt about his genuineness, or lack of genuineness. As they paid more attention to politics in the days leading up to the caucuses, some of those voters came to believe that Huckabee had more of that indefinable something that they want in a candidate. In the end, the race wasn’t about infrastructure at all — something Romney never figured out but Huckabee knew all along.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Latest Polls from Iowa
The latest polls listed on the RealClearPolitics website list the following numbers:
American Res. Group (12/31 - 01/02) Huckabee 29%, Romney 24% (600 Likely Voters)
Zogby Tracking (12/30 - 01/02) Huckabee 31%, Romney 25% (914 Likely Voters)
InsiderAdvantage (01/01 - 01/01) Huckabee 30%, Romney 24% (430 Likely Voters)
Strategic Vision (12/28 - 12/30) Huckabee 28, Romney 30% (600 Likely Voters)
Des Moines Register (12/27 - 12/30) Huckabee 32%, Romney 26% (800 Likely Voters)
CNN (12/26 - 12/30) Huckabee 28%, Romney 31% (373 Likely Voters)
The weighted average for these polls is Huckabee 29.99%, Romney 26.35%, with the aggregate sample size equalling 3,717 voters.
American Res. Group (12/31 - 01/02) Huckabee 29%, Romney 24% (600 Likely Voters)
Zogby Tracking (12/30 - 01/02) Huckabee 31%, Romney 25% (914 Likely Voters)
InsiderAdvantage (01/01 - 01/01) Huckabee 30%, Romney 24% (430 Likely Voters)
Strategic Vision (12/28 - 12/30) Huckabee 28, Romney 30% (600 Likely Voters)
Des Moines Register (12/27 - 12/30) Huckabee 32%, Romney 26% (800 Likely Voters)
CNN (12/26 - 12/30) Huckabee 28%, Romney 31% (373 Likely Voters)
The weighted average for these polls is Huckabee 29.99%, Romney 26.35%, with the aggregate sample size equalling 3,717 voters.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Rasmussen Poll: Daily National Poll has Huckabee in 1st Place
Huckabee 20%
Giuliani 17%
McCain 13%
Romney 13%
Thompson 10%
Giuliani 17%
McCain 13%
Romney 13%
Thompson 10%
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Rasmussen: Iowa Poll: Mike Huckabee 28%, Mitt Romney 25%
Rudy Giuliani gets just 12% while former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson is the only other candidate in double digits at 11%. Huckabee has taken the lead! The Romney camp is really going to be attacking Huckabee now. ASk Romney if all those millions he spent in Iowa are worth it now. Huckabee's number will continue to climb as he just released a new campaign ad for Iowa.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Rasmussen: Tied for 2nd Nationally
by Team Huckabee
Rasmussen Reports has a new national Presidential Tracking Poll that has Governor Huckabee moving up into a tie for 2nd place.
Rasmussen Reports has a new national Presidential Tracking Poll that has Governor Huckabee moving up into a tie for 2nd place.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Gaining On Clinton, Obama
Rasmussen Reports takes a look at the head to head matchups between Governor Huckabee and Senator Clinton and Senator Obama.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
