Romney and Huckabee

And now, for some thoughtful, well-considered political discussion.

Liam was right all along about Romney:



Huckabee on how he'll beat McCain:

Huckabee Rising

According to a new Rasmussen poll of likely GOP Caucus Goers, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee has taken the lead in Iowa, with 28% of the vote, just ahead of Mitt Romney, who has 25%. (Rudy 12%, Thompson 11%, Ron Paul 5%, everyone else <5%.)

Hendrik Hertzberg's article on Huckabee in this week's issue of The New Yorker is one of the Most Read on the magazine's web site.

The New York Times featured three articles on Huckabee over the last few days, including yesterday's "Success Is Testing the Huckabee Campaign" and Michael Luo's article on Wednesday: "In Iowa, Mormon Issue Is Benefiting Huckabee.

"Mr. Huckabee’s rise in Iowa — some recent polls now put him in a dead heat with Mr. Romney, who had led surveys for months — has been fueled by evangelical Christians, who believe Mormonism runs counter to Christian orthodoxy."

This morning's Associated Press's article "Huckabee Hopes for New Hampshire Boost," starts off thus:

"Barely a blip on New Hampshire's political radar screen a month ago, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is generating buzz, curiosity and speculation that a decent showing here could secure his spot in the top tier of GOP presidential contenders."

In fact, Huckabee is suddenly all over the media, with everyone talking about his sudden rise in Iowa - he was polling around 2% in Iowa back in May. Longtime political analyst Mark Halperin, now at Time, said Huckabee did the best at this week's Republican debate, and other conservatives agreed. National Journal has even come up with the term "Huck-a-mania" to describe what's happening. Everybody, it seems, now hearts Huckabee.

Oh yeah, he's also got Chuck Norris campaigning for him. Chuck's in Huckabee's new ad, and he showed up at the debate the other night as well, drawing more attention to Huckabee. The Norris angle is interesting enough that the Los Angeles Times wrote about it yesterday: "Is Chuck Norris Huckabee's secret weapon?" [First line: "Chuck Norris doesn't endorse candidates, he kicks them into the stratosphere."] Author Tina Daunt says that after Chuck announced his endorsement,

"Huckabee became the presidential example of tough-guy cool. You thought Fred Thompson was going to be the law-and-order candidate? He was looking like a worn-out hound dog Wednesday night as Huckabee strode into the debate with the still buffed-up, 67-year-old Norris by his side."

I've been puzzled all along why Huckabee wasn't doing better, especially when you look at the other Republican candidates. For months there were media reports about Evangelical "leaders" like Dobson not knowing which Republican to support. These hypocrites wouldn't even consider Huckabee, even though he's a Baptist minister and solid evangelical, because he didn't have enough money. Look for stories in the next week or so about God suddenly telling them to endorse Huckabee.

What's interesting is to see how many Liberals actually respect Huckabee, even though they disagree with him on various issues. He's been called likable, thoughtful and well-spoken (though not "articulate"). This has been going on for months in the Liberal blogworld, and the trend has carried over into the mainstream media pieces on Huckabee. I recommend reading Hertzberg's article for what he has to say bout Huckabee - it's a good introduction to the man - and how he says it. His conclusion, for example:

To all appearances, Huckabee’s gentle rhetoric is a reflection of temperament, not a stylistic tactic. Arkansans caution that he is capable of churlishness. But his history suggests that he prefers consensus to confrontation, that he regards government as a tool for social betterment, and that he has little taste for war, cultural or otherwise. He seems to regard liberalism not as a moral evil, a mental disease, or a character flaw—merely as a political point of view he mostly disagrees with. That may not seem like much, but it makes a nice change.

The money issue is real - Huckabee hasn't been able to raise much at all. Despite going up against Romney's millions, however, he's now in the lead in Iowa or close enough in other polls to call it an even race. More importantly, he's getting serious media buzz at just the right time. What might he accomplish if he does start to raise real money?

A likable and conservative white male versus Hillary Clinton. Evangelicals energized by a Baptist minister running for President and Hillary being the opponent. A large group of Democrats and Independents discouraged by Hillary getting the nomination. (And I'm sorry - it's not just me. I talked to about a dozen people over Thanksgiving - New York area liberals from various backgrounds, many of whom didn't know each other. Not a single one liked Hillary. Her high "unfavorable" numbers don't come from the vast right-wing conspiracy alone - they often come from within her own party.) Could Huckabee actually be competitive against Hillary in the general election? In a Zogby Poll released this week, Huckabee defeats Clinton in a head-to-head matchup, 44% to 39%. Hillary actually loses to all five major Republican candidates, but she loses to Huckabee by the widest margin. [Obama beats all five Republicans, including Huckabee 46%-40%. Edwards beats four of the five, tying with McCain.]

I'm not sure Huckabee can win the Republican nomination. His lack of money will hurt him in the long run. He's going to need a win in Iowa, a good showing in New Hampshire, the fists of Chuck Norris, and the continued love of the media. But the Republican rank and file are still looking for someone they can get behind. That much is clear. Would it really be that surprising to see them turn to Huckabee?

Romney Leads All Candidates in Surprising New Poll

It's really hard to keep track of all the policy positions of the various Democratic and Republican presidential candidates, or to remember who's leading who in whichever up-to-the-minute and totally inconsequential poll. I hope this report helps clarify your choice for the next Godfather President of our country.

The Republican Debate

"Political experts say that the ten Republican candidates represented all races, creeds, and colors of rich white men." Conan O'Brien

The Republicans held their first presidential debate Thursday night at the Ronald Reagan Library in California. I was curious to know how it went and who conservatives thought had won, so I toured a few right-wing blogs and some other sites. The Democrats are feeling pretty cocky right now and think they might be able to take the White House in 2008, but given their history of running pathetic presidential campaigns (see Gore 2000, Kerry 2004, Dukakis 1988, etc.), voters may want to familiarize themselves with the Republican candidates in case Ron Paul winds up as our next president.

Unlike the Democrats' first debate in South Carolina last week, where no one really stood out or completely blew it, the Republican debate seems to have had some clear winners and losers. It will be interesting to see polling numbers for Republicans in the next couple of weeks. A few surprises may be in store.

The consensus winner of the night was Mitt Romney. He pretty much made a clean sweep of all the blog polls and analytical pieces I read. As one National Review pundit said, he "looked and sounded like a serious presidential candidate." Many others agreed.

The consesus loser on Thursday was "America's Mayor," Rudy Giuliani. If you believe the pundits, his campaign is about to tank over this debate debacle.

Red State: "Rudy Giuliani imploded. . . . Rudy totally and utterly self-destructed tonight. He had many chances to get in good with the core base of Republican voters and ignored every moment."

National Review pundit 1: "[Rudy] lost the debate, beginning with the first question when he seemed nervous and disorganized. At no time did he manage to convey the strength and confidence of America’s mayor."

National Review pundit 2: "Rudy seemed so half-hearted — so unwilling to make an effort, to demonstrate that he actually wants to become president — that I found myself wondering if he’s having second thoughts about running. I can’t tell you who won, but Rudy for darned sure lost."

New York Post: [Rudy] may not be the front-runner much longer. . . . [H]is debate performance was lousy. . . . Rudy did himself harm last night."

When the New York Post rips its favorite mayor, you know things were bad.

Though perhaps not all is lost for Rudy. A Survey USA poll of 317 debate watchers in California thought he did best, giving him 30% of their vote, more than twice as much as the next candidate, Romney, at 12%. The poll doesn't say, however, whether these debate watchers were Republican voters or not, or if they were even registered voters, or if they were even awake during the debate. But it wouldn't be unlikely to see him score well among a poll of the general public.

Ron Paul. Your next President of the United States.

The big surpise of the night: Ron Paul, Libertarian Congressman from the Galveston, Texas district. Paul came in second in all of the blog polls and even forced the pundits to acknowledge his existence, though most did so grudingly. He was supposed to be the crazy old fringe guy, kind of like Mike Gravel is for the Democrats, except that viewers actually responded well to Dr. Paul, who is an M.D. and - according to Wikipedia - has delivered over 4,000 babies. The Wall Street Journal said, "Paul distinguished himself both by presenting a strong antiwar, anti-interventionist platform and by appearing nervous at times." [He distinguished himself by "appearing nervous"?] Now what do the pundits do? Dr. Paul also did very well in the "YouTube Primary," with 11,000 views of his debate performance, 2nd only to Romney's 16,000 views.

Another winner: Mike Huckabee, former Governor of Arkansas. While Ron Paul will [sadly?] never be taken seriously as a candidate, Huckabee might have a chance to start swimming with the big boys if Rudy and McCain start to tumble. Yet another National Review pundit (they had a whole damn panel of them), said of Huckabee: "Smart, pleasant, knowledgeable, and straightforward." Mark Halperin at Time gave him a B+, behind only Romney. If nothing else, Huckabee might be getting a look as a possible VP. Rudy, for example, could use some real help in the south and among the social conservatives. Huckabee is a Baptist minister from Arkansas.

Another loser: John McCain. I thought it was interesting that McCain got okay reviews from the pundits, whereas most conservative blog polls had him 4th or 5th, with about 5% of the vote, and comments on some of the blogs were downright vicious towards him. He really is something of a media darling, it seems. If you're a supposed front-runner, and your potential base doesn't seem to like you and thinks you looked like a doddering old fool in the debate, I don't see how that plays out as an "okay" performance.

So, what are the Republicans going to do? Their main front-runner "implodes" in the debate. The second one gets a lukewarm-to-vicious response. The Mormon flip-flopper from the East Coast does really well. The Libertarian from Texas (via Pittsburgh - another Yankee carpetbagger!) scores big. The Baptist minister - Huckabee - might cause some waves. But I don't get the sense that the Repubicans actually have much of a candidate they can support right now. Which is why so many conservatives want Fred Thompson to run, I guess.

Here are some of the numbers and comments I collected:

Drudge - 85,000 votes
Romney 30%
Rudy 20%
Ron Paul 18%
McCain 6%

Little Green Footballs - 4,440 votes
Romney 34.6%
Rudy 23%
Ron Paul 20.7%
Tancredo 6.1%
McCain 5.2%

Hot Air (Michelle Malkin) - 2,000 votes
Romney 54%
Rudy 16%
Ron Paul 10%
Hunter 6%
McCain / Tancredo 4%

Red State -1,300 votes
Who LOST the debate?
Rudy 38%
McCain 17%
Romney 10%

"John McCain won. . . . Mitt Romney shined, he stood out, he did well. Rudy Giuliani imploded. Rudy totally and utterly self-destructed tonight. He had many chances to get in good with the core base of Republican voters and ignored every moment."

National Review Panel
1) Winners: Romney, McCain, and Huckabee
"It was hard to see why Giuliani is a frontrunner. . . . [He] was tired and off balance."

2) Mitt Romney had the best night. Calm, warm, thoughtful, and engaging, he looked and sounded like a serious presidential candidate. John McCain and Giuliani didn’t do themselves any favors.

3)And the winner is: Mitt the Good, the Perfect, the Gosh-Darned Smartest of Them All. He was substantive, concise, and humorous, if somewhat over-educated.
Runner-up goes to Mike Huckabee. Smart, pleasant, knowledgeable, and straightforward, he was the surprise in the Cracker Jack box.
[Rudy] lost the debate, beginning with the first question when he seemed nervous and disorganized. At no time did he manage to convey the strength and confidence of America’s mayor.

4)Among the big three, Giuliani turned in the most problematic performance.

5)Huckabee and Romney did well.

"Rudy seemed so half-hearted — so unwilling to make an effort, to demonstrate that he actually wants to become president — that I found myself wondering if he’s having second thoughts about running. I can’t tell you who won, but Rudy for darned sure lost."

Peggy Noonan
Mitt Romney won
Rudy Giuliani lost
John McCain is still in
And there's "the obscure but intellectually serious Ron Paul."

NY POST (Podhoretz)
Rudy "may not be the front-runner much longer. . . . [H]is debate performance was lousy. . . . Rudy did himself harm last night.

Huckabee "did himself the most good" and was "quietly sensational."

Other Views

MSNBC - 48-51,000 votes
Who stood out from the pack?
Ron Paul 31%
Romney 25%
Rudy 19%
McCain 9%
Huckabee 4%

Who showed the most leadership qualities?
Same order as above

Who was the most convincing candidate?
Same order as above

Who had the most rehearsed answers?
McCain 31%
Romney 25%
Rudy 21%
Ron Paul 5.4%
Brownback 4.6%

Who avoided the questions?
Rudy 34%
McCain 18%
Romney 14%
Brownback 6.4%
T. Thompson 6.3%

Who had the best one-liner?
Ron Paul 26%
Romney 17%
McCain 16%
Rudy 15%
Huckabee 8%

Survey USA Poll - 317 debate watchers in California
Rudy 30%
Not sure 16%
Romney 12%
McCain 11%
Gilmore 8%

Time Magazine (Mark Halperin)
Romney A-
Huckabee B+
Rudy B
Ron Paul B
McCain B-

Daily Kos - 9,200 voters
Zombie Reagan 40%
Ron Paul 24%
Romney 11%
Huckabee 4% (440)
Rudy 4% (377)
McCain 3%