Power
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/02/019710.php
One excerpt:
But voting on the basis of electability is often a fool's errand. Right now, Romney looks like a long-shot in November. He should be an attractive candidate -- smart, knowledgeable, good looking, extremely articulate -- but he's run into voter resistance even among conservatives because of his flip-flops, possibly his religion, and a general failure to connect. If he overcomes these problems and defeats McCain the rest of the way, then he'll have done enough to establish his potential electability to my satisfaction. If he doesn't, the issue will be moot.
Meanwhile, Republicans should not take too much comfort from McCain's performance in polls against Clinton and Obama this far from November. The McCain I saw in the California debate last week didn't look particularly electable. With the economy emerging as the overwhelmingly central issue in the campaign, with McCain's nasty streak increasingly on display, and with his reputation for straight-talk diminishing before our eyes, I'm not prepared to base a vote for the Senator on electability.
The decision thus comes down to policy and effectiveness. I give Romney the edge on both counts.
![[Leadership+Index0001.jpg]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgSjXiXmkvCuJEfUWgivEk03uS6CO2U7SGcSK8omu_kG5ITLAngZgsn_y9ctmokHc5aMKqNY-rYGt4lTcpKYBlvJiHu2PudSIF979nzyaPyKiuxWOYqErXRhW1uoE2LTsFU46t9DA/s1600/Leadership+Index0001.jpg)
From Havs
Did you guys catch the Townhall blog about this, by Novak? http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/RobertDNovak/2008/02/02/bush_against_romney This is something we need to push far and wide. Bush says he isn't happy with Romney because he's too tough on the border. One of the commentors at Michelle Malkin's blog said that Romney should say this in response:
This would be huge if we could get this out. For people who hate the illegal immigration plan that Bush, McCain, and Kennedy tried to shove down our throats this summer (which was a full 70% of the population of the US) this is as good as it gets. Bush doesn't like him because he was against granting amnesty to millions? Hallelujah, I want him!
Havs
"I found out today that President Bush may not support my candidacy, and the reason specifically is because I don't share his liberal views on immigration amnesty. He wants to make it easy on illegal immigrants to stay in the this country, as does Senator McCain who proved it with his amnesty bill in the senate, and I'm a strict reconstructionist on the issue of this country's sovereignty and right to keep its borders secure."
This would be huge if we could get this out. For people who hate the illegal immigration plan that Bush, McCain, and Kennedy tried to shove down our throats this summer (which was a full 70% of the population of the US) this is as good as it gets. Bush doesn't like him because he was against granting amnesty to millions? Hallelujah, I want him!
Havs
Don't let them tell you Main was uncontested!
JOHN MCCAIN 2008 MAINE LEADERSHIP TEAM
Honorary Chair
Former Governor John R. McKernan
Co-Chairs
United Senator Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine)
United States Senator Susan M. Collins (R-Maine)
Vice Chair
State Representative Josh Tardy (R-Newport)
Legislative Team
Representative James Annis (R-Dover-Foxcroft)
Representative Rich Cebra (R-Naples)
Representative Kathy Chase (R-Wells)
Representative Dean Cray (R-Palmyra)
Representative Phil Curtis (R-Madison)
Representative Harold Ian Emery (R-Cutler)
Representative Stacey Fitts (R-Pittsfield)
Representative Ken Fletcher (R-Winslow)
Representative Jeff Gifford (R-Lincoln)
Representative John McDonough (R-Scarborough)
Representative Everett McLeod (R-Lee)
Representative H. Sawin Millett (R-Waterford)
Representative Gary Moore (R-Standish)
Representative Kerri Prescott (R-Topsham)
Representative John Robinson (R-Raymond)
Representative David Richardson (R-Carmel)
Representative Wes Richardson (R-Warren)
Representative David Savage (R-Falmouth)
Representative Thomas Saviello (U-Wilton)
Representative Joseph Tibbetts (R-Columbia)
Representative Windol Weaver (R-York)
http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/news/PressReleases/25da61b1-7b70-4732-901a-642c966e1077.htm
Honorary Chair
Former Governor John R. McKernan
Co-Chairs
United Senator Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine)
United States Senator Susan M. Collins (R-Maine)
Vice Chair
State Representative Josh Tardy (R-Newport)
Legislative Team
Representative James Annis (R-Dover-Foxcroft)
Representative Rich Cebra (R-Naples)
Representative Kathy Chase (R-Wells)
Representative Dean Cray (R-Palmyra)
Representative Phil Curtis (R-Madison)
Representative Harold Ian Emery (R-Cutler)
Representative Stacey Fitts (R-Pittsfield)
Representative Ken Fletcher (R-Winslow)
Representative Jeff Gifford (R-Lincoln)
Representative John McDonough (R-Scarborough)
Representative Everett McLeod (R-Lee)
Representative H. Sawin Millett (R-Waterford)
Representative Gary Moore (R-Standish)
Representative Kerri Prescott (R-Topsham)
Representative John Robinson (R-Raymond)
Representative David Richardson (R-Carmel)
Representative Wes Richardson (R-Warren)
Representative David Savage (R-Falmouth)
Representative Thomas Saviello (U-Wilton)
Representative Joseph Tibbetts (R-Columbia)
Representative Windol Weaver (R-York)
http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/news/PressReleases/25da61b1-7b70-4732-901a-642c966e1077.htm
Too Much Bunker Mentality
Forgive me - I don't step up in this group very often. For the Article 6 blog to be maximally effective, it requires a certain aloofness.
But as I am reading through the blogs this morning, I am sensing too much resignation, too much sense that the rest of the nation just does not get it when it comes to Mitt, too much going through the motions. In the emails there is too much talk of commitment and not enough talk of winning - fighting for the cause.
Friends, this is not over, Mitt Romney is not a loser and neither are his supporters. Mitt Romney is THE inheritor of the Reagan legacy, and many of you are too young to really remember Ronald Reagan, but one thing overwhelmingly marked him - confidence and optimism. Ronald Reagan simply knew that the American people would resonate to his message, and they did. He even knew that when Gerry Ford beat him.
The Romney candidacy remains the leader and it is not playing catch-up. The Romney candidacy carries the torch for greatest political coalition this nation has ever seen.. That my friends is a winner and as the supporters of that banner we should act and think like winners.
I hope you are not in this because of "commitments" - I hope you are in this because it is what is best, and if anything marks the United States it is her ability to somehow muddle into the best.
Fight hard - play fair - act like the winners you are.
Mitt On Demand
Well Mitt's got his work cut out for him going forward. And we are committed to help out in anyway we can. To that end, we've just released our new book "Mitt On Demand" which is a compilation of selected speeches, quotes and sayings by Mitt Romney. The 143 page softbound book lays out in a condensed format Mitt's policy positions, etc. We really want to see a surge of grass roots support for Mitt before Super Tuesday and think this book could be a good way to generate some needed excitement that the race is not over yet! We would be pleased if you would feature the book and this link (www.MittOnDemand.com) on your Mittannica site and encourage your lists to buy the book or e-book and/or share it with any undecided's in your circles (or better yet) any McCain supporter.
Boyd & Holly
Trust
I've been trying to get down a series of posts that address the most common attacks on Mitt (flip-flopper, chameleon, can't be trusted, etc.). These charges have not only been the biggest drag on Mitt's campaign, they seem to have become the a priori assumption whenever anyone talks about Mitt. "Yeah, he's a flip-flopper, but he's still..." This DRIVES ME INSANE.
So, pardon my not holding a candle to the other excellent writers who blog for Romney, but I've tried to make a few posts that people can easily point at when these charges are made. It may be good if someone with a little more expertise and better familiarity with primary sources could do something similar. I know Romney's campaign makes it a rule to ignore these charges because you don't want to let others define you, but I sense we're past that. They've defined him, and there needs to be a more aggressive response. What do you think?
Here's my post from today:
Have a look at the earlier posts in this series: 1, 2, 3, 4.
This post is about lies, damn lies, and statistics. It's about rhetoric, spin, and semantics. It's about the differences between saying something untrue, conveying something untrue, and plain old lying. It's about intentions, accusations, and hypocrisy.
The game of politics centers around "campaigning." This is just how it is. It's how it's always been. Some take issue with the process of touting your pluses and minimizing your minuses, but it's within the expected rules of the game. However, occasionally someone says something untrue. This can be anything from a genuine mistake to a boldfaced lie, but I suspect that it's usually less diabolical than people tend to play it.
Let me give you a list of some of the issues where Romney has gotten a lot of bad press. Most recently there was a tiff with an AP reporter in which Romney is said to have lied about having lobbyists in his campaign. There is the time Romney said he saw his father march with Martin Luther King Jr. There is the time Romney bragged about the NRA endorsing him (and don't forget his self-characterization as a "lifelong hunter"!). All of these have something in common: Romney was right to bring up his record, a record that supports his candidacy and his positions, but lost the chance to receive his due credit on the issues as the chattering focused more and more on a literal dissection of what he said rather than the substance of why he was saying it.
I could go down a laundry list of the times Romney's been blasted for misspeaking (often being labeled a liar rather than merely having made a mistake), but bickering about the actual words he used and their literal versus figurative definitions, the proper versus common use of words like endorse, and the like, will never arrive at the truth.
The truth is much simpler.
No matter how many lobbyists rub shoulders with Romney, his campaign is simply not dependent on them for cash or expertise in the way the other campaigns are (although both are accepted). Romney's family has long supported the civil rights movement. Romney had demonstrable approval from the NRA (whether officially or not) during his Massachusetts campaign and supports the importance of protecting the second amendment.
Is he guilty of exaggeration? Is he guilty of misstatements? Is he guilty of carelessness? Perhaps yes. But is he guilty of lying? Of outright deception? Of claiming to hold one position when he effectively holds another? No, despite that the media would much rather malign a candidate for his errors than honestly acknowledge that his record and positions have consistently supported the message he was trying to deliver.
This is not spin. This is not apologetics. This is just an assessment of the actual positions Romney holds, and his fallibility as a candidate who makes honest mistakes. The mistakes are honest because they have never changed his message one hundred and eighty degrees.
There is one more layer to this communication thing that demands mention. Romney has been criticized over the last few days by McCain for supposedly supporting a timetable of withdrawal from Iraq. McCain has also attacked him for supposedly supporting amnesty before he opposed it, as well as a big Michigan "bailout". Romney's positions on these issues differ from McCain's not just in substance but in style. Romney's message is always sophisticated and nuanced, as our Commander in Chief's understanding must be. McCain's message plays to the media with dogmatic oversimplification. It fits him well, because that's how he thinks. So, when Romney has had the courage to make careful distinctions, he has sometimes been attacked for "reversals" or for spinning things. Again, Romney's message has consistently been for responsible action by the U.S. in Iraq and in regard to illegal immigration, and no out-of-context testimonial by McCain can change that. The economic stimulus in Michigan is not a "bailout", but rather shows McCain's inability to understand the concept of research investment. Romney hardly needs a testimonial to his investment understanding.
At the end of the character assassination and name calling, Romney's key rebuttal to Huckabee's charges of dishonesty in a recent debate ring true: "facts are stubborn things." The truth is that in every case Romney has been accused of lying, the message he was intending to convey was based on the bedrock of record and fact.
It's the economy...
Today, Governor Mitt Romney addressed members of the media about Senator John McCain's (R-AZ) McCain-Lieberman bill and the economic burdens this bill would put on Florida families. Below are Governor Romney's remarks as delivered:
http://www.mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/McCain-Lieberman_1.28
"On a very different topic, we're at a gas station. And the reason for that is that I want to underscore the fact that Senator McCain's McCain-Lieberman would be a very expensive bill for the people of Florida. By our calculation, a family of four would have to spend about an extra $1,000 a year if McCain-Lieberman became law. And again that's because gasoline would rise in price by approximately .50 cents a gallon and natural gas would rise about 20 percent. The burden on Florida homeowners would obviously be excessive.
"And what's particularly troubling about the bill is that the effect on the global environment would be negligible, and that's because the bill does not require other nations to participate in order for the regulation to be promulgated. And the effect of that would be that high emitting industries would simply move from a country like ours that had these limits to a country like China that did not. And the net effect would be that emissions had just moved from one country to another and also jobs had moved from one country to another. And what is left behind in our country would be the burden of paying for the entire cost of this symbolic act.
"There's no question that symbols have value. But a symbol that costs a family of four $1,000 in Florida is a symbol far too rich and is not something which makes common sense.
"I would note that Senator McCain is noted for three major pieces of legislation. I think all of them were badly flawed. And if somebody wants to know where he would lead the country you simply need to look at the three pieces of legislation with his name at the top. McCain-Feingold has not reduced the impact of money in politics, it has made it worse. McCain-Kennedy is viewed by virtually all as an amnesty bill. And McCain-Lieberman would cost the families of America as much as $1,000 a piece. All three are bills which evidence a lack of understanding of our economy, the very lack of understanding which Senator McCain has admitted on numerous occasions."
http://www.mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/McCain-Lieberman_1.28
"On a very different topic, we're at a gas station. And the reason for that is that I want to underscore the fact that Senator McCain's McCain-Lieberman would be a very expensive bill for the people of Florida. By our calculation, a family of four would have to spend about an extra $1,000 a year if McCain-Lieberman became law. And again that's because gasoline would rise in price by approximately .50 cents a gallon and natural gas would rise about 20 percent. The burden on Florida homeowners would obviously be excessive.
"And what's particularly troubling about the bill is that the effect on the global environment would be negligible, and that's because the bill does not require other nations to participate in order for the regulation to be promulgated. And the effect of that would be that high emitting industries would simply move from a country like ours that had these limits to a country like China that did not. And the net effect would be that emissions had just moved from one country to another and also jobs had moved from one country to another. And what is left behind in our country would be the burden of paying for the entire cost of this symbolic act.
"There's no question that symbols have value. But a symbol that costs a family of four $1,000 in Florida is a symbol far too rich and is not something which makes common sense.
"I would note that Senator McCain is noted for three major pieces of legislation. I think all of them were badly flawed. And if somebody wants to know where he would lead the country you simply need to look at the three pieces of legislation with his name at the top. McCain-Feingold has not reduced the impact of money in politics, it has made it worse. McCain-Kennedy is viewed by virtually all as an amnesty bill. And McCain-Lieberman would cost the families of America as much as $1,000 a piece. All three are bills which evidence a lack of understanding of our economy, the very lack of understanding which Senator McCain has admitted on numerous occasions."
From Sean
I disagree with Senator McCain's dishonest characterization of Governor Romney's previous comments regarding Iraq and future plans. It is too easy, and transparently cynical, to twist and distort someone's words or record.
I should note that Senator McCain himself has not always been wholly committed to keeping American troops in the field under combat conditions. Although under differing circumstances, note his clear, public record comments below on Haiti and Somalia:
1994 — "The right course of action is to make preparations as quickly as possible to bring our people home. It does not mean as soon as order is restored to Haiti, it doesn't mean as soon as Democracy is flourishing in Haiti, it doesn't mean as soon as we've established a viable nation in Haiti, as soon as possible means as soon as we can get out of Haiti without losing any American lives."
1993 — "Date certain, Mr. President, are not the criteria here. What's the criteria and what should be the criteria is our immediate, orderly withdrawal from Somalia. And if we don't do that, and other Americans die, other Americans are wounded, other Americans are captured, because we stayed too long, longer than necessary, then I would say that the responsibilities for that lie with the Congress of the United States who did not exercise their authority under the Constitution of the United States and mandate that they be brought home as quickly and safely as possible."
"Mr. President, can anyone seriously argue that another 6 months of United States forces in harm's way means the difference between peace and prosperity in Somalia and war and starvation there? Is that very dim prospect worth one more American life? No, it is not." -John McCain Senate Floor, 10/14/93
"There is no reason for the United States of America to remain in Somalia. The American people want them home, I believe the majority of Congress wants them home, and to set an artificial date of March 31 or even February 1, in my view, is not acceptable. The criteria should be to bring them home as rapidly and safely as possible, an evolution which I think could be completed in a matter of weeks.
Our continued military presence in Somalia allows another situation to arise which could then lead to the wounding, killing or capture of American fighting men and women. We should do all in our power to avoid that.
I listened carefully to the President's remarks at a news conference that he held earlier today. I heard nothing in his discussion of the issue that would persuade me that further U.S. military involvement in the area is necessary. In fact, his remarks have persuaded me more profoundly that we should leave and leave soon.
Dates certain, Mr. President, are not the criteria here. What is the criteria and what should be the criteria is our immediate, orderly withdrawal from Somalia. And if we do not do that and other Americans die, other Americans are wounded, other Americans are captured because we stay too long--longer than necessary--then I would say that the responsibilities for that lie with the Congress of the United States who did not exercise their authority under the Constitution of the United States and mandate that they be brought home quickly and safely as possible. . . .
I know that this debate is going to go on this afternoon and I have a lot more to say, but the argument that somehow the United States would suffer a loss to our prestige and our viability, as far as the No. 1 superpower in the world, I think is baloney. The fact is, we won the cold war. The fact is, we won the Persian Gulf conflict. And the fact is that the United States is still the only major world superpower.
I can tell you what will erode our prestige. I can tell you what will hurt our viability as the world's superpower, and that is if we enmesh ourselves in a drawn-out situation which entails the loss of American lives, more debacles like the one we saw with the failed mission to capture Aideed's lieutenants, using American forces, and that then will be what hurts our prestige.
We suffered a terrible tragedy in Beirut, Mr. President; 240 young marines lost their lives, but we got out. Now is the time for us to get out of Somalia as rapidly and as promptly and as safely as possible.
I, along with many others, will have an amendment that says exactly that. It does not give any date certain. It does not say anything about any other missions that the United States may need or feels it needs to carry out. It will say that we should get out as rapidly and orderly as possible."
-John McCain Senate Floor, 10/19/93
I will only suggest that perhaps Senator McCain needs to be careful about how he portrays others, as his own words could be subject to distortion also.
May we now focus on the great issues that lie before us?
I should note that Senator McCain himself has not always been wholly committed to keeping American troops in the field under combat conditions. Although under differing circumstances, note his clear, public record comments below on Haiti and Somalia:
1994 — "The right course of action is to make preparations as quickly as possible to bring our people home. It does not mean as soon as order is restored to Haiti, it doesn't mean as soon as Democracy is flourishing in Haiti, it doesn't mean as soon as we've established a viable nation in Haiti, as soon as possible means as soon as we can get out of Haiti without losing any American lives."
1993 — "Date certain, Mr. President, are not the criteria here. What's the criteria and what should be the criteria is our immediate, orderly withdrawal from Somalia. And if we don't do that, and other Americans die, other Americans are wounded, other Americans are captured, because we stayed too long, longer than necessary, then I would say that the responsibilities for that lie with the Congress of the United States who did not exercise their authority under the Constitution of the United States and mandate that they be brought home as quickly and safely as possible."
"Mr. President, can anyone seriously argue that another 6 months of United States forces in harm's way means the difference between peace and prosperity in Somalia and war and starvation there? Is that very dim prospect worth one more American life? No, it is not." -John McCain Senate Floor, 10/14/93
"There is no reason for the United States of America to remain in Somalia. The American people want them home, I believe the majority of Congress wants them home, and to set an artificial date of March 31 or even February 1, in my view, is not acceptable. The criteria should be to bring them home as rapidly and safely as possible, an evolution which I think could be completed in a matter of weeks.
Our continued military presence in Somalia allows another situation to arise which could then lead to the wounding, killing or capture of American fighting men and women. We should do all in our power to avoid that.
I listened carefully to the President's remarks at a news conference that he held earlier today. I heard nothing in his discussion of the issue that would persuade me that further U.S. military involvement in the area is necessary. In fact, his remarks have persuaded me more profoundly that we should leave and leave soon.
Dates certain, Mr. President, are not the criteria here. What is the criteria and what should be the criteria is our immediate, orderly withdrawal from Somalia. And if we do not do that and other Americans die, other Americans are wounded, other Americans are captured because we stay too long--longer than necessary--then I would say that the responsibilities for that lie with the Congress of the United States who did not exercise their authority under the Constitution of the United States and mandate that they be brought home quickly and safely as possible. . . .
I know that this debate is going to go on this afternoon and I have a lot more to say, but the argument that somehow the United States would suffer a loss to our prestige and our viability, as far as the No. 1 superpower in the world, I think is baloney. The fact is, we won the cold war. The fact is, we won the Persian Gulf conflict. And the fact is that the United States is still the only major world superpower.
I can tell you what will erode our prestige. I can tell you what will hurt our viability as the world's superpower, and that is if we enmesh ourselves in a drawn-out situation which entails the loss of American lives, more debacles like the one we saw with the failed mission to capture Aideed's lieutenants, using American forces, and that then will be what hurts our prestige.
We suffered a terrible tragedy in Beirut, Mr. President; 240 young marines lost their lives, but we got out. Now is the time for us to get out of Somalia as rapidly and as promptly and as safely as possible.
I, along with many others, will have an amendment that says exactly that. It does not give any date certain. It does not say anything about any other missions that the United States may need or feels it needs to carry out. It will say that we should get out as rapidly and orderly as possible."
-John McCain Senate Floor, 10/19/93
I will only suggest that perhaps Senator McCain needs to be careful about how he portrays others, as his own words could be subject to distortion also.
May we now focus on the great issues that lie before us?
"He destroyed it"
Article published Jan 24, 2008
Huckabee alienates GOP in Arkansas
By Stephen Dinan - LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — Jake Files was a newly elected representative when all two dozen Arkansas House Republicans met for their first caucus in 1999. They had doubled their numbers in elections two months earlier, and were ready to join Republican Gov. Mike Huckabee in pushing for conservative government.
That was when Brenda Turner, the governor's chief of staff, entered.
"Just walked in, shut the door and said, 'There's two kinds of people in the world: those who are for Mike Huckabee and those who are against Mike Huckabee. I'll do everything I can to help the first group. I'll do everything I can to hurt the second,' " said Mr. Files, who left the legislature after two terms.
And that's the way it was.
"Not only would he not help you, he would go out of his way to do things in opposition to you," Mr. Files said.
For the 10 years he was governor of Arkansas, Mr. Huckabee was at war with much of his party.
Now that Mr. Huckabee is seeking the presidential nomination, many Arkansas Republicans warn that he could wage a bruising battle with the national party, too.
"One can hardly argue that the Republican Party has thrived," said former Rep. Jim Hendren, who was House minority leader and ran for state party chairman in a bitter 2001 race won by a Huckabee surrogate. "We thrived as we were an opposition party and standing on principles as the Republican Party. But unfortunately, when we got some power, particularly at the state level, we began to fight among ourselves."
The former Southern Baptist pastor-turned-politician took control of the governor's mansion in 1996 with expectations that he would lead the kind of Republican ascension in other states of the Deep South. But he left office last year by turning over the governorship to a Democrat and with Republicans bitterly divided over his legacy for his party.
"He destroyed it," said Randy Minton, a former state representative whom Mr. Huckabee worked to help get elected but who later clashed repeatedly with the governor. "We had one U.S. senator, we had two congressmen, at the tops we had 37 out of 135 legislators in the House and Senate. Now I think there's 32 in the legislature, we have no U.S. senators and we have one congressman."
In both on-the-record and private conversations with Republicans in Arkansas, the picture that emerges is a governor who succeeded at advancing his causes and was willing to fight anyone who didn't agree.
That matters because the next Republican presidential nominee will be tasked with trying to rebuild a congressional majority and stoke a Republican Party after eight volatile years under President Bush.
Like Mr. Bush, Mr. Huckabee achieved some early successes. By the beginning of 1999, when he was sworn in for his first full term, his party had gained nearly a quarter of the state's House, added state Senate seats and held the lieutenant governorship, one of the two U.S. Senate seats and half of the four congressional seats.
But also like Mr. Bush, who battled congressional Republicans on immigration reform and prescription drug coverage, Mr. Huckabee found himself fighting members of his own party.
'Shi'ites,' 'socialists'
Almost immediately after taking office from Gov. Jim Guy Tucker, a Democrat who resigned after federal fraud and corruption convictions, Mr. Huckabee campaigned for his first tax increase — one-eighth cent on the sales tax to dedicate to conservation projects. He followed up with both budget cuts and increases, but the net effect was nearly $500 million in new taxes and an accompanying rise in spending.
What followed were clashes over the growth of government and, as the issue heated up nationally, over immigration policy. Republicans and conservative Democrats wanted a crackdown on illegal aliens, but Mr. Huckabee resisted.
The war of words was just as harsh. In 1998, when he faced a primary challenger who said Mr. Huckabee lacked certain conservative principles, the governor replied that his opponents weren't really Republicans, but rather libertarians or independents.
By the end of his tenure, Mr. Huckabee was calling his Republican opponents the "Shi'ites" and they called him a "Christian socialist."
Arkansas Republicans said Mr. Huckabee was building an organization for himself, not a farm team for the party. He left many appointments of former Govs. Bill Clinton and Jim Guy Tucker in office, including some department heads who stayed through Mr. Huckabee's tenure.
They said no Republicans hold any of the statewide constitutional offices, and the state party chairman told the Associated Press last week that he doesn't expect to field a candidate this year to run against Sen. Mark Pryor, a Democrat.
"In the 10 years where the governor was the title head of the party, we actually took steps backwards," Mr. Files said, noting that Republicans were advancing in other Southern states. "The overall morale of the party did not take any of those same stages it did in the other states. It started plateauing and took a dive."
On the campaign trail
The campaign finance records for Conservative Leadership for Arkansas PAC, Mr. Huckabee's political action committee, also seem to bear out the charge that he was building his own organization.
Records kept with the secretary of state in Little Rock show that CLAPAC spent only a third of its money on candidates between 2001 and 2006, with the rest going to consulting, accounting and, in later years, travel and fundraising for Mr. Huckabee.
Mr. Huckabee gave contributions as well during those years to at least three Democrats. Given that $5,000 of CLAPAC's money came in a 2003 donation from the state Republican Party, that means some Republican money was used indirectly to aid the party's own opponents.
"Go out and ask those ladies at bake sales or out raising money if they thought that money would end up in the hands of Democratic candidates," Mr. Hendren said. "That's what drove us up a wall."
One Democrat who received CLAPAC money was Barbara Horn. Mr. Huckabee supported her even though a Republican planned to run for the same seat in 2000. The Associated Press reported that Mr. Huckabee's support for the Democrat chased the Republican from the race, delivering an open seat to the Democratic Party.
State Republicans repeatedly called that race demoralizing.
Mr. Huckabee's campaign denied charges from a host of Republicans that he aided Democrats over Republicans in other races.
"Governor Huckabee never gave money to a Democrat who had a Republican opponent," Mr. Harris said. "He did give to some conservative Democrats money in the primaries when there were no Republicans running in the general election."
Records for CLAPAC's activity in 2000 are missing from the secretary of state's office. The accounting firm Mr. Huckabee used said it couldn't provide records without the client's approval, and Mr. Huckabee's campaign didn't respond to requests to produce them.
In 2005, Mr. Huckabee registered another political action committee in Virginia, which has less stringent limits on campaign activity.
The stated goal of that PAC, Hope for America, was to aid state and local candidates nationwide. But records show it hasn't donated to a single candidate but instead has paid for Mr. Huckabee's consultants, travel and fundraising.
Huckabee alienates GOP in Arkansas
January 24, 2008
By Stephen Dinan - LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — Jake Files was a newly elected representative when all two dozen Arkansas House Republicans met for their first caucus in 1999. They had doubled their numbers in elections two months earlier, and were ready to join Republican Gov. Mike Huckabee in pushing for conservative government.
That was when Brenda Turner, the governor's chief of staff, entered.
"Just walked in, shut the door and said, 'There's two kinds of people in the world: those who are for Mike Huckabee and those who are against Mike Huckabee. I'll do everything I can to help the first group. I'll do everything I can to hurt the second,' " said Mr. Files, who left the legislature after two terms.
And that's the way it was.
"Not only would he not help you, he would go out of his way to do things in opposition to you," Mr. Files said.
For the 10 years he was governor of Arkansas, Mr. Huckabee was at war with much of his party.
Now that Mr. Huckabee is seeking the presidential nomination, many Arkansas Republicans warn that he could wage a bruising battle with the national party, too.
"One can hardly argue that the Republican Party has thrived," said former Rep. Jim Hendren, who was House minority leader and ran for state party chairman in a bitter 2001 race won by a Huckabee surrogate. "We thrived as we were an opposition party and standing on principles as the Republican Party. But unfortunately, when we got some power, particularly at the state level, we began to fight among ourselves."
The former Southern Baptist pastor-turned-politician took control of the governor's mansion in 1996 with expectations that he would lead the kind of Republican ascension in other states of the Deep South. But he left office last year by turning over the governorship to a Democrat and with Republicans bitterly divided over his legacy for his party.
"He destroyed it," said Randy Minton, a former state representative whom Mr. Huckabee worked to help get elected but who later clashed repeatedly with the governor. "We had one U.S. senator, we had two congressmen, at the tops we had 37 out of 135 legislators in the House and Senate. Now I think there's 32 in the legislature, we have no U.S. senators and we have one congressman."
In both on-the-record and private conversations with Republicans in Arkansas, the picture that emerges is a governor who succeeded at advancing his causes and was willing to fight anyone who didn't agree.
That matters because the next Republican presidential nominee will be tasked with trying to rebuild a congressional majority and stoke a Republican Party after eight volatile years under President Bush.
Like Mr. Bush, Mr. Huckabee achieved some early successes. By the beginning of 1999, when he was sworn in for his first full term, his party had gained nearly a quarter of the state's House, added state Senate seats and held the lieutenant governorship, one of the two U.S. Senate seats and half of the four congressional seats.
But also like Mr. Bush, who battled congressional Republicans on immigration reform and prescription drug coverage, Mr. Huckabee found himself fighting members of his own party.
'Shi'ites,' 'socialists'
Almost immediately after taking office from Gov. Jim Guy Tucker, a Democrat who resigned after federal fraud and corruption convictions, Mr. Huckabee campaigned for his first tax increase — one-eighth cent on the sales tax to dedicate to conservation projects. He followed up with both budget cuts and increases, but the net effect was nearly $500 million in new taxes and an accompanying rise in spending.
What followed were clashes over the growth of government and, as the issue heated up nationally, over immigration policy. Republicans and conservative Democrats wanted a crackdown on illegal aliens, but Mr. Huckabee resisted.
The war of words was just as harsh. In 1998, when he faced a primary challenger who said Mr. Huckabee lacked certain conservative principles, the governor replied that his opponents weren't really Republicans, but rather libertarians or independents.
By the end of his tenure, Mr. Huckabee was calling his Republican opponents the "Shi'ites" and they called him a "Christian socialist."
Arkansas Republicans said Mr. Huckabee was building an organization for himself, not a farm team for the party. He left many appointments of former Govs. Bill Clinton and Jim Guy Tucker in office, including some department heads who stayed through Mr. Huckabee's tenure.
They said no Republicans hold any of the statewide constitutional offices, and the state party chairman told the Associated Press last week that he doesn't expect to field a candidate this year to run against Sen. Mark Pryor, a Democrat.
"In the 10 years where the governor was the title head of the party, we actually took steps backwards," Mr. Files said, noting that Republicans were advancing in other Southern states. "The overall morale of the party did not take any of those same stages it did in the other states. It started plateauing and took a dive."
On the campaign trail
The campaign finance records for Conservative Leadership for Arkansas PAC, Mr. Huckabee's political action committee, also seem to bear out the charge that he was building his own organization.
Records kept with the secretary of state in Little Rock show that CLAPAC spent only a third of its money on candidates between 2001 and 2006, with the rest going to consulting, accounting and, in later years, travel and fundraising for Mr. Huckabee.
Mr. Huckabee gave contributions as well during those years to at least three Democrats. Given that $5,000 of CLAPAC's money came in a 2003 donation from the state Republican Party, that means some Republican money was used indirectly to aid the party's own opponents.
"Go out and ask those ladies at bake sales or out raising money if they thought that money would end up in the hands of Democratic candidates," Mr. Hendren said. "That's what drove us up a wall."
One Democrat who received CLAPAC money was Barbara Horn. Mr. Huckabee supported her even though a Republican planned to run for the same seat in 2000. The Associated Press reported that Mr. Huckabee's support for the Democrat chased the Republican from the race, delivering an open seat to the Democratic Party.
State Republicans repeatedly called that race demoralizing.
Mr. Huckabee's campaign denied charges from a host of Republicans that he aided Democrats over Republicans in other races.
"Governor Huckabee never gave money to a Democrat who had a Republican opponent," Mr. Harris said. "He did give to some conservative Democrats money in the primaries when there were no Republicans running in the general election."
Records for CLAPAC's activity in 2000 are missing from the secretary of state's office. The accounting firm Mr. Huckabee used said it couldn't provide records without the client's approval, and Mr. Huckabee's campaign didn't respond to requests to produce them.
In 2005, Mr. Huckabee registered another political action committee in Virginia, which has less stringent limits on campaign activity.
The stated goal of that PAC, Hope for America, was to aid state and local candidates nationwide. But records show it hasn't donated to a single candidate but instead has paid for Mr. Huckabee's consultants, travel and fundraising.
volatility
Today, Governor Romney addressed members of the media about the volatility in stock markets today, and the need for an immediate stimulus in the economy. Below are excerpts of Governor Romney's remarks:
http://www.mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/FL_Press_Conference_1.22
"I think people recognize now more than ever, that it makes a difference having a President who has actually had a job in the private sector. And not just had a job there, but has worked for 25 years in the private sector, and then in the Olympics and the voluntary sector, and then in government. I believe that experience is critical right now.
"We're all watching with great interest the developments of the stock market. The stock market means a great deal to people living on fixed incomes that may have savings that are being affected by what's happening there. They want to see greater stability. But of course, more significant even than the stock market turbulence is the concern in the overall market, and the fear that we may head toward a recession. It's important that we take very aggressive action to turn the market away from a recession, to turn our nation away from a recession. That's why I've proposed a very bold economic stimulus plan. I know that's why the Federal Reserve has taken very unusual action with regards to their rate cut today.
"There's a very decent concern about the implications of a recession and for that reason, my plan, as you know, calls for a three-part strategy to address a potential slowdown, or the slowdown itself, and that is it relates to help in housing to keep people in homes, help with individual incomes so people are able buy more and keep our economy going, and help with businesses so they purchase more capital equipment and therefore are putting in place the orders that will create more jobs."
…
"I do believe that Congress needs to act immediately. My understanding is that the President is meeting with Congressional leaders today. I hope Congress is able to move very aggressively, very quickly. I like the proposals I made. If there are others that have similar economic features, fine, but let's take action and do our best to tip the market and tip the economy rather, in the right direction."
…
"I think actually that what we're seeing in the stock market today is only one peek at what's been happening for some time in the overall economy, and that, is we have some intractable problems that Washington has been not been willing to solve. And everything from reining in overspending and entitlements, as well as other government spending, to leveling the playing field in international trade, to getting us independent of our dependence on foreign oil, these challenges continue to grow and grow, and Washington has failed to take action. And what you're seeing with the stock market reaction, here and around the world, is a recognition of these long-term features and an underscoring the need to take a different direction."
For more information on Governor Romney's economic stimulus package, please see:
http://mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/Romney_Agenda_1.19
http://www.mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/FL_Press_Conference_1.22
"I think people recognize now more than ever, that it makes a difference having a President who has actually had a job in the private sector. And not just had a job there, but has worked for 25 years in the private sector, and then in the Olympics and the voluntary sector, and then in government. I believe that experience is critical right now.
"We're all watching with great interest the developments of the stock market. The stock market means a great deal to people living on fixed incomes that may have savings that are being affected by what's happening there. They want to see greater stability. But of course, more significant even than the stock market turbulence is the concern in the overall market, and the fear that we may head toward a recession. It's important that we take very aggressive action to turn the market away from a recession, to turn our nation away from a recession. That's why I've proposed a very bold economic stimulus plan. I know that's why the Federal Reserve has taken very unusual action with regards to their rate cut today.
"There's a very decent concern about the implications of a recession and for that reason, my plan, as you know, calls for a three-part strategy to address a potential slowdown, or the slowdown itself, and that is it relates to help in housing to keep people in homes, help with individual incomes so people are able buy more and keep our economy going, and help with businesses so they purchase more capital equipment and therefore are putting in place the orders that will create more jobs."
…
"I do believe that Congress needs to act immediately. My understanding is that the President is meeting with Congressional leaders today. I hope Congress is able to move very aggressively, very quickly. I like the proposals I made. If there are others that have similar economic features, fine, but let's take action and do our best to tip the market and tip the economy rather, in the right direction."
…
"I think actually that what we're seeing in the stock market today is only one peek at what's been happening for some time in the overall economy, and that, is we have some intractable problems that Washington has been not been willing to solve. And everything from reining in overspending and entitlements, as well as other government spending, to leveling the playing field in international trade, to getting us independent of our dependence on foreign oil, these challenges continue to grow and grow, and Washington has failed to take action. And what you're seeing with the stock market reaction, here and around the world, is a recognition of these long-term features and an underscoring the need to take a different direction."
For more information on Governor Romney's economic stimulus package, please see:
http://mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/Romney_Agenda_1.19
Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA
Today, U.S. Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) announced that he is endorsing Governor Mitt Romney and his campaign for President of the United States. Congressman Rohrabacher joins a strong Romney for President California team that includes Congressmen Howard "Buck" McKeon, John Campbell and Wally Herger.
http://www.mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/Endorsement_Rohrabacher
Making today's announcement, Congressman Dana Rohrabacher issued the following statement: "Our country is facing great challenges. Among the most ominous is illegal immigration, which has been permitted to spin out of control for the last decade and a half. The safety of our country and the prosperity of our people are at great risk because of the magnitude of this problem. Mitt Romney is the candidate I trust most to take the steps necessary to secure our borders and protect the American people.
"Governor Romney can also be expected to provide strong economic leadership because he is the only candidate with private sector experience and a successful track record of creating jobs and managing a major corporation.
"I'm confident in Governor Romney's character and commitment to the principals at the heart of the Republican party. I cannot say that about the other candidates vying for the Republican nomination. Mitt Romney is the best candidate available for our party's nomination, and I'm going to vote for and support him. I encourage my fellow conservatives to do the same."
Welcoming Congressman Rohrabacher's support, Governor Romney said, "Throughout his time in Washington, Congressman Rohrabacher has stood strong for our Republican, conservative values. He has been a steadfast voice for fiscal responsibility, border security and limited government. These are values that our leaders in Washington cannot abdicate. I am grateful that Congressman Rohrabacher will be joining our campaign, and I look forward to seeing him in California."
Background On Congressman Dana Rohrabacher:
Congressman Dana Rohrabacher Is Serving His Ninth Term Representing California's 46th Congressional District. Representative Rohrabacher is the Ranking Member of the Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee of the House Committee on International Relations and is a senior member of the House Committee on Science. He's noted for his principled decision-making, commitment to issues on illegal immigration, national security and responsible economic policy. Throughout his years in Congress, Representative Rohrabacher has been a strong voice for fiscal restraint and has earned the praise of the National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business.
Prior to his first election to Congress in 1988, Representative Rohrabacher served as Special Assistant to President Reagan and was one of the President's senior speechwriters. In Congress, he has been a strong advocate for the principles of President Reagan. Prior to joining Ronald Reagan's White House staff, he was an editorial writer for the Orange County Register. He and his wife are the proud parents of triplets.
http://www.mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/Endorsement_Rohrabacher
Making today's announcement, Congressman Dana Rohrabacher issued the following statement: "Our country is facing great challenges. Among the most ominous is illegal immigration, which has been permitted to spin out of control for the last decade and a half. The safety of our country and the prosperity of our people are at great risk because of the magnitude of this problem. Mitt Romney is the candidate I trust most to take the steps necessary to secure our borders and protect the American people.
"Governor Romney can also be expected to provide strong economic leadership because he is the only candidate with private sector experience and a successful track record of creating jobs and managing a major corporation.
"I'm confident in Governor Romney's character and commitment to the principals at the heart of the Republican party. I cannot say that about the other candidates vying for the Republican nomination. Mitt Romney is the best candidate available for our party's nomination, and I'm going to vote for and support him. I encourage my fellow conservatives to do the same."
Welcoming Congressman Rohrabacher's support, Governor Romney said, "Throughout his time in Washington, Congressman Rohrabacher has stood strong for our Republican, conservative values. He has been a steadfast voice for fiscal responsibility, border security and limited government. These are values that our leaders in Washington cannot abdicate. I am grateful that Congressman Rohrabacher will be joining our campaign, and I look forward to seeing him in California."
Background On Congressman Dana Rohrabacher:
Congressman Dana Rohrabacher Is Serving His Ninth Term Representing California's 46th Congressional District. Representative Rohrabacher is the Ranking Member of the Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee of the House Committee on International Relations and is a senior member of the House Committee on Science. He's noted for his principled decision-making, commitment to issues on illegal immigration, national security and responsible economic policy. Throughout his years in Congress, Representative Rohrabacher has been a strong voice for fiscal restraint and has earned the praise of the National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business.
Prior to his first election to Congress in 1988, Representative Rohrabacher served as Special Assistant to President Reagan and was one of the President's senior speechwriters. In Congress, he has been a strong advocate for the principles of President Reagan. Prior to joining Ronald Reagan's White House staff, he was an editorial writer for the Orange County Register. He and his wife are the proud parents of triplets.
Citizens United Appeals Preliminary Injunction Denial to U.S. Supreme Court
Citizens United has appealed the denial of a preliminary injunction concerning its advertisements for the documentary film Hillary: The Movie (hillarythemovie.com) to the United States Supreme Court . Because the ads qualify as "electioneering communications" under McCain-Feingold, the FEC requires that Citizens United report its donors and put political disclaimers on the ads. Citizens United objects to these regulations because its advertisements are genuine issue ads protected by the First Amendment.
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia denied the requested preliminary injunction to allow Citizens United to run its ads without the McCain-Feingold reporting and disclaimer burdens on January 15. Citizens United filed its notice of appeal on January 16. This morning, the Court received Citizens United's Jurisdictional Statement (asking the Court to set the appeal for full briefing and oral argument) and a motion to expedite the appeal.
The appeal asks the Supreme Court to address three issues: (1) whether as-applied challenges are precluded by the Court's upholding of the disclosure requirements on their face in McConnell v. FEC (2003); (2) whether Congress may regulate as "electioneering communications" ads that the Court in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life (2007) said were not "electioneering"; and (3) whether the District Court erred in denying the preliminary injunction.
James Bopp, Jr., counsel for Citizens United states: "This case raises substantial issues. First, since the Supreme Court has unanimously rejected the notion that its McConnell decision precluded as-applied challenges to McCain-Feingold, I believe the district court was wrong to assert that McConnell precludes this as-applied challenge to McCain-Feingold. Second, since the Supreme Court said that "electioneering communications" without an "appeal to vote" were not "electioneering," the government has no justification for regulating such non-campaign speech. So Citizens United should have gotten a preliminary injunction. I hope the Supreme Court will agree to full briefing on these substantial issues and decide the case by June."
A copy of the Jurisdictional Statement, along with other case documents, can be found on the website for the James Madison Center for Free Speech at www.jamesmadisoncenter.org .
James Bopp, Jr. has a national constitutional law practice.
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia denied the requested preliminary injunction to allow Citizens United to run its ads without the McCain-Feingold reporting and disclaimer burdens on January 15. Citizens United filed its notice of appeal on January 16. This morning, the Court received Citizens United's Jurisdictional Statement (asking the Court to set the appeal for full briefing and oral argument) and a motion to expedite the appeal.
The appeal asks the Supreme Court to address three issues: (1) whether as-applied challenges are precluded by the Court's upholding of the disclosure requirements on their face in McConnell v. FEC (2003); (2) whether Congress may regulate as "electioneering communications" ads that the Court in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life (2007) said were not "electioneering"; and (3) whether the District Court erred in denying the preliminary injunction.
James Bopp, Jr., counsel for Citizens United states: "This case raises substantial issues. First, since the Supreme Court has unanimously rejected the notion that its McConnell decision precluded as-applied challenges to McCain-Feingold, I believe the district court was wrong to assert that McConnell precludes this as-applied challenge to McCain-Feingold. Second, since the Supreme Court said that "electioneering communications" without an "appeal to vote" were not "electioneering," the government has no justification for regulating such non-campaign speech. So Citizens United should have gotten a preliminary injunction. I hope the Supreme Court will agree to full briefing on these substantial issues and decide the case by June."
A copy of the Jurisdictional Statement, along with other case documents, can be found on the website for the James Madison Center for Free Speech at www.jamesmadisoncenter.org .
James Bopp, Jr. has a national constitutional law practice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)