Before I announced that I was going to work for the Huckabee campaign, the news broke on NRO's The Corner. I suppose it's fitting then that my departure was also told first on an online media source. While I was planning to announce my leaving closer to the day of the caucus, Jonathan Martin from Politico beat me to it. There has been a lot of speculation about what it portends, but the actual details are rather banal.
At the end of November Family Research Council generously gave me a 30-day leave of absence so that I could go to work for Mike Huckabee's presidential campaign. I thought working on the campaign would be an invaluable experience so I jumped at the opportunity, knowing full well that it was only a temporary measure. At the time Governor Huckabee was still behind in both the Iowa and national polls. The question "What if he has a chance to win it all?" was something I figured I'd have to deal with when the time came.
Now the time has come for me to return to my job and my longsuffering wife. I am extremely grateful to FRC and to my family for their generosity and patience. I'm also thankful to the entire staff at the Huckabee campaign headquarters for allowing me to be a part of the team. Hopefully, after Governor Huckabee wins several primaries (and opens an office closer to the DC area) I'll be able to help him once again in an official capacity.
In the meantime, I'll share some of what I learned on the campaign trail. Although I can't share any secret inside-the-campaign information there are a few lessons I learned during my 30-day adventure. None are particularly profound and some are quite obvious. Much of it may even be particular to the fact that I worked with such a small team. Still, I thought it might be worthwhile to share some of them in order to confirm what you might already suspect about Presidential politics.
The Pace is Brutal -- While it may not compare to the blistering schedule of the candidates, staffers generally put in some brutally long hours. Most days started before 8 AM and ended well after 10 PM. Even on Sundays, the morning talk shows and the inevitable controversies that sprang from them required our attention. The media machine never stops and requires constant monitoring. Unlike some campaigns, we did not send out a dozen emails a day announcing when our candidate would be taking bathroom breaks. Instead, we tried to focus on the major issues which came with enough regularity to keep us fully employed.
The Other Side Doesn't Matter (At All) -- No one on the campaign ever seemed to take an interest in what was going on with Clinton, Obama, Edwards or any of the other non-GOP candidates. For all we cared, the Democrats might as well have been in an alternate campaign universe. All that mattered was what was happening on our side.
Pundits Don't Know Anything -- Six months ago, how many pundits would have predicted that on the 1st day of 2008 there would be a four-way tie in the national polls between Giuliani, Huckabee, Romney, and McCain? The fact is that they don't know any more than you do. Indeed, the closer they are to DC, the less they are likely to know what actual voters are thinking.
This is Truly the Age of the Soundbite -- Remember the controversy over Wayne Dumond? Remember hearing about how Dumond was castrated and the local sheriff kept his testicles in a jar on his desk; how there was some DNA evidence that could have potentially exonerated him; how the largest newspaper in Arkansas conducted an independent investigation and concluded he was likely completely innocent; how newspaper accounts provided proof that two of the parole board members who claimed the Governor had pressured them to parole him were caught lying…? You remember all that?
Of course not. Since it couldn’t be put into a soundbite, the real story never permeated the public consciousness. Instead, bits and pieces floated out that led people to conclude the Governor was guilty…of something, though nobody was quite sure what it was.
That was the sort of thing I dealt with every day. People wanted an explanation but didn’t want to stick around to hear it if it took more than 30 seconds.
Not Everything is Planned -- Although most people couldn’t be bothered with actual facts, they had plenty of time for absurd speculation. The era of Karl Rove has created a climate of conspiracy in which people think that nothing happens by accident. And I mean nothing.
For example, the campaign first heard about the "floating cross" controversy in the Christmas ad from reading about it on the Drudge Report. No one had any clue what that was about so we watched the video several times before someone pointed out the bookcase.
Apparently, a Christmas ad in which the Governor mentions "the birth of Christ" was too subtle. We needed to use a bookcase that looked like a cross so that people would get the point that he was secretly sending a message to Christians.
To this day, some people still claim that the "floating cross" was intentional. Those people are idiots.
Campaigns Are Staffed By A Narrow Range of People -- Much like tax preparation or lettuce picking, campaign work is short-term, seasonal, and semi-skilled. I identified five main grouping of staffers: (a) local hires and people who have previously served with the candidate, (b) young singles that work cheap, (c) financially independent volunteers, (d) high-priced veteran advisers, and (e) semi-competent/semi-experienced temps. (I fell into category (e)).
The Mainstream Media Ain't So Bad -- Many bloggers (including me) have a knee-jerk reaction to the mainstream media. We "just know" they have a liberal bias and that they can't be trusted to report accurately on Republicans and conservatives. If my experience is any indication, then most of what we know is "just wrong."
My job wasn't to spin the press but to present the facts for the Huckabee campaign's side of the story. I expected that I'd have the toughest time with the professional journalists but most of the reporters that I dealt with (especially Michael Luo of the New York Times and Jonathan Martin of Politico) were quite fair and always professional. Even when their coverage was cringe-inducing I rarely could fault them for being inaccurate or putting their own biases ahead of the facts.
Unfortunately, the same can not be said of the conservative media.
My rapid response list included a broad range of journalists, pundits, and bloggers and variety of outlets--everything from The New York Times to HotAir. Often they would ask me to clarify statements made by the Governor, defend claims made by the campaign, or offer evidence on a point of contention. Almost always the mainstream media from the "liberal" outlets were more fair and balanced than were the ones from the "conservative" side of the media.
Some conservative outlets, of course, were notably fair and accurate. Although he never pulled his punches, Jim Geraghty at NRO's The Campaign Spot always let me present a rebuttal to the claims of other campaigns. The same can be said for NRO's Byron York, one of the few conservative reporter/pundits that seemed more concerned about getting the facts straight than he was in shoring up the conventional wisdom of the GOP establishment.
But while there were a few other exceptions that I could praise (e.g., Terry Eastland from The Weekly Standard, Phillip Klein and Jennifer Rubin from The American Spectator, the guys at RedState), far too many of the conservative outlets refused to present any evidence that conflicted with their typical anti-Huckabee narrative.
I even sent out personal emails to a number of prominent pundits and bloggers who had criticized Huckabee for being insufficiently conservative. I told them that if they would send me a list of their grievances I'd provide a personal response from the campaign addressing their concern. My only condition was that they would post the exchange in its entirety. Not one of them took me up on my offer.
As a campaign staffer, I found such behavior frustrating. But as a consumer of conservative media I found it infuriating. There are a number of pundits, bloggers, reporters, and radio hosts that I will never trust again to be "fair and balanced."
(To clarify my last point, let me say that I had only one expectation from my fellow conservatives: that they apply the same standard to every candidate. I had no problem with a conservative pundit bashing Governor Huckabee for raising the sales tax by a penny in Arkansas…as long as they also bashed Governor Romney for raising "fees" in Massachusetts. I had no problem with their complaints that Governor Huckabee wanted to establish diplomatic relations with Iran…as long as they hammered Mayor Giuliani for the same sin. Very few even made an attempt to be consistent in their criticism. That was what I found so disappointing.)
McCain Ain't So Bad Either -- I gained a great deal of respect for Sen. McCain and his staff. I've often been critical of him and his policies and still have qualms about whether he would make a great President. But he's proven himself to be a man of character and surrounded himself with honorable staffers. He's moved up in my estimation to be my second choice for the GOP nomination.
Thompson Is a Typical Politician--But a Very, Very Bad Campaigner -- You have to admire the dedication of the FredHeads. They want Thompson to be the President much, much more than he wants the job. They've even bought into the idea that his not really wanting the job makes him somehow more qualified to be the leader of the free world!
I jumped on the Fred bandwagon from the beginning but am glad I got off long before the wheels fell off. Like many others I bought into the hype that Thompson was going to run a different kind of campaign. It is definitely different, I'll give him that. But its also uninspiring. His hiring of Mary Matalin was the first sign that he wasn’t going anywhere. She's not as skilled as her husband at negative campaigning so when Fred went negative it just made him look like a grouchier version of Bob Dole.
The FredHeads didn't see it that way, of course. In their view Fred should be able to just skip this whole election nonsense and go directly to the coronation ceremony. Fortunately, it doesn’t work that way. Most of us want a President who doesn’t think its "pandering" to actually care what we think.
The Ron Paul Phenomenon is Not About Ron Paul -- It will take a more astute political mind than I possess to comprehend this Ron Paul phenomenon. All I know is that it has less to do with the candidate than about people's desire for something different. When Rod Dreher, Andrew Sullivan, Vox Day, John Derbyshire, and the 9/11 Truthers all agree on a candidate its safe to say that they aren't all seeing the same thing.
My Opinion of Giuliani…Hasn’t Changed -- Is he still in the race? Why? Mayor Bloomberg has a better chance of being the next President.
Mitt Romney will never be President -- I won't be surprised if Mitt Romney wins the Iowa Caucus. I will be surprised, however, if he's still in the race when the South Carolina primary comes around. [Section deleted -- see here for explanation]
It's not just his flip-flops on the issues, though that should be enough. (It's hard to take seriously all those conservatives who bashed John Kerry for being inconstant while turning a blind eye to Romney's politically expedient changes of heart.) No, what will destroy Romney's chances is that he will lie about an issue, know that he is lying, know that you know he is lying, and say it anyway. It's not just that he's dishonest. It's that he thinks we're stupid.
Now it's true that in the short term, we do tend to be stupid. Indeed, the reason that Romney's dishonest campaign tactics have helped him in the short run is that most people have yet to realize--as have the other campaigns and the mainstream media--he is a liar. But eventually the public catches on.
If he had reserved his dishonest tactics solely for Governor Huckabee he might have got away with it. But he and his campaign (his communications team appears to be just as despicable and unprincipled) send out dishonest attacks on McCain, Thompson, and Giuliani too. Because most of it is done behind the scenes (i.e., scurrilous emails sent to reporters and influential bloggers) it is difficult to point out the most egregious examples. Don't take my word on it, though. Ask around to the other campaigns and media outlets.
Supporters of Romney will no doubt be offended by my criticism. I could counter that I'm offended that conservatives are backing a man that, until recently, was just another Massachusetts liberal. Instead I'll just hold my tongue and wait for Romney's campaign to implode. His "lie and buy" strategy may get him a narrow victory in Iowa but he'll flame out soon enough.
Which brings me to the final lesson I learned…
Primary Politics Isn't Worth Losing Friends Over -- People often ask me what I think about the "Huckabashing" carried on by my friend Hugh Hewitt. While I am concerned that his shift from candidate-favoring pundit to propagandist for Team Romney may hurt his reputation, it hasn't affected the affection I have for my "blogfather." Hugh's wrong--dead wrong--about Romney. But he's right about enough other stuff that I still respect his opinions. And aside from his poor taste in candidates, he's still the same great guy that I've admired for years.
The same holds true for my friendships with pundits and bloggers that differ with me about which candidate will make the best President. I've had some heated disagreements and have said things that have likely damaged my reputation with some people (i.e., all fans of Romney). But when all is said and done, I care more about people than punditry or partisanship.
That's not a profound lesson but it was something I re-learned on the campaign. Even if I took away nothing else, that alone would have made the 30 days in Little Rock worth the trip.
I think you are being too kind to the MSM. The reason they have treated Huckabee well is they think their candidate (the democrat) will beat him easily in the fall, so they want him to do well now.
I share your disappointment with the conservative media. Many things that have been written have been terribly unfair.
Tomorrow night, I go caucus for Huck.
You should not be surprised to see the conservative media and bloggers behave like this. When many of them are not being dishonest, they're being just stupid. One of my favorite arguments against Ron Paul is that the current central banking system works better at controlling the value of the dollar than fixing the dollar to any non-renewable resource, and that inflation doesn't really hurt anyone. I can't even count the number of times I've heard that last part written or said with a straight face by a conservative pundit or blogger against Ron Paul.
I don't think it's unfair to question how conservative a publication can actually be if its support is thrown behind a candidate like Romney or Giuliani, or it promotes the idea that it's better to vote for Hillary Clinton than Paul or Huckabee.
I have to admit to having been surprised by the way so many attacks on Mr. Huckabee focused on his support of the Fair Tax and how obvious it was that the critics knew next to nothing about it before rushing into print. It was plain that they thought they had found something they could demagogue and if there was anything else that mattered, they didn't want to deal with it.
There are legitimate points on which to criticize Mr. Huckabee. It wasn't necessary for so many to misrepresent the Fair Tax in order to criticize him.
Joe:
So that floating cross was an accident? Can you clarify that a little? That means that no one knew that cross was there until some Republican operative from another campaign pointed it out?
Also, you never did get around to telling us exactly what happened with Wayne Dumond. We have more than thirty seconds now. What did happen? So the Sheriff had Wayne's testicles in a jar?
Joe, this is sounding a little crazy. What's going on?
C'mon, you can't hardly fault Romney for being dishonest when your avowed candidate supports a regressive consumption tax, a tax which hits poor people the hardest, a tax which isn't even going to meet budgetary needs, and then your candidate has the dishonesty to somehow call that a "fair" tax!
Oh, and there never was DNA evidence that exonerated Dumond. Whoops! Another whopper.
And finally, let's not forget: you work for the "Family Research Council," a religious right propaganda outfit, which does about as much research on families as the Bush regime did on Iraqi families prior to shock and awe.
One hopes that, absent a Huckabee campaign effort, the media will counter Romney attacks by pointing out how, at Bain Capital, Mr. Romney used offshore corporations (and continues to) in order to avoid U.S. taxation, and he fee-milked acquired businesses before firing workers and taking them into bankruptcy, to amass his great $250,000,000 wealth.
So, when you compare how Mr. Huckabee's visionary FairTax advocacy compares to Romney's interest in the current tax system, it's pretty easy to see who will lead us out of tax slavery - the $265 billion annual tax code compliance costs representing 5 billion wasted hours, annually.
Fantastic update, Joe. I've been waiting for something like this.
Re: Thompson as an inept campaigner.
Big deal. He doesn't play the "game" that well. I could think of worse sins.
Re: Huckabee. I never bought into the Dumond thing. I figured there was more to the story. This however, bothers me a great deal:
Huckabee granted 1,033 pardons and commutations in his 10 1/2 years as governor of Arkansas - twice as many pardons and commutations as his three predecessors combined.
You can begin your explanation any time now. Seriously.
Another thing that bothers me about Huckabee is his decision to retain many Clinton appointees. This knowing full well what a man of low character Clinton is, and the kind of people he associates with.
As far as I know, Huckabee's only response is that the appointees were "apolitical." Sorry, but I am not buying that. Any "political appointee" is political. Any official position requires good people with the appropriate philosophy.
As I related before, "When conservatives took over the Southern Baptist Convention after a bitter fight in the 1980s, Mr. Huckabee sided with the ruling moderates."
We are now blindly supposed to believe that Huckabee is raring to appoint originalist judges.
I want to be convinced. I really do. Because if Fred goes down - I have no place left to go.
Joe, I am struck by the ferocity of your comments about Romney. I suppose that's natural; the McCain folks felt the same way about their chief rival, GWB, in 2000, and said almost the same kinds of things you are saying.
What really struck me, however, was your reference to "the impending scandal that has been rumored for weeks." This coming from the man whose role was "research director" in Huckabee's campaign? Two days before the election? My co-blogger and I read just about everything significant that appears about this election in the MSM and the blogosphere, and this is the first I have heard of any such rumor. I think you should reflect on just how questionable it is for you to bring it up now, in this way.
But Happy New Year anyway.
Welcome back to the real world, Joe. A fascinating piece. I hope you're right about Romney.
The Best Republican Presidential Candidate for 2008
Former Senator Fred Thompson is the only real conservative in the race for the Republican nomination, and the only candidate who can unite all three pillars of the Republican Party, namely, fiscal conservatives; national security and defense conservatives; and religious conservatives.
The Republican party, given that the nation is divided, cannot afford to alienate any of these pillars, or they will lose in the general election, as a sufficient number of the alienated pillar’s constituents will simply not cast a vote for president when they vote. This is not an attempt to intimidate Republican voters, but merely a recognition that there are certain conservative voters who simply will not violate their own principles and vote for someone they have fundamental disagreements with, or do not trust. For example, Governor Romney, has not provided a satisfactory answer in the minds of many religious conservatives in his efforts to explain the change from pro-choice to pro-life. They want to know the motivation, and need to be convinced that it was not political. This matter remains unresolved, and thus alienates a proportion of religious conservatives who would otherwise support him as the party’s nominee - regardless of his own religious persuasion. Mayor Guiliani also has a similar problem with religious conservatives, given his personal position on abortion; and promising to appoint strict constructionist judges will not vitiate the conflict with pro-life constituents. Religious conservatives will not vote for a pro-choice Republican nominee - even if it means electing Senator Clinton president. They will not violate a moral conviction. They will simply adopt the attitude - "God’s will be done," and maintain their conviction. Governor Huckabee alienates fiscal conservatives as a result of his tax and spend policies during his tenure in Arkansas. Senator McCain, terminally severed his relationship with a proportion of national security conservatives through his aggressive support of the proposed comprehensive immigration agreement, which failed as a result of a citizens’ uprising against this legislation; his opposition to the tax cut policy of the Bush Administration; and his opposition to aggressive interrogation techniques on high value captured terrorists.
Senator Thompson has none of the foregoing problems. He is strong on defense of the nation during a time of war, and has already committed to a substantial increase in the size of our military to fight the enemy threatening our survival; will seal the border, and reverse illegal immigration through attrition; will maintain the current tax policy, and reduce taxes by instituting his proposed voluntary flat tax system with only two rates, one at 10% with no deductions; and the other 25% maximum with current deductions maintained. He will also lower the corporate tax rate to ensure US Corporations are operating at the same tax rates as foreign corporations. Moreover, Mr. Thompson is the only candidate to assemble a plan to address the impending social security system crisis - the “third rail” of American politics. The Senator is acceptable to religious conservatives as well, given his strong and long-standing pro-life position, which explains why he was endorsed by the National Right to Life organization, and many similar state organizations.
In respect to the “fire in the belly” complaint, which is preferable: “Fire in the belly?” or the following leadership characteristics? Personal integrity; moral conviction; courage; perseverance; boldness; humility; analytical intelligence; calm and deliberate disposition; decisiveness; understands historical context and timing; commitment; and vision. In short, the Senator will show more than adequate “fire in the belly” when he demonstrates to those attempting to destroy our beloved nation a backbone of iron and the fury of an adversary who will unleash a conflagration, if necessary, to preserve our sacred liberty. One must guard against being deceived by cliché terms such as “fire in the belly,” in the middle of a media driven political campaign, when there are substantially more important, and higher priority characteristics needed in the President of the United States, and leader of the free world.
For Republicans to win the White House, they must be united and have a large voter turnout among all three of their voting pillars, that is fiscal conservatives; national security conservatives; and religious conservatives. Senator Thompson, is the only candidate not alienating any of these voting pillars, and thus can galvanize their support. Accordingly, he is the best hope for Republicans in the 2008 national election. Indeed Senator Thompson can win the general election, and rest assured the other party knows it for the same reasons articulated herein; to wit: he unites the Republican constituencies and assures a large conservative voter turnout in the 2008 election.
http://sheetanchor.wordpress.com/2007/12/26/the-best-republican-presidential-candidate-for-2008/
Joe-
Great wrap up. I'm not a fan of Huck, but I think some of the attacks on him were over the top (especially from people like Hugh). It's going to hard enough for the GOP to win the general election and this bitter infighting is not going to help. I'm heartened to see that you're able to look past the punches thrown in the primary and not let it damage your personal relationships with other conservatives. I'm not sure that others will be able to do the same.
I would like to know what you thought about the press conference on Monday. Was that planned?
Another thing that bothers me about Huckabee is his decision to retain many Clinton appointees. This knowing full well what a man of low character Clinton is, and the kind of people he associates with.
Like Dick Morris...ohhh wait he's a Republican then/now!
Seriously, this sounds to me like guilt by association. If you think a specific appointee was unworthy you should tell us who they are and why Huckabee shouldn't have kept them. If you just want some evidence that Huckabee paid homage to the dogma that Clinton was the anti-christ...well he did let Dumond go because the anti-Clinton wackos wanted it.
Ian
So, when you compare how Mr. Huckabee's visionary FairTax advocacy compares to Romney's interest in the current tax system, it's pretty easy to see who will lead us out of tax slavery - the $265 billion annual tax code compliance costs representing 5 billion wasted hours, annually.
I continue to ask why a sales tax of 33%-40% is 'freedom from tax slavery' or particularly conservative?
Joe
Of course not. Since it couldn’t be put into a soundbite, the real story never permeated the public consciousness. Instead, bits and pieces floated out that led people to conclude the Governor was guilty…of something, though nobody was quite sure what it was.
He was guilty of horrible judgement that resulted in an innocent woman being raped and killed needlessly because he felt it was more important to listen to soundbites rather than actually use his office to assemble and review the facts of the case. He is furthermore guilty of refusing to take responsibility or indicate he has learned from this horrible mistake and has instead sought to blame everyone else for it.
Apparently, a Christmas ad in which the Governor mentions "the birth of Christ" was too subtle. We needed to use a bookcase that looked like a cross so that people would get the point that he was secretly sending a message to Christians.
I kind of agree with you there. It seemed to me to be just a bookcase in the background and not a subliminal message.
My Opinion of Giuliani…Hasn’t Changed -- Is he still in the race? Why? Mayor Bloomberg has a better chance of being the next President.
Don't be so sure, he appears to be following a strategy of going for the big states like Florida. It will buck convention but it could work, especially if the primaries end up producing no clear winner. We might get to see a Convention where the nominee is not locked up before it starts, which would be quite a site to see in our generation.
Another thing about the fair tax, it has been explored here on the discussion lists and I don't think it's been unfairly distorted.
When someone implies that a national sales tax will eliminate all tax compliance costs, as if there's some magic accounting fairy that will just track every single sales transaction in a multi-trillion dollar economy for nothing, and then that someone complains about critics being unfair, isn't it a bit like the pot calling the kettle black?
JD So that floating cross was an accident? Can you clarify that a little?
Here's Huckabee's explanation on NBC: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/19/huckabee-defends-ad-the-_n_77562.html
Also, you never did get around to telling us exactly what happened with Wayne Dumond. We have more than thirty seconds now. What did happen? So the Sheriff had Wayne's testicles in a jar?
Here is the story in Huckabee's words: http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=TruthSquad.DumondRes
And here is an editorial from the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (a newspaper that hates Huckabee) in 1996 talking about the case.
Mumon Oh, and there never was DNA evidence that exonerated Dumond. Whoops! Another whopper.
Lets' read what I wrote: "…there was some DNA evidence that could have potentially exonerated him." I never said it exonerated Dumond. The fact is that the evidence was never allowed by the judge even though it raised questions about whether Dumond could have committed the rape. Here is a court doc on that:
http://www.talkleft.com/docs/dumondjan89.pdf
"I won't be surprised if Mitt Romney wins the Iowa Caucus. I will be surprised, however, if he's still in the race when the South Carolina primary comes around."
That's wildly optimistic of you. Romney is the sort of empty suit that many Americans have a taste for.
"It's not just that he's dishonest. It's that he thinks we're stupid."
But,then again, we elected Bush twice. Sort of. If Romney is lying, the stupid won't know it, and the people who like him will wink at his lies and support him anyway.
Jeff Blogworthy You can begin your explanation any time now. Seriously.
In Arkansas, every person who is convicted of a crime and every person in prison is eligible for clemency. Because of this, the number of clemency applications is extraordinarily high. Governor Huckabee had 8,698 applications during his 10 ½ years in office.
Some Governors are content to simply deny the vast majority of clemency applications without bothering to consider their merit. Governor Huckabee, however, believed that respect for the legal process required that he give them the consideration for which they were entitled. Even though he denied over 80 percent of the applications, his clemency rate was still higher than Governors who do not bother to review each application.
Most people also don’t realize that, under Arkansas law, there are number of reasons why the Governor must commute a sentence (a form of clemency) before other actions can be taken. For example, if a person is sentenced to 'life in prison with the possibility of parole,' the Governor must first commute the sentence before that 'possibility' can be given.
Before granting clemency, the Governor issues a notice of intent and opens a 30-day public comment period in which people can protest the decision. Very rarely does the public oppose a clemency because almost all are granted for minor offenses, involve reductions in fines, or reduce prison sentences that were longer than the average for a particular crime.
During the 10 ½ years Mike Huckabee was governor the number government agencies and businesses that conducted background checks increased at an incredible rate. The terrorist acts of September 11, 2001, have resulted in increased concerns regarding security. Potential job candidates and long-time employees considered for promotion under increased scrutiny.
Before the main stream use of background checks, most people could have some youthful arrest, change their lives and become good, tax-paying citizens without that earlier arrest coming back to haunt them.
Governor Huckabee found during his time in office that each year the number of people needing clemency to clear their record increased. Denying their request prevented them from continuing to earn a good living and pay taxes. The majority of the clemency requests he granted were for this reason.
As far as I know, Huckabee's only response is that the appointees were "apolitical." Sorry, but I am not buying that. Any "political appointee" is political.
Are there any particular appointees that you had a problem with? I think its unfair to say that just because some low-level government staffer was employed under Clinton that they were unqualified and should lose their job.
As I related before, "When conservatives took over the Southern Baptist Convention after a bitter fight in the 1980s, Mr. Huckabee sided with the ruling moderates."
We are now blindly supposed to believe that Huckabee is raring to appoint originalist judges.
C'mon, Jeff, that's a pretty big leap in logic. Are you really saying that we should let a person's theological views on denominational appointments be used as a litmus test for what type of federal judges he would appoint?
Lowell Joe, I am struck by the ferocity of your comments about Romney. I suppose that's natural; the McCain folks felt the same way about their chief rival, GWB, in 2000, and said almost the same kinds of things you are saying.
I can tell you that the McCain folks feel the same way about Romney too. ; )
My co-blogger and I read just about everything significant that appears about this election in the MSM and the blogosphere, and this is the first I have heard of any such rumor.
I have to say that I was under the impression that the media/blogosphere was unable to keep a secret. But this rumor has managed to circulate widely behind the scenes while getting almost no coverage on the blogs. I was shocked by how many sources had heard it yet were keeping it under wraps.
I think you should reflect on just how questionable it is for you to bring it up now, in this way.
Indeed, I have reflected on that question. In fact, I only bring it up because the story hasn't broken already and deserves to be aired. It has the potential to change the race significantly and show should be cleared up before any of the caucuses/primaries even begin.
Now the rumor could be completely wrong and it could turn out that the investigation ends up hurting Huckabee rather than Romney. If that is the case, then Huckabee should drop out of the race. I put honesty and integrity ahead of partisanship and this incident, while not exactly earth-shattering, cuts to the heart of that. It will also show once again that the cover-up is often worse than the crime.
Chad I would like to know what you thought about the press conference on Monday. Was that planned?
I thought the press conference was a debacle. But it also shored up my faith in Huckabee.
Since the WaPo already has the details (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/01/AR2008010101864_pf.html) I guess I can share what I know.
While everyone on the campaign was growing frustrated by Romney's dishonest attacks, the Governor wanted to keep running a clean race. Ed Rollins, though, likes to fight dirty so he wanted to hit back. He finally convinced Huckabee that there was no other option than to run some negative ads.
Huckabee trusted that Rollins knew what he was doing. But in the end he just couldn't bring himself to stoop that low. He couldn’t just pull the entire press conference so he showed up and made the calculated mistake to show the ad to the press (the thinking was that he didn't show it, they'd think it was much nastier than it really was).
He knew that the media would think it was some Rovian scheme to get attention and that they'd be cynical about the whole situation. He didn’t care. He wasn't going to do the wrong thing just because it might hurt him in the caucus. To me, that spoke volumes about his character.
In Arkansas, every person who is convicted of a crime and every person in prison is eligible for clemency. Because of this, the number of clemency applications is extraordinarily high. Governor Huckabee had 8,698 applications during his 10 ½ years in office.
Errr no, just about all governors have the power to pardon or grant clemency. In theory then just about everyone convicted of a crime in any state could apply for clemency. That should not result in an extraordinarily high number of applications or even if it did it shouldn't result in an extraordinarily high rate of granting clemency.
Lets' read what I wrote: "…there was some DNA evidence that could have potentially exonerated him." I never said it exonerated Dumond. The fact is that the evidence was never allowed by the judge even though it raised questions about whether Dumond could have committed the rape. Here is a court doc on that:
Nice try Joe, I printed out the 12 page court ruling you linked to. There is no mention of DNA, in fact the closest you get is an item about a serological test which is pretty damming to Dumond supporters. There were no sperm cells taken in the semen samples. Interestingly Dumond had a vasectomy several years before so this would actually implicate him more than it would help him (anyone remember the move "Presumed Innocent" with Harrison Ford?). Even lacking the sperm cells, the serological tests indicated that the rapist's blood type matched Dumond. While not as good as DNA, this is still evidence for Dumond's guilt.
The objection in the appeal boiled down to claiming his defense was ineffective because they failed to ask for their own independent serological test.
There was no DNA evidence, there was no test that exonerated him that the judge wouldn't let the jury hear. In fact, in order to believe that you have to believe had Dumond's team done their own test they would have produced results that differed from the state crime lab.
Even so this doesn't fit Joe's assertion that "there was some DNA evidence that could have potentially exonerated him".
And needless to say I'm pretty unimpressed with the charge that Dumond was set up because he was politically opposed to the Sheriff's re-election bid. Dumond was arrested in 1972 for murder, he was arrested in 1973 and convicted of molesting a teenage girl in the parking lot of a shopping center. Again, even in Ark. this wouldn't seem to be sort of character whose political endorsement would be greatly desired.
Now perhaps we can excuse Joe from reading just 12 pages. What exactly excuses Huckabee from reading just 12 pages or having one of the many lawyers who I'm sure he had on his staff from reading them and preparing a summary?
Boonton Errr no, just about all governors have the power to pardon or grant clemency. In theory then just about everyone convicted of a crime in any state could apply for clemency.
That's incorrect. The clemency application varies by state. Romney, for instance, only had about 100 applications in his four years as governor.
There was no DNA evidence, there was no test that exonerated him that the judge wouldn't let the jury hear.
In DuMond vs. Lockhart, the Court wrote:
The court ruled that the evidence was inadmissible and refused to allow further testing.
David Brooks is out with an assessment of Romney:
I agree with that. But I'm afraid that Brooks is also right about the following:
A scandal could turn people off to Romney--but what about his meticulously adopted formula of policy positions could possibly excite them?
Joe,
That's incorrect. The clemency application varies by state. Romney, for instance, only had about 100 applications in his four years as governor.
I'll accept your assertion that Ark has some unusual laws requiring clemency for parole or other sentences that would normally be automatic in other states but my point was that just about every state has clemency. Since anyone can apply for it there's no particular reason that Huckabee should have many more or why his applications were exceptionally worthy.
I suggest that you reread your pdf file. Especially, say page 5 which says "In 1987, Geyer attempted to per form "PGM" tests, but there were insufficient enzymes present".
and
So:
1. We have no DNA test despite the oft repeated claims to the contrary. Yes, yes a test for 'genetic markers' does involve DNA but it is not the same thing as a DNA test which would have isolated the rapist to a single individual.
1.5 We also learn that additional testing was probably impossible due to the samples being degraded & reduced by the tests that were performed.
2. We have the doctor who performed the test stating that his test result would be inconclusive unless it could be established that his sample could not have mixed with the victims vaginal fluids. There was no plausible way to support that assumption.
More importantly, any review of the actual evidence as summarized in the brief 12 page pdf file leaves little room for doubt that Dumond was guilty. Notice how absent the actual court document is of any of the allagations that are so casually tossed around? For example, if the atmosphere was so charged that there was no way Dumond couldn't have received a fair trial why was this not even mentioned in his appeal? He did try to claim his own lawyer was biased against him because he cut a deal with that lawyer to split the 'media rights' to 'his story'. Strange he forgot to try to argue that the jury was unfairly biased against him.
At this point I hope you notice a familiar pattern. A case gets some media attention and becomes the darling of political partisans (either on the left or right). 'Factoids' get tossed around like cotton candy but when they are actually examined by going to the source documents they seem to hold up a lot less than they did when they were being reported in the media, blogs, or tabloids? In the past you've been able to see this with left-wing cases (Mumia and the Jenna-6) but your ideological blinders seem to work a bit too well when it comes to right wing cases.
Joe, I really appreciated the update. I read about your departure at Politico, which is weird because I really don't go there often. I knew you were on short-term leave, but didn't realize it was 30 days.
I too have been disappointed by the conservative media, and have appreciated your response to factual errors while pointing out double standards. I have referenced you often on my blog.
You've certainly peaked my curiousity regarding the rumor going around, so I'll be interested to learn more when that finally comes out.
As one who, like you, have temporarily left a state family policy organization in Iowa to join the Iowa staff for a couple months to work with pastors, I appreciate your summary of your experience and concur with many of your observations.
Thanks for all your help. I hope things get to the point where they do open an office closer to DC (or somewhere on PA Ave in DC!) so you can join the team in a more official capacity.
Amazing wrap up Joe. It's weird, some friends and I were talking about McCain just yesterday. I also supported Fred, then Huckabee as well. Huckabee's actions the past few weeks have really caused me concern.
It's hard for me to read this kind of glowing praise for Huckabee as never presenting information dishonestly when Factcheck.org has included him pretty consistently in their reports of exaggerations, misleading statements, and outright falsehoods. See here, here, and here for the three most recent discussions. It may well be that other candidates have done this more often and to a worse degree, but I think it should be admitted that the difference between Huckabee's campaign and the other campagians, including Romney's, is not a difference of kind but merely a difference of degree. At least that's what the fact-checkers seem to indicate. I really like the guy, but it's disappointing to hear how he's been misrepresenting his record as governor and how his supporters have been misrepresenting Romney's as a comparison. If it's bad for Romney to do it, then it's bad for Huckabee too. The "he did it first and did it worse" excuse doesn't cut it if it's moral innocence that's at issue (and that's how this post presents it).
"I am concerned that his shift from candidate-favoring pundit to propagandist..."
Physician, Heal Thyself.
It's disappointing to read your comments about the conservative media, especially compared to the liberal media. Not surprising, perhaps, but disappointing.
But I wonder, if you were working for a Democratic candidate, would you have the same feel for the liberal media? Are they as vicious to the Democratic candidates as the conservative media are to the Republicans?
Thanks, Joe, for a great insider view of the lessons you learned while working on the Huckabee campaign. I, too, am exasperated by the apparent lack of willingness of conservative pundits to do their research and look at Gov. Huckabee's record through objective lenses rather than through the distorted presentation put out by Rich Lowry, Hugh Hewitt, Rush and others. I fear that this continued attack on Mike will cause those of us in the GOP base to really reevaluate our loyalty to a pary that appears to only pay us lip-service but does not want one of our own running for office.
Could this "rumor" or "scandal" or Romney have anything to do with the rumor of his pornographic activities?
Joe,
I'm shocked to find out that the biased conservative media is biased and opinionated. Why didn't someone tell me years ago that Rush Limbaugh isn't fair and balanced?
Maybe you should re-title this thread, "How to eat sour grapes."
You stated awhile ago that you would vote for Mitt Romney if he got the nomination. Now you're calling him a liar and saying that he's got some dirt in his past but you won't tell us what the dirt is.
In other words, you're throwing out a cheapt shot, kinda like Huckabee and his, "I won't air negative campaign ads, but if you're in the media, well, i'll show them to you." sorta stunt?
This just gets more dissapointing with each passing day.
But I learned a long time ago, people are always going to let you down. The Lord never will.
Let me see if I can gossip like Joe Carter;
Huckabee will never be President -- I won't be surprised if Huckabee wins the Iowa Caucus. I will be surprised, however, if he's still in the race when the South Carolina primary comes around. Even if the impending scandal that has been rumored for weeks doesn’t derail his campaign (I can't say what it is but you should hear about it before Jan. 8), his inherent aldutery will eventually do him in.
This would be even more powerful statement if you all knew that I work for a campaign and had some "insider" information.
Nope, I havn't called Huckabee an alduterer, nor have I said that there is evidence out there that Huckabee has committed adultery. Pretty clever, eh?
Thanks Joe for calling Romney a liar without providing any evidence of said lies. As you've written previously, we're all sheeple anyway, and stupid, so we're just supposed to believe you.
And of course, you've poisoned the well. A very clever fallacy. You see, i'm just a Romney fan, so anything I say can be discounted and not taken seriously.
The court ruled that the evidence was inadmissible
That's just not accurate Joe. In Dumond vs Lockhart the US District Court ruled that the evidence, even if admitted, would not likely result in an overturn of the conviction. From the decision:
"Mr. Dumond's conviction herein primarily flowed from the victim's identification of him as the rapist. The
state's serological proof and other circumstantial proof such as the handgun discovered in Dumond's truck was
not particularly compelling. The victim's clear recollection of the incident and corroboration of her
recollection by undisputed facts provided strong evidence for the jury to conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that her identification of Dumond as the rapist was accurate. She had the opportunity to view the rapist for approximately [*41] forty-five minutes. During this period of time, she looked him "straight in the eye" (Tr.537) and begged for her life for ten minutes (Tr. 543).
In other words, the court ruled that the admission of some inconclusive DNA evidence would not have swayed the jury.
I really don't understand why you are carrying Huckabee's water on this one, Joe. He was clearly wrong; he should just admit it (and you should just accept it) and move on.
Mike Are they as vicious to the Democratic candidates as the conservative media are to the Republicans?
I'd say they probably are just as vicious. I think most of the "liberal bias" comes in on non-candidate type stories. As for candidate coverage the media seems to focus on two types of story: the counter-narrative and the conflict. Counter-narratives are an easy sell since they defy the status quo. If someone is up, they want to write a story about how they will fall. If someone is an underdog, they want to write about how the person is moving up.
Conflict stories are about the drama. Two candidates fighting--whether Democrat or Republican--makes a good story in their eyes.
DB Could this "rumor" or "scandal" or Romney have anything to do with the rumor of his pornographic activities?
I certainly haven't heard anything like that.
Baggi You stated awhile ago that you would vote for Mitt Romney if he got the nomination.
Yes, I did. Then I got to know more about the man and his penchant for dishonesty.
Now you're calling him a liar and saying that he's got some dirt in his past but you won't tell us what the dirt is.
The lies are mostly public record, so that's not just something I'm saying. Also, I never said he had some "dirt in his past." What I'm referring to is something completely different.
In other words, you're throwing out a cheapt shot, kinda like Huckabee and his, "I won't air negative campaign ads, but if you're in the media, well, i'll show them to you." sorta stunt?
Let me say that if it turns out not to be true I'll gladly eat a big plate of crow. But this isn't a cheap shot. If the rumor turns out to be true, then it will just show that Romney has Nixonian-like quality to cover stuff up rather than take his lumps and move on.
Thanks Joe for calling Romney a liar without providing any evidence of said lies.
Okay, how about when he lied saying that both he and his father had marched with Martin Luther King?
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/12/21/romney_never_saw_father_on_king_march/
I'm not trying to convince you that Romney is dishonest, Baggi. All I'm saying is "wait and see." Keep your ears open and you'll soon see what I'm talking about.
ucfengr He was clearly wrong; he should just admit it (and you should just accept it) and move on.
What was he wrong about? Huckabee determined that Dumond shouldn't be pardoned. What should have have done differently?
My point is not that Dumond was innocent. My point is merely that there was enough questions about the case to raise doubts about his guilt. It's easy to say in hindsight that everyone should have known. But based on the evidence that was presented at the time it's hard to fault the Governor or the Parole Board (Even the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette thought the case was fishy.)
I fear that this continued attack on Mike will cause those of us in the GOP base to really reevaluate our loyalty to a pary that appears to only pay us lip-service but does not want one of our own running for office.
What, Bush isn't an evangelical? Okay, well is he a Christian? Help me out here, because I am a little confused. Is it because Bush is a Methodist that we are tearing up his evangelical card? I thought we had gotten past that whole sprinkling vs. immersion thing.
My point is merely that there was enough questions about the case to raise doubts about his guilt.
But not in the court case you cited to support your position.
My point is not that Dumond was innocent.
Well, duh. Is anybody arguing that Dumond is innocent?
My point is merely that there was enough questions about the case to raise doubts about his guilt.
And they were raised on appeal in the case you cited. The court ruled in that appeal that the evidence did not raise doubts about his guilt. Let's be honest Joe, inconclusive DNA testing is not all that compelling, is it?
Thanks for the response Joe, I had heard some real sleazy stuff about Romney and have seen it several places about that sort of stuff and didn't know if that was the "rumor" or "scandal". I wouldn't think Romney would be involved in anything like that but it seemed a pretty prevalent rumor. I will be waiting with baited breathe to hear what the real "scandal" is...like you I am a faithful Hugh listener and have really been put off by his treatment of Huck and his almost Deification of Romney.
I laughed through this entire blog. Joe Carter, you will be missed. PLEASE go back and help the Huckabee campaign fight these ridiculous battles. Your pen bites hard. They need you in these media wars.
I have to agree with you point about Mitt Romney, if the Republican establishment is to stupid to realize that this guys is a pathologic liar, then they deserve to lose in 2008. Mitt is not a conservative, if anything he is more liberal than any democrat running for president. I know Mitt like to boast that he is the only one that can unite the party, nothing could be further from the truth. If Mitt gets the nod kiss the grand old GOP good bye, they will be in the minority for a very long time. I urge you to take an in-depth look at Mr. Romney at www.trueromney.com
From an article by Steve Dunleavy in the NY Post in 1996:
Dr. Moses Schanfield told me Friday. "This case was a disgrace."
Schanfield heads the Analytic Genetic Testing Center in Denver.
He was one of the experts dispatched to Bosnia to examine and identify
graves after the civil war there.
He did an independent Allotyping test of sperm of the alleged victim's
jeans, which supposedly came from Dumond.
"No way, zip, nada. Didn't happen. No way Dumond was the donor of that
sperm," Schanfield said. "The girl's scenario of the so-called crime
couldn't have happened. I didn't believe anything she said."
--Dr. Moses Schanfield is currently the Chairman of George Washington University's Forensic Science Department and as far as he can remember, still stands by his statements.
Thank you Joe for your hard work. You are appreciated more than you know from Huckabee supporters. The constant negative spin from FOXNEWS has been extremely disappointing to those of us that watched them for so called "Fair and Balanced" coverage. I guess all media does indeed have their own agenda, even if they have to eat their own to accomplish it.
As someone said earlier, we wish you could help Huckabee full-time. You did a great job. Because of that work, you now have a new reader here.
Keep up the great work.
Thanks for your reflections Joe. It's always helpful to hear from someone who knows more than what they've seen or heard.
I have been mystified by all of the criticism of Huckabee by prominent conservatives without any substantive analysis to support their objections. Your explanations of common criticisms do a lot to dispel much of this. Even Rush's comments today were generalities at best.
Unfortunately I think many conservatives fall prey to groupthink that avoids a proper reading of the facts and simply adopts the "party line."
In some ways, Huck is a different kind of conservative because his rhetoric appeals to justice and compassion--virtues that are compatible with conservatism, but not often communicated effectively by conservatives. Sometimes I wonder if some conservative's unrest simply stems from their discomfort with how he says what he believes.
Joe,
Way to go with the sleazy innuendo! I can see why you were drawn to work for Mike Huckabee, because based upon your comment in this blog entry, you are just like him.
Your comments about Dumond are laughable. NO ONE who had seriously studied the case felt like Dumond was innocent. Huckabee was told by several witnesses that Dumond would do it again. Hucklabee announced his intention to commute Dumond's snetcne when he first took office, then was met with a firstorm of portest. The parole board had denied Dumond twice previously; I wonder why they chnegd their minds?
He denied knowing much at all about the case when he had, in fact received at least 12 letters begging him not to release Duomnd and asking to meet wiht him. He met with only one person. He tried to claim recently that Jim Guy Tucker had commuted his snetcne, whn, in fact, he only shortened it to 39+ years.
Your comments re: the "coming Romeny scandal, which I can't reveal" smack exactly of the kind of dung Huckabee pulled with the NY Times Magazine reporter. How precious.
As a Christian, this type of sleaze and half-truth are the exact reason I can not stand Mike Huckabee. He drags the name of Christ through the mud with his lack of integrity on almost every level and then hides behind and mechandises his faith to attempt to victimize himself and further his cause. From your comments in this blog, it seems you are cut from the same cloth.
Please explain any way in which Mike Huckabee's camnpaign has exemplified the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.
Joe Carter wrote;
Let me say that if it turns out not to be true I'll gladly eat a big plate of crow. But this isn't a cheap shot. If the rumor turns out to be true, then it will just show that Romney has Nixonian-like quality to cover stuff up rather than take his lumps and move on.
Let me get this straight. It's alright then for us Christians to spread rumours and/or imply negative things about people as long as it turns out to be true. If it turns out to be false, then as long as we say we're sorry (Or eat crow as you put it) then it's still ok that you did it? Seriously, this is how far you've come?
Joe Carter also wrote;
Okay, how about when he lied saying that both he and his father had marched with Martin Luther King?
Yes, according to the newspaper that interviewed Romney, he lied in 1978. Let's say it's true, you're calling Mitt Romney a liar in 2007 because he lied in 1978?
Wow.
No, what will destroy Romney's chances is that he will lie about an issue, know that he is lying, know that you know he is lying, and say it anyway. It's not just that he's dishonest. It's that he thinks we're stupid.
Hmmm... this coming from a guy who worked on Huckabee's campaign. Mike Huckabee, the same guy who recently released an attack ad attacking Romney for having no executions while he was governor, even though Massachusetts doesn't have the death penalty.
Yea... a real honest guy you were working for, eh?
But oh wait... he pulled the ad so he could show how "ethical" he was by pretending he wasn't wanting to attack people.
Right.
Wow, Joe.
My husband and I are conservative Christ-followers (he is also studying to become a pastor). We really want to support Mike Huckabee but, after thoroughly examining his public record, we just cannot and are supporting Fred Thompson.
Huckabee would have to be an exceptional Christ-follower to serve two masters, God and the money driven world of politics, and still glorify God by his actions. I think he has already failed and wish it were not so. Fair or not, Christ-followers are seen as the worldly face of our Savior and we have a special responsibility to "walk the walk."
Under our founding principles, Christianity has flourished in America. As an adherent to those original principles, I believe that Thompson can best advance my conservative Christian values.
I agree with you about Romney's lack of credibility and can only assume that fear of Hillary is motivating otherwise sensible conservatives to opt for "electability" over principle. I hope the peace of God will help you forgive him and them.
Wow, Joe.
My husband and I are conservative Christ-followers (he is also studying to become a pastor). We really want to support Mike Huckabee but, after thoroughly examining his public record, we just cannot and are supporting Fred Thompson.
Huckabee would have to be an exceptional Christ-follower to serve two masters, God and the money driven world of politics, and still glorify God by his actions. I think he has already failed and wish it were not so. Fair or not, Christ-followers are seen as the worldly face of our Savior and we have a special responsibility to "walk the walk."
Under our founding principles, Christianity has flourished in America. As an adherent to those original principles, I believe that Thompson can best advance my conservative Christian values.
I agree with you about Romney's lack of credibility and can only assume that fear of Hillary is motivating otherwise sensible conservatives to opt for "electability" over principle. I hope the peace of God will help you forgive him and them.
Baggi -
"I won't be surprised if Huckabee wins the Iowa Caucus. I will be surprised, however, if he's still in the race when the South Carolina primary comes around."
That makes absolutely no sense. The only thing between Iowa and SC is NH, where the Huckabee camp isn't expecting to do any better than 3rd ... and then they roll into SC, where they're currently leading according to some polls ... not to mention the bump they'd get from winnnig Iowa, which you said you won't be surprised if that happens.
Help me understand your thought process.
Terrie -
I'm not trying to start an argument here, but am genuinely curious what do you and your husband (who is studying to be a pastor) see in Governor Huckabee's public record that un-qualifies him to be a Christ-following public servant? How have you seen him "serve two masters"? Thanks for clarifying.
Glad you're not supporting Romney, by the way.
Dave -
The Huckabee ad you're referring to simply said "No executions." That is not a lie ... Mitt Romney never carried out an execution. The point is that Huckabee, responding to Romney's claim that Huck is soft on crime, is simply insinuating, "Don't call me soft on crime if you've never had to carry out an execution, Mitt." I've heard Huckabee say this several times.
Whether or not MA has the death penalty is immaterial ... the point is that Huckabee has been as tough on crime as a governor can be - he has had to follow through with an execution (something that weighs very heavily on him, by the way). Mitt has not.
The ad absolutely does not lie ... in fact it is completely truthful ... Mitt has carried out "no executions", period.
MTR,
What about Huckabee claiming, "I've corresponded with John Bolton, who's agreed to work with us on developing foreign policy" and then Bolton responding with, "I’d be happy to speak with Huckabee, but I haven’t spoken with him yet."
Also, Joe, you've been pretty quick to call Mitt Romney a liar. What about the above?
Baggi -
"Corresponded" with doesn't mean "talked to". For instance, we're corresponding right now, but I've never talked to you.
Mitt's lies are flat out, unmistakable, can't-be-understood-any-other-way lies!
"I marched with my dad and MLK"
"I got an NRA endorsement"
"I've been a hunter my whole life"
You think the Republicans made John Kerry look bad when he said, "I voted for the $87M before I voted against it"?? (That was actually a true statement, by the way.) What they did to Kerry doesn't begin to compare to what the Democrats will do to Romney, if given the chance. They don't just have wishy-washy sounding truths - as in Kerry's case, but they have flat out lies - several of them - on video!! We need to eliminate Romney so the Democrats don't get the chance to completely eat his lunch at the expense of conservatives.
Why is that hard to see?
Joe,
Unfortunately, it is you who appear to be Nixonian with the Romney smear, and this is most disappointing.
I am a Romney->Thompson->Guiliani supporter.
If you have information that you think disqualifies Romney from being the GOP nominee or President of these United States, please do share.
Plutarch made a data-rich case suggesting that Huckabee wants to enforce a Dietary Nanny State while taking the easy route out.
The Huckabee camp has made an unequivocal denial, and Plutarch has now lost credibility.
Is your Romney smear merely a Plutarch-like concocted rumor, or do you have any facts?
If rumor, please stop.
If you have facts, please provide.
If true, I will gladly support Thompson.
I cannot support Huckabee -- we can ill afford another President who apologizes for America to the rest of the world.
Lastly, I have always enjoyed your blog, and will continue to do so -- after all, Primary Politics Isn't Worth Losing Friends Over, and I agree.
Peace.
Could this impending rumor be related to the push polling efforts? Joe says it could hurt Romney, but it could also end up hurting Huckabee if it's not true. Perhaps the rumored scandal is that Romney's behind the anti-Romney push polls. And perhaps the danger to Huckabee is that the investigation could possibly reveal that Huckabee is behind them instead. Both Romney and Huckabee have publicly denounced these efforts-- so it would be a scandal to find out that either one of them were behind it.
Just a guess...
As for the Romney/Porno connection, I think the rumors are mainly around the idea that Romney was on the board of the Marriot hotel chain, and the Marriot hotel chain offers pay-per-view porn. The question is, did Romney try to stop it or did Romney simply allow Marriot to continue making millions off porn? Romney says the topic never came up...
More info:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288253,00.html
Joe:
Thanks for the pardon/clemency explanation.
C'mon, Jeff, that's a pretty big leap in logic. Are you really saying that we should let a person's theological views on denominational appointments be used as a litmus test for what type of federal judges he would appoint?
I am not saying anything about a "litmus test" and I do not think it is a big leap in logic at all. I am merely suggesting that people should take it under advisement. To say that the issue was simply about "a person's theological views on denominational appointments" is a glossing over of the facts.
The struggle over control of the SBC was a hard-fought political battle as heated as anything we see on the national stage. Segments of the organization wanted to take the SBC in the same direction as the so-called mainline denominations. We all see how that went. The Word is compromised for the sake of political expediency or to conform to society. Gov. Huckabee was on the wrong wide of the issue.
I see many similarities in the SBC battle over the integrity of scripture to current cultural struggles, especially concerning the integrity of the constitution. In both cases there is a call for a return to first principles and maintenance of a creed. In both cases, interpretation and hermeneutics are critical. When Huckabee had the chance to espouse and fight for conservative principles in the past, he chose not to. You can call it a "leap in logic" if you like. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
This is the first and last time I will read this blog. How can you possibly share a "pending" rumor and think that it is in any way Christ-like. Is winning an election now more important than the truth? Rumors? Pending rumors? Scandal to come?
Joe, you should have left this alone. You dishonor the FRC and the body of Christ by joining in on this type of negative pandering.
The ad absolutely does not lie ... in fact it is completely truthful ... Mitt has carried out "no executions", period.
Come on... are you serious? While it is true that it is not technically a lie, the ad is misleading and dishonest.
To attack Romney for having "no executions" is just either foolish or blatantly misleading.
Then again, with Huckabee's lack of knowledge regarding other things, maybe it was just ignorant.
But I doubt it.
Huckabee wants to try and make Romney look "soft on crime" (ugh... I hate that phrase...) by attacking him for something that was never under Romney's control. You don't find that misleading?
By the way... I am not a Romney supporter. I just find the "dishonesty" attacks against Romney to be pretty hypocritical.
This piece is self-indulgent drival of the highest order. I having dealt with the media as well know that the liberal media will twist stories to fit their template just as Joe claims the conservative media has. Joe doesn't have the objectivity on this to understand that what he is seeing is not fairness to Huckabee, but favoritism by the liberal media that wants him in the general because they are sure he can be beaten. The democrats have out right admitted it and Joe couldn't see it?
Joe dismisses the controversy over Wayne Dumond. This is mere deflection. The real story here is Huckabee's clemency for a slew of people, anybody that seems to have "come to Jesus".
Now I am a Christian and I actually like Huckabee personally, but Huck was supposed to make these judgements based on secular reasoning, not on the whims of his faith. To just dismiss this issue as a soundbite is astoundingly dishonest on Joe's part.
I don't know Joe, never read him before but I have to say this entire post reads like it was written by a victim of Stockhom Syndrome and is worthless analysis to the point it iritates me that I took the time out of my life to read it. What really annoys me is that it confirms to me what I am seeing as a trend to sleeze in the Huck campaign. I am now to the point were I will go actively negative on Huck considering the kind of people (like Ron Paul) I see supporting him.
You call Romney supporters out for conservatives complaining about Kerry flip-flops yet giving Romney a pass. The plain simple fact is changing one's positions over time is not flip flopping. Changeing one's positions on an issue back and forth depending on the audience, (I was for it before I was against it) in order to capture both sides of the issue simultaneously which is what Kerry did, is flip-flopping. I have no love for Romney, but to put them in the same league is idiocy.
I think you should expand your volunteer catagories to "f") people who are fooled by dishonest Hucksters into thinking anybody who doesn't support Huckabee is evil and anybody, including the NY Times that gives Huck a pass is good....you know...morons.
Ray Robison is the author of Both In One Trench: Saddam's Secret Terror Documents'
http://www.bothinonetrench.com
I have no love for Romney, but to put them in the same league is idiocy.
Not really. I can give you many more examples of Romney's "flip-flops" than you can give me on John Kerry's "flip-flops." And it wouldn't even be close.
"To this day, some people still claim that the "floating cross" was intentional. Those people are idiots."
Obviously, you think we are.
Joe,
"Unfortunately, the same can not be said of the conservative media."
This is painfully true. The list of people who have outright disparaged Huckabee is disappointing. Drudge, Limbaugh, Hanity have all made remarks that let people know that Huckabee was not "their man". Bill Bennett said on his radio show that he would vote for four of the Republican candidates but would not vote for Huckabee. In the past two weeks, Bennett has used words like "liberal" and "disingenuous" to describe him. You never heard those adjectives for the months that he and other conservative media were proping up Giulliani.
I'm glad you were able to participate in this campaign. Many of us wish we could.
TBH
"Not really. I can give you many more examples of Romney's "flip-flops" than you can give me on John Kerry's "flip-flops." And it wouldn't even be close."
I would love to see examples of Romney arguing both sides of an issue at once. I am iffy on him, would help me make up my mind. Please provide if you have them. And again, changing one's mind once is not flip-flopping. It is perfectly logical to change ones' mind as one gets new information. Another example of flip-flopping is the Hillary drivers licenses for illegals position stating she supports both sides of the issue at a single debate. What has Romney done like that?
I would love to see examples of Romney arguing both sides of an issue at once.
If that is how you define it, then I am not sure that I have concrete examples of this. Though, of course, I am not sure that there are concrete examples of Kerry doing this either, unless you count a ridiculous sound bite tat took him out of context.
But hey... that is what campaigning is about, right?
Dave, well yes, why do people think that just changing your mind is flip-flopping? Wouldn't that just be a flip without the flop? Have you never changed your mind on an issue? I sure have.
By the way, that "ridiculous sound bite" is what he actually said. That makes what he said ridiculous, not the sound bite. Hurts doesn't it?
Ray Robison is the author of Both In One Trench: Saddam's Secret Terror Documents'
http://www.bothinonetrench.com
why do people think that just changing your mind is flip-flopping?
Okay... then let me put if this way. Romney has changed his mind in order to fit the election that he was running for more than any other candidate in either primary.
Is that a more fair way to say it?
Dave: "Okay... then let me put if this way. Romney has changed his mind in order to fit the election that he was running for more than any other candidate in either primary."
With the exception of Hillary who has done this just as much (and flip-flopping) then I would agree with that. Which is why I am iffy on Romney. But I am iffy on most New England Republicans because they would be democrats if they held those positions in the mid west.
But frankly, my main issue is security and understanding of the threat posed by the rise of Islamic extremism and Romney is solid on that, so I can give in some on social issues. Just how I roll.
Ray Robison is the author of Both In One Trench: Saddam's Secret Terror Documents'
http://www.bothinonetrench.com
Why does Huckabee think it was a bad thing that Romney had "0 executions"?
Also, why can't someone put out an ad that just says something like: Romney is a phony and just looks fake.
Joe
You said, "The lies are mostly public record, so that's not just something I'm saying. Also, I never said he had some "dirt in his past." What I'm referring to is something completely different."
My brother, this is double talk. Let your yes be yes; and your no be no. Anything else is... politics.
State is clearly:
1. what is the rumor (that is a matter of public record)?
2. if you think your concerns are factual and not conjecture, then it is not rumor and you can place those "truths" before your readership.
3. if they are factual, then you would have nothing to "make right" or apologize for. BUT, if whatever you are referring to is not completely factual, and IS rumor at best, then it is terribly irresponsible for you to promote that leaven in anyone's thoughts about another candidate (btw, I am not a Romney supporter).
The Apostle Paul deals with this kind of tactic in Eph. 4:30-32. What you are doing is called gossiping... Now, whether malice is part of your political motivated thoughts is for you to sort out before the Lord.