Former Governor ‘Mitt’ Romney ran a series of ‘contrast ads’ against former Governor Mike Huckabee in Iowa.
The ads claimed that Mike Huckabee had vastly increased government spending and taxation in Arkansas (whereas he claims to have cut taxes) and that he went around handing out every possible government benefit to illegal immigrants – whereas he pretends to be tough on illegal immigration. Every word of the Romney attacks on Huckabee was true – so why did they not work?
It is a simple matter – the source of the attacks. ‘Mitt’ Romney also increased taxes when he was Governor of Massachusetts, although he called the taxes “fees” (hence one of his nicknames, Governor “Fee Fee”). True he did not increase taxes nearly as much as Mike Huckabee did, but…
And on government spending – Governor Romney left Massachusetts with a new entitlement program. Universal health care – the costs and fines connected with this program will go up and up over time, as such things always do. And “but my plan is not as bad as the Hillary Clinton plan” is not really a good defence.
As for “tough on illegal immigration”. Governor Romney was indeed tough on illegal immigration – for about two weeks before he left office. Governor Romney ordered the State Police in Massachusetts to enforce Federal immigration law as a move to impress Republican voters as he was already running his campaign for President – and knowing that the incoming Democrat Governor would drop the whole thing. Governor Romney also made a great show of vetoing some State government spending – knowing that these “cuts” would be reversed by the incoming Democrat.
So why did not Romney’s attacks work on Huckabee?
Simple – people who are not wearing any clothes do not get any credit for pointing out that other people are naked.
And there is another point…the happy clappys didn’t care what Mitt said about the Huckster. He is “one of them” and that is all that mattered to the 60% of Republicans who are evangelicals.
60% of Republicans are Evangelicals-possibly in Iowa, but certainly not in the rest of the country. We don’t need and I doubt we will get a Republican Jimmy Carter. Too bad they passed up the one adult in the race, Thompson. The voters rarely pass up an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
Andrew Ian Dodge,
That will only last so long. Most (but not all) evangelicals will have a moment of awaking when they begin to look more closely at Huckabee’s far left-of-center political record. It is not covered (for obvious reasons) on the MSM but word will get out through blogs, etc. I am trying to figure out which way these voters will go when that happens.
As I see it, a percentage probably less than 1/4 will go to McCain if he is still running. Maybe not even that much because if they have the choice of two people with personal principles they like and political policy they don’t, McCain is not a useful alternate. And they won’t go for Mitt and it is not a religious thing – evangelicals prefer religious beliefs they disagree with to pandering ambivalence, it will be for the reasons Paul just laid out in this article.
I think they will go to Rudy and Fred. Rudy has a truly W J Clintonesque personal moral life and that will count heavily against him, more even than his rather New England big government liberal outlook. IIRC, Pat Robertson (who won Iowa in 1988?) has endorsed Giuliani. That will be worth something in the tally.
I think that barring more successful efforts by the ‘neutral’ media to keep the rather un-media-cooperative Fred from doing well, he will pick up most of Huckabee’s post reality-check supporters. He does not attend church regularly, but importantly, he does not pretend to be religious for the cameras. He appears to have strong personal convictions that he chooses not to announce. He shows a moral conviction that is lacking from all of the Democrats and from Rudy and Mitt. Well, I’m not sure about Obama. Is he someone who has convictions or he just play one on TV. John McCain shows strong moral conviction and although it does not line up with most evangelicals, its presence is not unnoticed and it will be good to gather many strong-America voters.
I think Fred, Rudy and John will remain standing the longest. John will not draw any Democrat voters except for a very small color or gender bigot vote in the national election. More importantly, he will not draw voters like me who oppose more government and want less. Rudy will not draw any Democrat voters except a few less of the same ones John might draw. On the other hand (wait a second while I hide behind something) I would rather have the heavily enemy encumbered Hillary than Rudy. He would not only not draw my vote, he would draw my opposition.
I really think that Fred will slowly move up from the lower middle of the pack as it finally dawns on voters that he is the only candidate that can (and probably will) win in the national election. Media shenanigans could seriously play with his standing, though. So far he has been handling the media quite well and that I think is one reason they are so opposed to him. They are in the habit of dictating, not reporting.
Paul and Andrew,
Your responses are illuminating, but here is one thing they do not explain: Why did Huckabee surge over the field? It could not be what he or Romney did years ago or Iowan demography. You cannot explain a change with a constant.
But here is a stab:
Huckabee differentiated himself during the debates. He came across as more optimistic, more compassionate, more normal. As people learned more about him, the more they liked him.
I almost think it had little to do with Romney, per se. Huck’s qualities lifted him head and shoulders over his competitors.
Last thing: Why so much ink on Romney, who got 29,000 votes, while Obama got at least three times that?
Isn’t that a much stronger indicator of the country?
Michiganny,
I don’t know what Paul and Andrew think, but I think he hit a critical mass were people believed he could win and therefore supported him. I also suspect there was a very strong evangelical youth vote that was missing from the earlier polling data and an underestimation of the capacity of church based community campaigns to deliver.
Why shouldn’t Evangelicals get to push buttons and pull leavers? What, they should just be little people to the corporate and the east coast, elitist GOP?
I don’t see any reason Evangelicals can’t drink from the stateist Big Gulp cup of large government America. If farmers, educrats, elderly, cops, welfare state workers of all stripes can be sucking off the malignant teat, heck the Bible bangers might as well nuzzle right in too.
Er I meant Iowa. In fact, the evangelicals, make up less than 20% of Republicans in NH. They are, alas, well organised and able to motivate their numbers if they are so moved.
I think it’s true that evangelicals are a large part of the explanation for Huckabee’s win in Iowa (something like 80% of those who voted for him identify as fundamentalists), but even so only 46% of self-identified Christian evangelicals voted for him. All that tells us is that his whole appeal to those who voted for him is his religion, and that it isn’t even that appealing to them. Huckabee is not the front-runner; Iowa’s changed nothing.
Midwesterner –
I’m pretty sure Pat Robertson came in second in Iowa in 1988. Ahead of Bush the First, in any case, so your point stands – I’m just nitpicking.
Michiganny it is not “compassionate” to hand out the money of other people – money you have taken from them by the threat of violence.
Nor is it “likeable” to lie about what you have done (claiming to have cut taxes and so on).
As for the evangelicals (60% of the Republican voters). Most of them appear to have voted for one of their own – a Babtist Minister, which is what Mike Huckabee is.
Mitt Romney is a Morman, and Fred Thompson was presented by the media (including Fox News) as lazy, and without any hope of doing well.
As for Senator Obama.
He is part of the Chicago Democrat machine. He was not born into it, he choose to become part of it.
Fair enough.
“But lots of young people love him”.
Of course they do. They are taught to love Democrats by their teachers and university professors – and they have not been out in the world long enough for the brain washing to ware off (for some people it never does ware off of course).
Teachers and lecturers are a far more serious enemy of the Republican party than the trial lawyers are. Although a lot of establishment Republicans still do not understand this.
As for the media – well a contrast between the last two debates (both organized by the main Iowa newspaper) indidicates the matter well.
The newspaper did all in its power to make the Democrats look good (even by excluding two Democrat candidates who tend to come over badly on television), and the Republicans look bad (even by inviting a Republican to particpate in the debate who was not running, Alan Keys, they invited him because he tends to lose his temper and shout).
This is a extreme example certainly, but the main stream media does have an agenda and that agenda is not just anti Republican it is anti conservative and anti traditional values.
Just as the agenda of teachers and lecturers tends to be. Hence their efforts to brainwash the young.
And, of course, Senator Obama is young and a person of colour – both things that the young are taught to favour.
“Youth, change”, “diversity” and so on.
I do not have a much of a problem with him – anyone who Paul Krugman hates can not be all bad.
And the Daley machine (even if Mayor Daley is officially supporting Hillary Clinton) is moderate by the standards of modern Democrats.
wear not ware.
Thinking about Democrats tends to make me even more clumsy than I normally am.
Joshua,
Correct. I could/should have checked.
Midwesterner,
Why such animosity towards Rudy?
I don’t really know how anybody can be surprised by Huckabee’s popularity. As shown by the fact that they nominated and elected Bush II twice, there are a lot of republicans who just can’t help but love a complete vacuum.
We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.– H.L. Mencken.
I would like to be able to reply against Cynic – but I can think of no arguments against what he has written.
Therefore I must accept my defeat in this area.
David,
Any number of reasons. While I admit to a strong personal aversion to him there is good basis for it. He has, apparently twice, entered into a new relationship while still legally married. I have a strong enough belief in honoring contracts to make that a 100% deal breaker for me ever trusting him even an iota. Furthermore, he is a Patriot Act sort of believer in unlimited authority and reach of the government to protect us from everything but … itself. He would extend the police powers as much as he is able. And we can see what his word means from his treatment of his wives.
But my biggest reason is that Democrats in the legislature will always support and assist the expansion of government. Always. Republican or Democrat president, they will only fight over the details, not the concept.
Republicans in the legislature with very, very few exceptions always support a ‘Republican’ president no matter how big he is trying to make government. They will, however, oppose a Democrat president trying to grow government.
Therefore, a big government Republican equals no opposition at all in the legislature (except who gets what), but big government Democrat president equals a whole lot of opposition in the legislature.
Exit polls state that 80% of those who voted for Huckabee were evangelicals. However it seems the Huck has a strategy that he is fine with third in NH. I have my doubts he will do that well. The next state which we might see a surge from him is North Carolina which has a high number of happy clappys in it.
Obama on the other hand will probably do well in NH as they are not that keen on Hilary and they have quite an independent streak.
Andrew.
South Carolina.
Fred Thompson is going to have to pull off a big upset to beat Mike Huckabee in South Carolina.
If the Republican voters of South Carolina knew that Mke Huckabee massively increased taxes and government spending in Arkansas, and is in favour of a vast increase in the regulation of peoples’ lives by the Federal government, they would not vote for him.
But how can they be told without the person telling them being accused of “attack ads” showing he has a “mean heart”?
Most voters just see a smiling, kindly seeming man with a good line in folksy stories.
Voters do not tend to do detailed background research – and not because most voters are stupid.
It is because one vote does not make a difference – so no individual has the incentive to do lots of research work.
So ignorance (not the same as stupidity) is rational for each individual voter – but the total effect of that……
Of course, if the main stream media did a good job of providing hard factual information…..
But that is asking for the Moon and Stars.
Paul,
This is very true. I’ve noticed something interesting happening as this latest presidential race has ground into gear. ‘The Blogs’ have been getting so many mentions that a lot of voters are now aware there is something else out there, they just don’t know what it is. But as they find out I’m active on ‘The Blogs’, friends and acquaintances have been coming to me for ‘the real dope’ about candidates (and other stuff as well). I just talked to someone this morning who is a strong Hillary supporter and had no idea she has high negatives. MSM rarely mentions it and (things may change since Thursday) never dwells on it. We had a sporting wager. He picked Hillary and McCain, and I picked Thompson and Obama. Loser buys milkshakes (this is ‘America’s Dairyland’). I try to provide the most accurate information I can whether they are Dem, Rep or other. Keeping the unbiased info and my highly biased sales pitch separate are important measures of honesty and credibility.
I don’t know if this friend-of-a-blogger demographic is going to be a significant enough percentage of the voters in this cycle, but I am fairly confident that by the next cycle, everybody will know somebody who actively follows blogs. I’ve found over the last year or so, I am only watching MSM to find out what the establishment spin is going to be on any given topic. By the time a story hits MSM, we’ve generally known about it for some time. The only exception to this is breaking news and live video. But even that will soon be easier and more rigorously done on the web.
Anyone care to guess who is going to win in Wyoming today? Its their caucus today.
Huck has also made some comments which indicate that he might not continue the tradition of Wilson (WWI), Truman (Korea), Kennedy/Johnson (Vietnam), Clinton (Too many to list) and George I(Iraq) and George II(Iraq but not Afghanistan) of pursuing pointless wars which we could not possibly win, not due to military weakness, but because there was nothing to win.
But he did it without threatening the big-government tradition of the neo-Republican party. Therefore, he may be the choice of some pro-American (anti waste of American resources on no-win conflict) but big government (pro waste of American resources at home) voters. Keep in mind that Iowa is full of welfare queen farmers who like getting paid not to work.
Actually, Rich Paul. Before I was a contractor, I was a farmer for a few years. I can assure that most farmers (at least the ones I knew) hated Big Brother’s racket.
The way it works is, Uncle Sam offers subsidies. Independent farmers would like to skip them and remain independent. Corporate absentee owned farms take the subsidies and drive down the market price of the commodity. At this point the formerly independent farmers either face bankruptcy or taking the money and strings. And believe me the strings are a nightmare. I have had bureaucrats tell me to the foot where to plant crops and how much to plant.
News flash. Agricultural subsidies from the start was a plan to get agriculture under national government control. And it worked. Agriculture is now a completely government controlled industry. You can not survive without taking subsidies, you can not take subsidies without yielding control.
The fact that many farms to survive turned into corporate welfare queens does not mean the independent farmers want to see it that way. Unfortunately, as years go by the children of the independent farmers do not carry on the farming and those corporate operations fill the frustrated and angry vacuum.
Dairy farming has been destroyed in Wisconsin. Since this article was written, the last of the dairy farms have disappeared from my township. We have probably been losing dairy farms in my township at the rate of one a year for the last 40 years. Corn subsidies are doing the same thing to corn farming. When Jacob talked about a shortage of agricultural capacity in another thread, I L’dOL. Probably half of our agriculture land in my township goes fallow every decade because it is so much grief to ‘take a free ride’. In my grandfather’s day probably 90-95% of the two farms we now own were under crop or pasture. Now it is about 25%.
Unfortunately, as time goes by people assume its always been this way. After all, our first ag subsidies started ~1910(?). But it is such a pain now nobody wants to deal with it anymore except for the big corporations that have accountants and lawyers. My breaking point came sitting in a conference with my congressman’s staff trying to avoid losing my gross receipts for a year (and with it, my operation) because trying to follow the rules, I had mistaken followed the advice that the bureaucracy had given me. I followed their advice because they had access to information that I did not and I would have had to pay them to give me that information that I needed to have in order to follow their rules.
Point of all this, please realize that some of the most vehemently independent libertarian types out there are farmers. Please don’t lump families trying to save generations of savings from the control freaks in government together with those legal constructions that steal their profits by leaching off of taxpayers. Although I imagine a few real farmers are employed by the leaches because lawyers and accountants may know how to milk the system, but the don’t know how to raise crops or livestock. Even among the few farmers I still know, I think most would rather the government got out of agriculture entirely. Family farms have no choice but to take the subsidies or lose generations of their family’s investment to the gavel. And they hate it. It’s simple extortion.
Wyoming went overwhelmingly to Romney with a few delegates going to Thompson and one to Duncan Hunter (!?!).
Yes – it was Romney first, Thompson second and Duncan Hunter third.
Or 8, 3, 1.
Rich Paul.
I notice you list Vietnam in the list of “pointless” and “unwinable” wars. Wrong on both counts.
It is not “pointless” to resist Marxism (please do not do a Robert McNamara and claim that the Vietnam war was really against “nationalism” – McNamara is, and has always been, a moron and you are NOT), and Vietnam was not won, but it was NOT “unwinable” either.
But then you also list Korea as “pointless” and “unwinable”.
So go the whole Rothbard and list World War II as well.
By the way, lose in Iraq and Afghanistan (the one war you mentioned as not p or u) would indeed be “unwinnable” (if it is not anyway).
Looks like its going to be McCain, Romney in the top spots in NH. Huckabee did not do well in last night’s debate.
PM: Lew Rockwell wrote the intro to Ron Paul’s latest book and states quite clearly he thinks WWII was a mistake.
No surprise about Lew Rockwell – he has always been open about his Rothbardianism.
However, it is depressing that Ron Paul chooses to allow the introduction to his book to be written in this way.
It is a bigger error than not saying “go away” to the 9/11 “Truthers” who follow Congressman Paul about.
One can always say “these people are nothing to do with me”.
But one can not say “the person I chose to write the introduction to my book is nothing to do with me”.
However, it was still wrong to keep Ron Paul off the Fox News Candidate Forum last night – Congressman Paul got 10% of the vote in Iowa. So keeping him off the Forum (because of opinion poll ranking) is just WRONG from a moral point of view – although it was quite legal (see below).
Ronald Reagan would not allow George Herbert Walker Bush to keep out minor candidates from the main 1980 debate in New Hampshire.
It was this big dust up “I am paying for this mirophone” that led to Reagan defeating Bush in New Hampshire (if only he had not made the waste-of-space his Vice President).
Sadly people were not paying for their own microphones this year (yes Fred Thompson could have found the money for that) – so Fox were perfectly within their rights to do anything they liked (exclude people from the debate, rig the amount of time people had – and so on).
A smart move for Fred Thompson would have been to have boycotted the Forum in protest – that would have got media attention.
After all Thompson did not get much time to speak in the Forum anyway (almost all the time was given to McCain, Huckabee and Romney – even Romney’s attack ads were played, supposedly as points of disscussion).
And the Focus Group afterwards was packed with Romney supporters.
Supposedly almost everybody there came in without a favourate candidate (not likely only two days before the Primary – even in New Hampshire) and were won over by Romney’s wonderful performance – “pull the other one it has got bells on” (as we say in the U.K.)
Actually of those who spoke last night I think Rudy G. spoke best (in the little time he was given to speak). The stess on POVERTY (and how free market policy can reduce it) is the correct line to take this year – people are feeling the pinch and will only vote for someone who makes clear he understands that.
But noone in the Focus Group thought he did well (I guess he was not paying them).
And the Focus Group thought that Fred Thompson went “on and on” and “waffled”.
Which is odd considering he was not allowed to speak at all in the first part of the Forum – and only given a few seconds a question (and was interupted by the moderator) in the latter part (as I say above – the correct move would have been to boycott the Forum and call a press conference to protest about the treatment of the rival candidate Ron Paul).
I suppose the Focus Group members who said that had their attack lines written out before the Forum started.
As for the “star panel” afterwards:
There was ritual snearing (a poor joke and a so called “defence”) at Fred Thompson, and Rudy G. was attacked for his position at the table “the far end of the table, with his leg almost sticking out”.
I rather doubt the New Yorker decided where he was to sit.
I suppose it is possible that he thought “I will sit with Fred at the end of the table the Moderator is going to mostly ignore” – but it is doubtful.
How anyone thinks a blowdried corporate suit is going to win in November 2008 is beyond me.
Calvin Coolidge may have favoured big business – but he was not from such a background himself.
Even Taft in 1908 was an “antitrust” man (not that I believe in “antitrust” statutes of course).
And McKinley was a Labor lawyer.
The last man from big business to win was Grover Cleveland back in 1892. He was a good President (apart from his creation of the I.C.C. in 1888).
However, “Mitt” Romney is no Grover Cleveland – and I do not mean that he has better family values.
I can tolerate “where is my pa?”, it is the “universal health care” and endless “fees” I do not like.
But still, policy will not sink Romney.
As said above – the Democrats will present him as blowdried corporate suit (which he is) and will make, quiet, points about his Mormanism (via the mainstream media).
If it is Romney it will not be a defeat – it will be a rout.
The biggest defeat since 1964 – perhaps bigger.
Of course the I.C.C. was created in 1887 – not 1888.
Sorry.
What was most amusing for me was that a Ron Paul supporter urged me to read his book. I read the intro by Lew Rockwell and pretty much decided there is no way I could support RP for President if he had someone like that writing his book intro.
It was a mistake to keep Ron Paul out of the forum. It gave RP zealots even more of an excuse to whine loudly.
Agreed Andrew.
Although by being barred from the “Forum” Ron Paul was able to go on Jay Leno that night and reach a much bigger audience.
It is right that forum is very large but the viewers are a little bit small.
Iowa Treatment Centers
It is right that forum is very large but the viewers are a little bit small.
Iowa Treatment Centers
Greeting. It is the coolest site, keep so. Help me! Can not find sites on the: Poker online ply money. I found only this – free online poker sites no download. Putting for both international and usa volumes? Soon i can die is when you are going local, instead put the habits opponent beside you, online poker. 😡 Thanks in advance. Marlow from Colombia.