Reaction to Florida’s Primaries
Well, Giuliani's big gamble did not work. He spent all his efforts in Florida and some of the Super Tuesday states only to have his early poll lead chiseled away by McCain and Romney. I'd be highly surprised if he did not drop out of the race by the end of the week. While I previously posted about how I didn't feel that I could trust him, after researching his stances on issues, I learned to at least respect him more. I still disagree with him on issues but I think that he had good ideas for economic policies and would have done well in the international scene.
Huckabee did not do well in Florida. He got some of the evangelical vote but overall did poorly. I'm glad that members of the Republican Party see through him (well, a lot of us do). His one-liners and quips revealed that there is not a lot of substance to his platform. I heard him make a comment after the Florida results were in that his supporters should make sure they all go out and vote and that they should keep people who are not going to vote for him in their driveways. I know it was said tongue-in-cheek but that was not one of the more brilliant things that he's said. He plans on staying in the race for some unknown reason. He'll do fairly well in the South but nowhere else. He certainly would not compete well against any of the Democratic candidates in a general election. It's time for him to drop out of the race. Maybe he thinks he'll have a come-back but the cynical part of me also thinks that he might just stay in the race because he takes votes away from Mitt Romney. That is probably not true but I can't deny the possibility that anti-Mormon bigotry is playing such a large role. Anyone who thinks that the LDS Church would suddenly control Washington should Romney win does not know LDS theology. Anyway, Huckabee also could be staying in to try and be in a position to be chosen as a running mate.
McCain had a big win in Florida. He jumped into 1st place in the delegate count; he's ahead of Romney by about 20 delegates now, which is not a lot but he is polling ahead of Romney in California. Also, with Giuliani's endorsement, he will take up a majority of Giuliani supporters. I have a lot of respect for McCain and for his even-mindedness and "gut." I think he'll do well against any of the Democratic candidates should he receive the Republican nomination. I do not like the personal attacks he made against Romney though. Romney started the negative campaigning but it was always negative about candidates' actual past performance and their stances on issues. McCain started the personal attacks on Romney though (Huckabee was involved as well). McCain was the first to use language that questioned Romney's character or his integrity (for example, "if you wrestle with a pig you only get dirty" referring to Romney as the pig. That statement was way below the belt. Romney is by far the most squeaky-clean of the candidates). He was also the main candidate who called Romney a "flip-flopper," which is completely untrue. Romney has changed stances on issues (although they were mostly when he was still governor or even before then) but to "flip-flop" you have to repeatedly change back and forth. Romney has "flipped" on some issues but that's it. McCain has done the same and should not be pointing fingers. Of course, many people involved in the mainstream media also can't resist trying to paint Romney as a "flip-flopper." It's disingenuous at best and slander or libel at worst. Campaigns tend to be ugly, unfortunately, but there's no room for outright lies. Granted, Romney shouldn't be calling McCain's policies "the liberal Democrat way" but that certainly is more accurate (McCain is moderate and thus has a lot of policies that are "liberal") than calling Romney a flip-flopper.
Now to Mitt Romney. He's still in the race. He had strong support in Florida - not as good as would have liked - but he came in a solid second. He also solidly won the conservative vote. McCain won the majority of liberal and moderate Republican votes but Romney won the conservative majority. Romney will do well in a number of states on Super Tuesday. He has Utah in the bag. I think he'll do well in the other Rocky Mountain states, the Midwest, and in the Northeast. It looks like McCain will win California and Arizona, although this win in Florida will certainly give him momentum. McCain will be tough to beat. Whats hard to understand though is why the conservatives in the Republican Party (who are a majority) aren't widely supporting the one candidate who espouses the range of conservative values - Mitt Romney. I also don't get why so many more people think that McCain is more likable than Romney. McCain is likable but I don't think he's any where near as likable as Romney. Of course, I'm biased but I also try not to be swayed by media's portrayal of candidates, which in Romney's case is generally negative.
The Democratic contest was just for show. Clinton was the overwhelming winner but her win was symbolic. Hopefully Democrats see through her and stop voting for her. She has had too many scandals in the past and has been involved in too many underhanded maneuvers to be completely trusted. I think that people support her in part because they are nostalgic for her husband. I don't think that that many people are really all that nostalgic for Bill Clinton as they are for the 90s. The 90s was relatively peaceful and prosperous. People associate that with Pres. Clinton and Hillary gets to bask in the reflected glory. Bill Clinton gets all this credit for the prosperity of the 90s when it really was not his doing. If people give him credit for the prosperity of the 90s they also have to give him credit for the recession that started in 2000 and continued for a couple years into Pres. Bush's presidency. Economic forces are bigger than the Presidency. So, I think that people like Hillary because they think that she would be another Bill Clinton. It's a misguided nostalgia. I think that Obama has so much more to offer than Clinton does. Democratic voters need to see that. Of course, part of me wants to see Clinton nominated because I think she'd be easy to beat. That's not what I really feel though because I think the best candidate should be nominated and for me that's Barack Obama.
Nevada Caucus Results
Mitt Romney will win the Nevada caucuses today. With 19% of precincts reporting, he has over 50% of the vote. John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, and Sen. Thompson are in a close contest for second with roughly 10% support each. The large LDS population in Nevada certainly helped Romney but his support goes far beyond that population. With these results I think that Thompson, Giuliani, Hunter, and Tancredo should drop out of the race. It's true that Thompson and Giuliani will do better in other states; however, the Republican party needs to focus on the three to four front-runners. I would even like to see Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee drop out of the race. I think that they are both decent candidates - Paul is too extreme for most people though - but they will not win the candidacy. Neither could win the national election either. The Republican race is turning into a race between McCain and Romney, regardless of how the candidates do in South Carolina.
It's too early to comment on the Democratic race. Even though Clinton is ahead in polls I think that Obama will certainly give her a run for her money. I think that John Edwards will be out of the race after Nevada's caucuses. He'll still campaign but he will drop out of the serious contender category.
What the campaigns have shown so far is that while Democrats tout themselves as upholders of diversity, the Republican contest shows that the Republican party has a much greater diversity of ideas than the Democratic party does. Clinton and Obama are essentially identical ideologically, although Obama is more liberal. Edwards is very similar to both. It is among the Republican candidates that you can see diversity - libertarianism, social conservatism, economic conservatism, social liberalism (relatively), economic liberalism, and so forth. It does not mean that the Republican party is splintering, it just means that there is a great diversity of ideas and beliefs within the Republican party.
Earlier I mentioned how the strong LDS population in Nevada helped Romney's win. I don't think that Mormons are block voting for Romney just because he is LDS - although there is certainly some of that going on. His political beliefs just coincide with a lot of other LDS church members' beliefs. I'm not shy about criticizing Evangelicals for voting for Huckabee just because he is Evangelical. I'm also not shy about criticizing LDS members for voting for Romney just because he is LDS. I think you should vote based on political ideologies not religion. That is my biggest problem with so many Evangelical (and other people) voters; I don't care as much about them voting for a certain person because of his or her religious beliefs. I care more about them voting against someone because of their religious beliefs. Women shouldn't vote for Clinton just because she is a woman; African-Americans shouldn't vote for Obama just because he is African-America. People shouldn't vote against any of the candidates because of their skin color, gender, or any other characteristic like those. Vote based on political beliefs, not demographic characteristics.
The GOP Race: The Game of Political Risk
By Daniel Kay
With a new primary calendar this year, which includes contests that are moved up and more condensed, the road to the White House is much more complex. Some have compared the race to a chess match that is taking place across the country. The analogy is poor because in chess there are only two players while the GOP race has 6 active players. The contest is more comparable to Risk than chess. Every player claims territories and countries and each takes turns to choose their battles and form alliances in an attempt to win and gain the reinforcements that follow a victory. Each candidate has their own strategy, some better than the others:
Giuliani: The Hide in Australia (Florida) Strategy
Giuliani realized that he was going to lose in Iowa, Wyoming, New Hampshire, Michigan, Nevada and South Carolina pulled out and moved all his resources to Florida. This is comparable to a strategy I had when a child where I would hide in Australia while the other players wiped each other off the board; I had all my resources stockpiled ready to strike Asia when the others were to weak to stop me. I would then go on to win the game. Of course when you are playing others that are good at the game this never works because the other players don’t forget about you and keep the pressure on to make sure you do not get too strong. This has been the case for Giuliani. He has had to spend all his resources simply to stay tied with Romney and McCain in Florida.
Huckabee/McCain: The Unspoken Alliance of North America (Iowa) and Europe (New Hampshire)
Before Iowa, Romney was the guy with the huge armies that everyone else ganged up on because if they didn't the game will not last much longer. Huckabee and McCain did a tag team, defeating Romney in Iowa and New Hampshire, respectively. This is like the duo who make an unspoken alliance to secure North America and Europe, respectively. The problem is that strategically they still have to fortify against each other and neither is a strategic launch pad to make a mass invasion. Likewise, they will have to take each other out of the game before they can effectively set themselves up for a strategic position to win Super Tuesday. Currently the game is at the point where McCain and Huckabee have to fight it out in South Carolina (Greenland) to stay in the game. South Carolina is the end of an alliance and the end of the holder of either North America or Europe from the game.
Romney: South America (Michigan) and Most Territories Strategy (Wyoming, Nevada)
I was once bet in a game of Risk by my brother-in-law who was able move around the board in such a way that when his run came around again he still had the most territories and invariably received more reinforcements early in the game. He was later able to conquer more countries and win the game over my strategy which was to go after countries first.
Romney has won Wyoming and Michigan. Wyoming can be seen as winning the territory of North Africa before moving into to take South America (Michigan). Now he has moved his armies back to the West to take Nevada (another chunk of Africa).
Thompson: Take Potshots on Everyone Until You Get a Trade-in Strategy
Thompson is really only a fifth wheel at this stage. He is like my friend Jack who liked to mettle with whoever he could get the most riled-up. That was usually me. While he should be playing the game to help the person he would like to win, it seemed that he just took his anger out on everyone. Thompson is stuck in Asia somewhere where he is able to use his army’s on everyone.
Romney's Power Play
Romney has the most control over who wins South Carolina. He made a big move in the game by skipping the contest; if Huckabee wins, it will be a decisive strategic victory. Here is why:
If McCain wins in SC, that will make for a close race in Florida and Super Tuesday between Romney, Giuliani, and McCain because Huckabee will be out of the game. If Huckabee is removed from the game they will vote for whoever is competing with Romney, in Florida that will be either McCain or Giuliani. If the frontrunner against Romney is McCain, McCain’s support will come form foreign policy conservatives and the anti-Mormon vote but if that frontrunner should become Giuliani, Giuliani’s support will come from fiscal Conservatives, plus the anti-Mormon vote.
If Huckabee wins, that will be a good thing for Romney. Romney has probably asked like I have, “why not have the anti-Mormon voting bloc tied to the candidate whose base is the anti-Mormon voting bloc: Huckabee?” So in Florida if Huckabee is in play, after slowing the McCain train, the anti-Mormon vote will go with Huckabee regardless of how close he is to the frontrunners in the polls and give Romney a clear advantage in Florida and on Super Tuesday. Effectively, a Huckabee win in SC will tie-up the anti-Mormon vote to a candidate that is not viable nationally.
The person who benefited the most from a Romney pullout in SC was Huckabee; it was probably enough to hand him the gold tomorrow. The Romney ads that will run through tomorrow in SC are nothing more than an attempt to stay ahead of Thompson and ensure that he is forced out of the game. Skipping SC was a power play for Romney, especially if Huckabee wins, and he will be in good position to take Florida and Super Tuesday should this play out.
Romney: Michigan Primary Winner
By Daniel Kay
Romney’s home court advantage proved to be a valuable “firewall” in his GOP bid for the nomination. Though the media gave him little credit for the win or national hype, the win was decisive, gaining support from every GOP demographic. Surprisingly, he won more votes from evangelicals than even Huckabee. Importantly, Romney won 24 of the 30 delegates in Michigan. This brings his delegate count to 54; that is, 39 delegates more than McCain and 32 more than Huckabee. While McCain, and Huckabee fight it out for 1st and 2nd in South Carolina to win a portion of the 24 delegates up for grabs there, Romney is focusing on Nevada to widen an already wide lead over his opponents in the state which has 34 delegates. While Romney will miss out on the hype in South Carolina, he will win the most delegates over the weekend. I am sure it will be reminiscent of McCain’s only win (New Hampshire) where he won 7 whole delegates and received national acclaim while Romney won Wyoming and gained 8 delegates - both unreported by the media.
The question is which strategy will impact Super Tuesday, McCain’s hype or Romney’s consistently strong showing state-to-state and ability to win delegates? Should Romney have tried to battle it out in South Carolina where he could potentially win some hype but could also lose momentum, or was he right to skip SC and go to Nevada where there are more delegates but less hype? If there is any logic to this race I think he did the right thing, winning delegates should matter more than winning hype. After Saturday, Florida will have a chance to decide. Where South Carolina once was viewed as the gateway to the GOP nomination, Florida may be so this year with 57 winner-take-all delegates before the Super Duper Tuesday. Already Romney is playing down his chances in SC, predicting even fourth is possible, even though he is statistically tied for second with Huckabee in an opinion poll released today. A big win in Nevada for Romney and a big win in SC for McCain will set a very nice stage in Florida for the first winner-take-all delegates contest. There is a four way tie in Florida currently but we will soon see if the hype pays off for McCain or if the consistency of Romney will win the day.
Media Manipulations
By Daniel Kay
I’ve had my fill of media spin this election season. CBS, AP, and even Fox News have lost a lot of credibility in my eyes. It is outrageous what they are doing to this election. Today a reporter from the AP interrupted, insulted, and even laughed at Romney during a press meeting. When did reporters become paid hecklers? Leading up to Iowa and New Hampshire you could not find a positive word about Romney in the news. Then after his 1st place finish in Wyoming there was no news at all on the win. Who do they think they are kidding? They take great pains to take everything Romney says out of context and put it in the most negative light. I too lost heart after the media misrepresented Romney’s comment about his father being a civil rights activist that was a leading political leader who, like millions across the country marched with Martin Luther King Jr. While everyone could not be arm and arm standing next to King, that does not make their march any less meaningful: they all marched with that great leader. One thing is clear, the liberal media is afraid of Romney. It is sickening how they think that they should have the power over who the GOP nominee should be. Good for Romney for sticking it to this AP guy. The liberal media is not going to sway my vote. I used to trust the “mainstream media” but after the past few months, I can see there is no objectivity to their work. Most make endorsements for one candidate over another and twist the fact to suit their ends.
I think most news agencies will do whatever it takes to make the GOP contest go to convention, to make the next big news event. That would explain why the media did not have a thing negative to say about Romney between New Hampshire and Michigan. Now they are trying to make Thompson look good and saying, “Oh yeah, he has a chance.” Giuliani will be next I am sure. I keep hearing reports say, “Wouldn’t it be great if the GOP contest went to convention. That would be a reporter’s dream come true.” No surprise, many reporters' dreams are the same as the Democrats. The longer this GOP contest goes on the better for the Democrats. It is time for the GOP to realize that Huckabee is “Huckabust,” Thomson is getting none, Giuliani is not on the money, and Paul’s supporters are off the wall. McCain and Romney need a clear one-on-one battle without his tag team partner, or should I say Vice President, Huckabee getting in the way and the other “also-rans” giving false hope to and conning money and votes out of their supporters. Be not deceived, it is and has been a two man show for several weeks: Romney vs. McCain. The question is does the liberal media support McCain and if so, why? Some may argue that they do, and it is because he is socially liberal for a GOP candidate (he does seem to get the most media endorsements); others say it is because McCain has less chance of generating GOP grass roots support and enthusiasm from core Republicans which typically gets them to the polls to beat the Democratic candidate in November (this seems unlikely as many Republicans will vote against a Democrat no matter who the GOP candidate is). I am not sure if the media favors McCain but it is clear they do not favor Romney.
Who Will the Michigan Democrats Vote for in the GOP Primary?
It seems odd that Democrats should have the opportunity to play a key role in who wins Michigan’s GOP primacy and potentially the GOP nomination. However, Democrats may never have a better chance. Because Democrats can vote in the Michigan GOP primary and there is no real Democrat race, there is high incentive for Democrats to cast their voice in the GOP contest. The question is which GOP candidate will the Democrats choose?
McCain
If they vote for McCain they will be voting for the candidate which polls show has the best chance of beating Hillary or Obama in November. Voting for McCain will also add momentum to his nomination which is at the verge of critical mass already. Both these options should deter Democrats from voting for McCain assuming they want the Democrats to have the best chance of winning in November and they want to prevent the GOP from identifying their candidate quickly. Nonetheless, McCain is leading the GOP for support from Independent and Democrats in opinion polls. Perhaps many Democrats in Michigan are trying to setup a win-win situation for November: If their candidate loses, at least McCain is more liberal (i.e., moderate) than most of the GOP candidates and will be more palatable as president for them.
Romney
If they vote for Romney they will vote for the main candidate that has one of the least chance of beating Hillary and Obama in November according to current opinion polls. Voting for Romney will also create a three man race which will draw-out the GOP contest, increase tension within GOP party lines and decrease the odds of a strong unified GOP to contest with in November. A few Democrat strategists have advocated this tactic; I would expect at least some Democrats to make this move and vote Romney.
Huckabee
The only reason that a Democrat in Michigan would vote for Huckabee is because Huckabee, like Democrats, is a populist and perhaps they think Huckabee would be a palatable consolation prize if their Democratic candidate loses in November. I find this unlikely as most realize that a populist GOP president is much less likely to have the ability (due to GOP opposition and greater difficulty working across the isles) to fulfill his populist promises as a Democratic president who has most populists on his/her side of the isle.
Thompson/Giuliani/Paul/Hunter
Will these guys ever quit? The writing is on the wall, but I guess they need to spend the money they raised. Regardless, there is no reason for Democrats to vote for them in Michigan there aren’t enough Democrats that will vote in the GOP race to raise them from single digits to compete with the front-runners.
Romney has never had a better chance to win a big contest. Michigan is his birth state, he leads McCain 2-1 among GOP voters there and the questionable politics of the Democrats should be on his side.
Candidates of Change
It seems as if each candidate in both parties is touting him or herself as the candidate of change. Romney started saying something to that effect back in February 2007, other candidates have been saying it for months as well. Recently, however, it's become the catch-phrase of the candidates. "I represent change" says one. "I'm not part of the establishment" says another. What's humorous is yes, all candidates are technically candidates of change. They would be someone different than the current President and therefore a change. That's not what they mean but in that sense their chants of change are redundant.
Who has the most ability to create noticeable change in the executive office? Any of the Democratic candidates certainly would (by raising taxes, starting a national socialized medicine plan, etc.); we've had a Republican president in office these past 7 years. All Republican candidates would bring real change as well, although I think that McCain, Romney, and Giuliani would try to change less than the other candidates. McCain would work with Democrats more than Pres. Bush has done (although No Child Left Behind is an example of working with Democrats - it is actually a liberal policy, as much as I hate to label things liberal or conservative). Other than that, McCain wouldn't change very much except for immigration. Romney would try to fix the economy and budget. He would also try to fix immigration. He would also work with Democrats to try to effect change. Giuliani would, well, I'm not sure what he would do. Huckabee would try to expand the federal government; Paul would try to cut it down.
I don't believe that any of the Democratic candidates would try to reduce the size of the federal government (other than reducing defense spending). Romney is the only viable Republican candidate who would - McCain might try to fix some things - and he might fix the budget - but there is nothing in his past experience that demonstrates that he actually could fix it. Huckabee is a "neo-conservative" (as much as I dislike that term, it applies) - he does not stand for small government.
All candidates trumpet their status as the delta candidate (i.e., change [over time]) - the candidate of change. All would be a change but few could effect positive, lasting change.
Economic Experience
The overwhelming number one concern for people in political polls is the economy. This should be very good news for Romney who clearly has the best economic policies and experience of any candidate. I think he should tout his economic experience a little more than he has been doing. Romney was a venture capitalist who invested in companies and helped them turn around financially; he was very successful. He swooped in on the SLC Olympics and turned them around from a financial disaster to the most successful Olympics from a financial standpoint. He also helped turn around the budget of Massachusetts as governor.
Huckabee's budget plan is radical, it's untested and likely untenable. He's running on promises that can't be fulfilled. McCain has great foreign policies but doesn't have strong plans to fix the economy. Clinton's plan for the economy (and budget deficit) generally would be to raise taxes, as would be the other Democratic candidates. You can't fix a broken system by throwing more money at it. Romney wants to cut out waste, trim budgets, and keep taxes low. It is possible that just by cutting out excesses (i.e., redundant, ineffectual programs; needless pork) we could solve our budget problems - all without changing tax levels. Our tax system is paraplegic and needs to be fixed but it should only be fixed after we remove waste. Then we can start changing and tweaking and simplifying the system.
Again, I think that the Romney campaign, while focusing on all its strengths, needs to highlight Romney's economic strengths more. People certainly should not give up on Romney either - he is leading the delegate count for the Republicans, as my colleague mentioned in his post earlier today. So Romney has 2 silvers and a gold - he's still in the lead overall. It's funny that New Hamshire receives so much attention and McCain's win received so much attention when Romney won 8 delegates in Wyoming to McCain's 7 in New Hampshire. Romney has staying power. I like McCain and I like Huckabee but they would not do as well as President as Romney would.
Iowa Republican Debate
I think the CNN headline is telling: "GOP Candidates Stay Polite." There is hope for America when we can have a political debate (which I did not watch) and have mostly positive comments (i.e., focused on personal policy and not on each other). I know that sometimes candidates need to point out flaws or weaknesses in their opponents but that can be done cordially or with humor. That is one thing I really like about Mike Huckabee - he is very polite and runs a positive campaign. I still think that his popularity is more infatuation than substance (it could turn into substance later but now it isn't) and might die down quickly.
The Rise of Huckabee and the Status of Romney
Mike Huckabee has been in the news a lot recently. He suddenly flew up in the ranks in polls and is now a front-runner. Why do voters like him so much? Well, he's charismatic. He does decently well on the stage and is witty. He's also a minister - people tend to like ministers and trust them. The evangelical contingency in the country really like him and are throwing their support behind him. After all, he's easy for them to support, he is one of them; whereas someone like Mitt Romney is a member of a cult and well, we just don't talk about any of the other candidates' religious views. After all, the only Republican candidate who really needs to pass a religious test is Mitt Romney.
This is what is so hypocritical of so many evangelical Christians. Why are they so threatened by the LDS Church? What is it about Mormonism that they don't like? I'll address a few of the issues.
- Mormons believe that God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost (Spirit) are 3 distinct personages who are completely united in purpose but still separate individuals. They also "look human" because humans were created in the image of God.
- Relatedly, Jesus Christ has a glorified, physical, resurrected body.
- Mormons also believe that God did not stop speaking to prophets after the Bible; He speaks to prophets today. Thus, the Bible is not the end-all of God's Word. God provides new revelations to His servants, the prophets. So, the LDS canon of scriptures is not fixed, set, and closed like evangelical or Catholic scripture is; the LDS canon of scripture is open and expanding.
- Expanding point 3: Mormons also believe that God and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith and called him as a prophet. Most other Christians do not believe in prophets in our day. They believe that God stopped speaking to prophets when the last page of the Bible was written (which, by the way, was not the book of Revelation; also, ignoring the numerous edits of the Bible that occurred before and after it was compiled into the format we know now. The Bible is true, it just might not be completely translated correctly. God did not write the Bible by hand, humans did and people are imperfect and make mistakes).
I could go on but a lot of the clash between Evangelicals and Mormons is over the fact that Evangelicals (at least their theologians) don't believe in the God of the Bible - they believe in the Trinity, which is a view of God tainted with Greek philosophy. Mormons believe in God as described in the Bible (Who talked with prophets face to face, Who sent His Son to atone for the sins of mankind {which Son expressed numerous times His separateness from His Father}, Who created humans in His own image).
So what does this have to do with Huckabee and Romney. Well, as I stated above, Mike Huckabee is a minister. He worked as paid clergyman for his profession. He has the support of evangelical Christians. Mitt Romney is a member of the LDS Church. His values are the same (largely) as evangelical Christians. However, because LDS doctrine is undeservedly viewed as heretical by evangelicals, many of them can't overcome religious bigotry (or, to use a new term - religism) and support a Mormon. It's a shame because Mitt Romney is really the only true conservative of the major candidates (i.e., Giuliani, McCain, and Huckabee). This also means that Huckabee is the most threatening to Romney because evangelical Christians would likely (and probably begrudgingly) support Romney over Giuliani and McCain.
I think that Mike Huckabee is an OK candidate but it seems that most of his support is because he said some witty things in a debate and he's a minister-turned-politician. He just does not have the skills that Romney or McCain have.
Now that the economy is a top issue for voters, Romney looks like an even better candidate given his successful business and fiscal background. Maybe Huckabee would be a good president (and Romney not so good) - we have no way of telling that at this time - but it just seems that so much of Huckabee's support is based on shallow motives without substance. Then again, maybe I just don't know enough about him.
Tags
Blogroll
Recent Posts
- Which Party Ruined the Economy?
- Mitt Romney’s Tax Returns
- The Shooting of Rep. Giffords
- Truth, Freedom, and Religion
- Respecting the President
Recent Comments
- Miranda on Mitt Romney’s Tax Returns
- kem on Why McCain Should Not Pick Romney as VP
- Lonnie on Thomas Jefferson on Religious Liberties
- Tweets that mention Thomas Jefferson on Religious Liberties | US Political Scene -- Topsy.com on Thomas Jefferson on Religious Liberties
- Jonathan on Thomas Jefferson on Religious Liberties
Archives
- February 2012
- January 2012
- January 2011
- April 2010
- November 2009
- October 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007