Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Air Wars: Romney Goes Negative

Regardless of the positive pledges that candidates take at the start, all campaigns eventually devolve into a series of increasingly nasty comparative ads. The wonder is that in a race as competitive and expensive as this presidential contest that it took so long for the knives to come out.

Today former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-Mass.) begins an effort to redefine former Gov. Mike Huckabee (Ark.) as too liberal for the voters of Iowa. The first volley in that campaign within the campaign -- entitled "Choice: The Record" -- is now on the air in the Hawkeye State.

Let's take a look:

The ad tries to do several things at once.

First, it attempts to blur any differences between Romney and Huckabee on issues of importance to social conservative voters by noting that both men are pro-life and favor traditional marriage -- a strategy he debuted in a "PostTalk" interview several weeks ago. Left unsaid is the fact that Romney is a far more recent convert on each of the issues than Huckabee.

The ad then quickly segues into another issue of real import to conservatives -- illegal immigration -- and seeks to show how Romney fought benefits for illegals in Massachusetts while Huckabee backed proposals for in-state tuition and even scholarships for illegal immigrants in Arkansas. "On immigration, the choice matters," intones the narrator at the end of Romney's ad.

Why is he doing it? The ad amounts to an acknowledgment by Romney that his once-wide lead in Iowa has evaporated. Being the first candidate to go negative is always a risky strategy, but it's clear that the Romney campaign believes they have no choice in the matter.

They know that former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani has absolutely no interest in stopping Huckabee's momentum in the state. The more muddled the result in Iowa, the better for Hizzoner's chances at the nomination. Sen. John McCain's (Ariz.) campaign is focused almost exclusively on New Hampshire and, even if it weren't, it would not have the resources to fund a television onslaught against Huckabee. Former Sen. Fred Thompson (Tenn.) needs a strong showing in Iowa to remain relevant and has been hitting Huckabee of late. But it's not clear that his campaign has the resources to make a negative message stick.

Given the amount of money and time Romney has spent in Iowa, he cannot afford to lose the state to Huckabee. Although his campaign publicly insists that he would remain competitive in New Hampshire regardless of the Iowa result, they know that winning in the Hawkeye State is absolutely essential for the sort of momentum campaign they have been planning for the better part of the last year.

Will it work? Of all the candidates in the field, Romney has spent the most time building his reputation (and name identification) in Iowa through a series of positive ads that tout his accomplishments as governor of Massachusetts and his beliefs about where the party needs to go in 2008 and beyond. Voters in Iowa know -- and like -- Romney. That base of support means that voters will at least listen to the ads and not likely dismiss them out of hand.

The problem for Romney is that the ads aren't running in a vacuum. Huckabee has suddenly become the "cool" candidate, the one with buzz and momentum. That's hard to stop even with a well-crafted attack like this one. When a candidate is riding as high as Huckabee currently is, voters tend to ignore negative information about him (or her) as they are too busy falling in love. It may well be that Romney is simply laying the groundwork right now for an extended onslaught on Huckabee -- that would be our bet -- and this first ad is simply designed to sow the seeds for that effort by raising small questions ("Maybe Huckabee isn't so great?") in voters' minds.

And, Romney's decision to go negative (or comparative, whatever the case may be) also opens him up to criticism from his rivals -- each of whom is doing their own positioning in Iowa and beyond. Take this statement released last night by McCain Iowa state director Dave Roederer:

"News that Mitt Romney will launch a new attack ad tomorrow is another move by a campaign that continues to insult Iowa voters. Iowa families should not be subjected to this negative style of campaigning, especially during the holiday season.

"Governor Romney has flip-flopped on several major issues that voters care about. It's particularly amazing that Governor Romney would attack anyone on immigration when he's on his third position. John McCain has run an honorable campaign that all Iowans can be proud of. I call on Governor Romney to drop his plans for this negative attack and follow John McCain's lead. Candidates need to raise the level of the debate, not lower it."

OUCH. We've long believed that McCain's personal dislike for Romney (and we do believe it personal) could impact the former Massachusetts Governor's chances at the nomination. With McCain sounding off and Huckabee sure to push back against the charges, Romney must fight a dual-fronted war, which is always more difficult than a one versus one exchange. Watch to see whether Giuliani piles on Romney in the coming days, a move that would further complicate the efficacy of the Romney ads and his attempts to regain momentum in Iowa.

With his fundraising ability and his dedication to building the best organizations in early states, Romney was always going to be one of the prime movers in this campaign. For much of the race, he dictated the terms of the contest with early ad buys in Iowa and New Hampshire that boosted him to co-frontrunner status and a victory at the Ames Straw Poll that showed there was organizational muscle behind that money. But, now Romney has seen all of his plans disrupted by Huckabee and knows he must find a way to derail the former Arkansas governor in the final 23 days before Iowa.

By Chris Cillizza  |  December 11, 2007; 10:48 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Wag the Blog: The Oprah Effect
Next: Clinton Pushes Electability Argument

Comments

So many on this blog have spoke of Huckabee's positions, but you never really talk about specifics in your criticisms. I challenge you folks to criticize him specifically.

He put more money into the Arkansas school systems by raising taxes. Now, that is through the old economics story. Huckabee supports the Fair Tax. Sure, both the NY Times & Wall Street Journal has came out against the Fair Tax attempting to rally their faithful. Wall Street Journal faithful= those folks who enjoy the current tax system b/c they have tax loopholes to avoid taxation and use it as a competitive advantage. NY Times faithful= those tax & spend liberals and their welfare receiving cronies. These are the folks who benefit from the current system. If your not a multi-billionare or a welfare receipiant you may well benefit from the fair tax. If you own a small business, you will certainly benefit from the fair tax. Consumers overall benefit from the fair tax as well. How so? Excess taxes will be eliminated from goods & services we buy reducing prices of those goods & services. The Fair Tax is the type fo innovative approach this nation needs to move forward progressively. Huckabee will gladly debate the Fair Tax vs. the current system, and he will win vs. a liberal or conservative argument.

Huckabee will also excite Christian Conservatives as well as Conservative members of the black community as a folksy but conviction lead Christian. He supports children's right to live, the 2nd amendment, traditional marriage and a limited death penalty. While he believes the death penalty is essential to society, he has a record of viewing repentance before carrying it out. This will win him many moderate converts. He can win the social argument on principle.

Huck does lack a national security profile. It will be interesting to see what all of his views are on this process. I would think he likely does not support meddling in the Israeli vs. Palestinian conflict. Hopefully, he will realize were wasting money & lives on this and that nothing will ever be resolved in this dispute. It's one of Biblical proportions that will last as long as time. His positions on the Iraq war, Iran, N. Korea & hardline vs. soft stances will have to be evaluated.

I think mr. Huckabee has a strong & compassionate but mainstream position on immigration. I applaud him for being compassionate & sticking to his guns on his position.

I also love the fact that Huckabee doesn't flip flop when he's criticized, he simply has conviction. That's a true quality of a strong leader!

Posted by: bryant_flier2006 | December 12, 2007 2:46 PM | Report abuse

"O'DONNELL: Here's the problem. He dare not discuss his religion. And he fools people like Pat Buchanan, who should know better. This was the worst speech, the worst political speech, of my lifetime, because this man stood there and said to you, "This is the faith of my fathers." And you and none of these commentators who liked this speech realize that the faith of his father is a racist faith. As of 1978, it was an officially racist faith. And for political convenience, in 1978 it switched and it said, "Okay, black people can be in this church."

He believes -- if he believes the faith of his fathers that black people are black because in heaven they turned away from God in this demented Scientology-like notion of what was going on in heaven before the creation of the earth -- "

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 12, 2007 1:18 PM | Report abuse

elbeau,
as a member of the evangelical movement, I'm a life-long Baptist and I am grieved to have witness first hand the the bad treatment of Mormons. I do understand your resentment and I'm really sorry. It took me living in Ogden, UT for nearly two years to see for myself that the vile things I was told about Mormons were not true.

Gov Romney put his religion into play the moment he begun to pander to the evangelicals. Had Gov. Romney truly paid attention to the "people" of evangelical political activist groups and how they are manipulated by the master evangelical manipulators i.e James Dobbs, Pat Robertson , Jerry Bauer, and Jerry Falwell to name just a few Gov. Romney would have known not to play the religion card. These people don't have Christ at the center of their motives but rather power is their motive. They use true Christian believers to achieve their end.

Gov. Romney has flip-flop not only on abortion but also on gay marriage and his successful health care plan. To me, Gov Romney is never the man he said he was two minutes ago. He talk tough about going to war but he knows he nor anyone he loves will ever fight the war. But will certainly be first in line to take the spoils of war. You don't need me to remind you of his response to Mike Wallace's question about his son's lack of military involvement and Gov. Romney avoiding military service.

I'm from a town that Gov. Romney, while a Bain executive, came in and laid off 70% of the employees and reduced the wages of those who stayed by 40%. He then goes out an spouts off about how he saved so many jobs.

He says he made a mistake fashioning pro-choice policy while he himself was pro-life. What core principle was he drawing from to do something like that? And if we are to believe him, why did he decide to change now? It got him elected Governor. And just for the record, had he maintained his support of all the positions he once taken but know find them morally reprehensible he wouldn't be having the problems with these issues as he is now.

So, the people are right to question what Gov. Romney believes and what his core values are. He has given us good reasons to question him.

Posted by: SteelWheel1 | December 12, 2007 10:21 AM | Report abuse

elbeau,
as a member of the evangelical movement, I'm a life-long Baptist and I am grieved to have witness first hand the the bad treatment of Mormons. I do understand your resentment and I'm really sorry. It took me living in Ogden, UT for nearly two years to see for myself that the vile things I was told about Mormons were not true.

Gov Romney put his religion into play the moment he begun to pander to the evangelicals. Had Gov. Romney truly paid attention to the "people" of evangelical political activist groups and how they are manipulated by the master evangelical manipulators i.e James Dobbs, Pat Robertson , Jerry Bauer, and Jerry Falwell to name just a few Gov. Romney would have known not to play the religion card. These people don't have Christ at the center of their motives but rather power is their motive. They use true Christian believers to achieve their end.

Gov. Romney has flip-flop not only on abortion but also on gay marriage and his successful health care plan. To me, Gov Romney is never the man he said he was two minutes ago. He talk tough about going to war but he knows he nor anyone he loves will ever fight the war. But will certainly be first in line to take the spoils of war. You don't need me to remind you of his response to Mike Wallace's question about his son's lack of military involvement and Gov. Romney avoiding military service.

I'm from a town that Gov. Romney, while a Bain executive, came in and laid off 70% of the employees and reduced the wages of those who stayed by 40%. He then goes out an spouts off about how he saved so many jobs.

He says he made a mistake fashioning pro-choice policy while he himself was pro-life. What core principle was he drawing from to do something like that? And if we are to believe him, why did he decide to change now? It got him elected Governor. And just for the record, had he maintained his support of all the positions he once taken but know find them morally reprehensible he wouldn't be having the problems with these issues as he is now.

So, the people are right to question what Gov. Romney believes and what his core values are. He has given us good reasons to question him.

Posted by: SteelWheel1 | December 12, 2007 10:21 AM | Report abuse

SteelWheel1: I never said Huckabee hid his credentials. He did indeed tout them all along. What he DID do was use what was then a very meager advertising budget to promote himself as a "Christian Leader", not to promote himself as a politician.

His strategy was well-planned and well-performed. He saw that the evangelical constituency had a real problem with Romney's religion and Guiliani's lack of a moral compass. The evangelical base was crying out for one to call their own. Never mind the fact that Huckabee is fiscally liberal. Never mind that Romney is the best "values" candidate we've seen in a generation (minus the abortion flip-flop...grr...but at least he admits it).

Huckabee is a former Baptist minister. He touts his religion and tells the media that Romney needs to explain his religion. He knows the debate about whether we Mormons are allowed to use the title of "Christians". He played that string to perfection. Can Romney claim to be a "Christian Leader"? I'm a Mormon and I know I'm a Christian, and Romney was a leader of a much larger congregation of us than Huckabee was...but if Romney put "Christian Leader" in an add, the very people who jumped to Huckabee's side would Boo Romney. He is playing to the religious bigotry of the evangelicals.

Then he goes to Salt Lake City to preach that we need to "reclaim America for Christ". If you can't see the dirty tricks you're blind.

Growing up Mormon I've put up with a lot of crap from evangelicals, but I will not be forced to the back of the Republican buss. If they want anybody besides Protestants on board, now is the time to show it.

Posted by: elbeau | December 11, 2007 5:27 PM | Report abuse

KOZ: responding with nonresponsive statistics isn't really much of a response.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 11, 2007 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Navy served - 1,842,000
killed - 2,565
wounded - 4,178

your chance of getting wounded - 4178/1842000 = 0.002
your chance of getting wounded three times: 0.002 ^3 = 0.000000012
your chance of getting wounded and not killed = 4178 / (2565 + 4178) = .61
Your chance of getting wounded and not killed three times = 0.61^3 = 0.23

your chance of getting elected if the real report with the DoD is released - 0.00

time since you promised to release the full DoD record - 3 years

Probability Kerry is telling the truth: 0.000000012

Math is easy, truth is hard.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 11, 2007 5:02 PM | Report abuse

elbeau,
Gov Huckabee never held back his "Christian Leader" title. From day one Gov. Huckabee has described himself as a Southern Baptist Minister a "Servant Christian Leader".
He has said this since day one but because he was deemed "unelectable" by the right he was never listen to.

As far as us Christians being lemmings, there is an element of that among believers. I won't argue with you on that point but to say we all jumped in unison here recently behind Gov Huckabee now
because we all just now heard him describe himself as a "Christian Leader" is disingenuous.

Do recall what Gov. Huckabee said back when Pat Robertson through his support behind Rudy. He said he was surprised. He stated that he has always touted his Christian Leadership credentials from the beginning of the race.

Posted by: SteelWheel1 | December 11, 2007 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Kingofzouke,

Before you call someone a dingbat make sure you know what you are talking about. Bismon did have the correct journal title and the journal title you provide only includes the society from which it originates. I would caution you only being rather smog with your answers.

Posted by: sltiowa | December 11, 2007 4:53 PM | Report abuse

"drindl - in Vietnam soemthing like 70% of wounded soldiers died. that means 30% live with the wound."

Um, no. Not even close.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties#United_States_Armed_Forces

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 11, 2007 4:52 PM | Report abuse

"Wrong journal dingbat:
International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society."

That is the journal to which I linked.

Posted by: bsimon | December 11, 2007 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Liberal media - what happened to the daily above the fold articles about the lost war. not so good now that we are winning. how about all that torture at Abu Graib -what with the panties on the head - how horrible. Certainly deserves 40 above the fold pages. how about a maccacca story every day for two months? how about the liberal media talk about the expanding Antartic ice cap? the amount of wildlife living near the alaskan pipelines? the record economic expansion? I just can't seem to find the articles simple simon- show me the link?

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 11, 2007 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Wrong journal dingbat:

International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society.

I won't be doing your research for you junior. If you don't like the results I suggest you take it up with:

David Douglass at the University of Rochester, John Christy at the University of Alabama, and Benjamin Pearson and S. Fred Singer at the University of Virginia.

that is how academics works, which is clearly news to you.

now go back to your batman comics. or more likely your bible - written by al gore

drindl - in Vietnam soemthing like 70% of wounded soldiers died. that means 30% live with the wound. Kerry got wounded three times with no ill effects. Wrote his own action reviews. Never even went to the hospital. collected his medals and took the three wounds exemption to get home early.

If it were an R, you wouold see right through this but your moonbat vision doesn't work in daylight.

the final straw - he still won't release his official war record from the DoD. why John, what does it say?


Posted by: kingofzouk | December 11, 2007 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Bismon,

The article is still officially "in press" and not published (advance online version). I can send you a pdf if you like. It was fairly technical and is just looking at global warming models ability to predict known events. The bottom line was to be cautious in putting too much confidence in these models long term prediction. I see people write things on this blog about the conservative nature of these models (i.e., glaciers melting faster than predicted). All these guys point out are that the models have issues. Groups will spin this research as they see fit. I would add the impact factor on this journal is not incredibly high.

Posted by: sltiowa | December 11, 2007 4:42 PM | Report abuse

It's certainly negative, but I think it seems a lot worse than it is cause he's attacking someone who hasn't got the money to defend himself cause he's not bought and paid for. He's supported by Chuck Norris while everyone else falls all over themselves trying to buy the worthless support of Pat Robertson. I wouldn't worry, though. Huckabee's a big boy, and people in Iowa who do this every 4 years can tell a desperate move when they see one. So Mitt thought he could buy Iowa and now the fickle voters found a new beau, those tramps! The lesson here is that no matter how much you pay for it, doesn't make it love. Hahaha.

Strategy: Giuliani knows better than to go after Huckabee, with Thompson and Romney already taking turns throwing money at the problem and looking worse because of it. He could set on Romney like McCain did, but probably better for him to stay out of the fray and appear like he's too dignified to care.

McCain is smart getting into the fray, it's free publicity and reminds people he's still in the race. His move was a winner, and he could take some of the lost Romney votes.

Huckabee should play it cool, last thing he needs it to have anything ruin his likability and good humor. His modesty is going to repel other attacks, lest others awaken McCain's wrath. (John's awesome)

Romney is going to have issues going negative. At least he played it safe first and at least talked about policy. Not that there's any stained blue dress to peg on Huckabee, but it's not like that's stopped politicians before (just ask the swift boat veterans and John McCain's illegitimate black baby).

Posted by: grimmix | December 11, 2007 4:41 PM | Report abuse

"Bush is evil, america is wrong, Democrats are great, vote for hillary... that is essentially everything the NYTimes has published in the last 8 years."

Well, there was that whole Judith Miller fiasco. You know, the one where she unquestioningly passed along the necessary Bush Administration talking points to sufficiently scare the country into shifting its focus from our real enemies in Afghanistan and Pakistan to our former ally and now "rogue" actor Saddam Hussein. Yeah, the NY Times REALLY smacked down the Bush Administration with that one. (sarcasm)

I wonder what it would take for the "kingofzouk's" of this world to realize that the media's agenda is corporate, period. War is good for their business, so they support American crusading.

If the media were "liberal" as the idiotic canard goes, we would not have gone to war with Iraq. The NY Times was instrumental in stoking the nationalist sentiments that made that ill-conceived adventure possible.

Posted by: piper190 | December 11, 2007 4:39 PM | Report abuse

bsimon -- before you take any of these 'scientific' sources seriously, check to see if any of them are among the over 100 founded/bankrolled by Exxon.

(3 Purple Hearts, no scratches) got your tinfoil beanie on today bhoomes? so it's a government conspiracy now -- kerry was not wounded but the US military gave him purple hearts? why, they must all be secret Libs, then....

Posted by: drindl | December 11, 2007 4:37 PM | Report abuse

"And just so I'm being completely honest with you, I do believe God is working His purpose thorough Gov. Huckabee. How else do you explain Gov Huckabee's hot surge in the last days of the campaign that REALLY matters going into Primaries?"

Wow. Huckabee flashes his "Christian Leader" slogan on TV and the evangelicals come running. Forget his politics and policies. If he says "Christian Leader", then he is God's candidate.

How do I explain Gov. Huckabee's surge? He is playing on the fears that evangelicals have about Mormons. Yesterday he went to Salt Lake City to give a speech that we need to "reclaim America for Christ". A few days before he was telling the media that Romney needs to explain his faith to the media.

Huckabee is surging because he knows how many evangelical lemmings are out there waiting for a "Christian Leader". Most of you lemmings were waffling around looking for a religious leader, but none emerged until Huckabee put his "Christian Leader" add on television. This is a guy who had virtually NO advertising budget at the time, and he uses his airtime to advertise his religion, not his policies. He does it at a time when the media is having a field day with Romney's faith. He is playing you like a violin. That explains his surge.

God's purposes will move forward no matter who gets elected president. God is not the leader of a political party, he is the father of mankind, and Huckleberry is not his mascot.

Posted by: elbeau | December 11, 2007 4:23 PM | Report abuse

"I already posted the exact journal that the article came in."

Zouk, you did not. You posted a link to a 'news' story in a conservative magazine. Then you posted a link to the organization that publishes the International Journal of Climatology, but no link to the journal itself. I did that - right to the table of contents page for the Dec 2007 issue which allegedly published the article your source cites. I asked which article on that page is the one your source references, but you've failed to respond. In short, I think your source is bogus, and you either don't realize that, or don't care.

Posted by: bsimon | December 11, 2007 4:22 PM | Report abuse

simple simon:

I keep forgetting you are up for the role of third stooge - Larry and as spotted afternoon jackel in drindl's pack of perpetually outraged moonbats.

you are going to get a call back for sure for the role of Larry -- moonbat stooge.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 11, 2007 4:18 PM | Report abuse

I already posted the exact journal that the article came in. Is that insufficient for you? Even my dissertation accepted that as enough. but not for simple simon who never is satisified with any facts that don't comport with the liberal religion.

Maybe you are not sure what a fact is? hint - you may want to put down the mother earth times and look in a refereed journal.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 11, 2007 4:15 PM | Report abuse

"that is essentially everything the NYTimes has published in the last 8 years."

Strange how when you're asked to back your claims with facts, you change the subject to bashing the NY Times. Did you cackle first?

Posted by: bsimon | December 11, 2007 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Bush is evil, america is wrong, Democrats are great, vote for hillary.

now are you with me??

that is essentially everything the NYTimes has published in the last 8 years. and I did it with superb editorial skill. notice the wit, the accuracy, the economy of words. you must now be thinking I am pulitzer worthy, maybe even nobel.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 11, 2007 3:58 PM | Report abuse

elbeau,
you are right when you say Gov Huckabee hasn't been put under the microscope as the other candidates. But I hold to my point that Gov Huckabee represent "possibilities" for the Republican party as did Fred Thompson once did. This would explain the excitement about Gov. Huckabee now, despite being unnoticed for as long as he has in the race

When Fred was placed under the microscope,a scope with very little magnification, revealed an actor with no substance and no drive to be president.

I believe there is some substance to Gov Huckabee; after all, despite the latest revelations about him he hasn't changed his position as has so many of the other candidates have done when their pass positions on issues get in the way of what they claim to believe now.

And just so I'm being completely honest with you, I do believe God is working His purpose thorough Gov. Huckabee. How else do you explain Gov Huckabee's hot surge in the last days of the campaign that REALLY matters going into Primaries?

Gov Huckabee received sub zero treatment from the very "Value Voters" who claimed their religious believes trump everything else. What these "Value Voters" didn't mention was their religion trumped everything except winning at all cost.

And just as my God have done many times before, He has taken the stone that the stone master reject and made it the cornerstone of the entire building.

Posted by: SteelWheel1 | December 11, 2007 3:56 PM | Report abuse

"I have to use quotes around the word "journalism" when referring to the NYTimes."

Your predictable response is why I included the Washington Post & Wall Street Journal in my list. If you feel like the Times' reputation is beneath you, I will settle for you establishing comparable history, reputation & credibility as the Wall Street Journal - but only the news pages, not the editorials.

Posted by: bsimon | December 11, 2007 3:52 PM | Report abuse

I did back my assertion and in fact, I am usually the only one on this site that does so.

If I have to establish credibility in line with the NYTimes, I will need to plaigerize some, add in some economic lies and statistical wrangling and then follow with a healthy dose of political extremism. but you won't be treated to any further scientific journals. refereed works don't work for the NYTimes agenda.

so which do you prefer, science or "journalism"? I have to use quotes around the word "journalism" when referring to the NYTimes.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 11, 2007 3:43 PM | Report abuse

bsimon, as far as I can tell, the climatology journal isn't available for free online. There are only a handful of references to this research online, and all but one are reposts of the badly written and extremely biased press release Zouk posted. Sciencedaily.com is the exception:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071211101623.htm

According to this article, the journal article was about the reliability of climate models. The Sciencedaily summary of the research says nothing about increased solar output, or anthropic global warming in general.

By the way, the sun isn't getting hotter. Previous warming and cooling periods have been correlated with changes in solar radiation. This one isn't. Here's some data from the Max Planck institute:
http://www.mps.mpg.de/images/projekte/sun-climate/climate.gif

Posted by: Blarg | December 11, 2007 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Z-man, found a direct link to the journal's TOC for Dec 2007, can you point me to the relevant article? TIA

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/116844649/issue

International Journal of Climatology

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Volume 27 Issue 15 , Pages 2017 - 2124 (December 2007)

Posted by: bsimon | December 11, 2007 3:42 PM | Report abuse

"Seriously, are you that skeptical of anything the NYTimes puts out?"

I am skeptical of the material you post. Once you establish history, reputation and credibility comparable to that of the Wash Post, WSJ or NY Times, I'll be more likely to accept your material at face value. Until then - what's so difficult about backing your assertions?

Posted by: bsimon | December 11, 2007 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Its a journal. you need to subscribe to get it or go to the graduate library. Seriously, are you that skeptical of anything the NYTimes puts out?

http://www.rmets.org/

Have you already forgotten about the judge that ruled al gore's movie was replete with lies. Even a judge could see, it doesn't take a scientist to smell a prank.

Q: what heats the earth?

A: Al Gore's hot air speeches and jet exhaust

B: the sun

C: everything we deem evil about man: profit, industry, greed, big cars, America.

D:how do I know, they can't even predict whether it will snow tomorrow?

According to Occams razor - the answer is B - the sun. all other answers rely on shifty political desires and must be discounted by any thinking human. this obviously excludes the extreme left.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 11, 2007 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Huckabee has more c0ck in his eyes than he does in his pants.

I will vote for any Democrat if he becomes the GOP's nomination.

If Huckabee wins the GOP is dead and the Christian Taliban has arisen...


Posted by: ClubbieTim | December 11, 2007 3:31 PM | Report abuse

"trying to dig up dirt on kindergartners or his job as a Community Organizer is crazy."

Where's the smear campaign? The assumption of the smear campaign smacks of another candidate's perpetual battles with the vast right-wing conspiracy.

Posted by: bsimon | December 11, 2007 3:30 PM | Report abuse

This is a smear campaign. I understand if you go after someone for their positions but trying to dig up dirt on kindergartners or his job as a Community Organizer is crazy. Just my opinion.

Posted by: TennGurl | December 11, 2007 3:27 PM | Report abuse

"the origianl source is a climatology journal."

A link to the original source would remove all doubt.

Posted by: bsimon | December 11, 2007 3:24 PM | Report abuse

TennGurl asks
"Will Clinton defend this.."

I'm no Clinton fan, but am wondering what there is to defend? Is it now unfair to ask about a candidate's past work - particularly since Sen Obama claims his community activism is important experience?

I suspect people see a smear campaign where there isn't one.

Posted by: bsimon | December 11, 2007 3:21 PM | Report abuse

"It's a rather disappointing race so far." -Elbeau

I agree with that statement. I had hoped for a truly conservative candidate that I could really get excited about. I had hoped for Ga. gov. Sonny Perdue or Neb. gov. Dave Hienemen. But neither of them are running. Instead, this field is what it is.

I have just been waiting for Romney to go negative. He's fortunate that he has such a large financial advantage. Although, much of Huckabee's support is likely real and not bought (i.e. Romney's). So many Iowan's have decided to support Huckabee, perhaps he has it won as his supporters will be hard to sway. So, not only may Romney lose Iowa to Huckabee. These negative campaigns may also hurt him in New Hampshire. New Hampshire is where Rudy & McCain are competing, and they will likely attack Romney's negative style alot in New Hampshire in hopes his support will errode there. Will it work? I think it very likely will. So, with that being said, who can win New Hampshire? McCain or Rudy is my bet. Romney will fight there to the end, as he knows losing New Hampshire & Iowa will be his demise. We will see if he makes these attacks work for him or will it be the nail in the coffin?

Posted by: bryant_flier2006 | December 11, 2007 3:19 PM | Report abuse

"Zouk, do you have a link on that Global Warming story?" It was widely reported in the honest press but no mention in the usual prevaricators NYTimes, WaPo, NBC, MSNBC, etc.


http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200712/NAT20071211a.html

but the origianl source is a climatology journal. note it is a referreed journal so most Libs will have no use for it. they need to sneak in under the radar with solely political and journalistic sources. helen thomas is a good place to go for climatology....if you're a Lib.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 11, 2007 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Blarg,

You can not vote unless you are aligned with a party. I do not know the official cut-off for switching. While I am very interested politics, I tend not to join any particular party. I have only been in Iowa for one other caucus. My observation between the D and R in Iowa is that their values are not all that different compare to what I saw when I lived on the East coast (DE or MD) or when I lived in FL.

Posted by: sltiowa | December 11, 2007 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Will Clinton defend this..

From: Bob Nash
To:
Sent: Sun Dec 09
Subject: BARACK
HOW ARE YOU ?? I AM FIGHTING HARD >
SECOND ARE YOU PEERSONALLYAWARE OF TH EWORK BARACK DID ON THE SOUTH
SIDE WITH COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION S , ETC .. BOB
WHAT DI DHE DO AFORE HOW LONG AND WITH WHO ??
PLS TELL BOB HELLO BOB
Bob J Nash
Deputy Campaign Manager
Hillary Clinton for President Exploratory Committee
4420 N. Fairfax Drive
Arlington, VA 22203
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/10/barackemail/

Posted by: TennGurl | December 11, 2007 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Republicans having a substantial debate. How utterly foreign it must be to you Dems.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 11, 2007 3:11 PM | Report abuse

"Republicans eating their own. I love it!"

Go ahead and love it. What I'm finding out is that despite my values and politics, I was never one of "their own" in the first place?

Posted by: elbeau | December 11, 2007 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Proud - "Romney appears to have little or no integrity at all, so I'm not sure what your'e refering to here. He has changed his positions more times than anyone in politics, and it always seems to be at just the right electoral moment...coincidence? I don't think so."

have you already forgotten the trailblazer who invented the genre - who defined the word - a clintonism???

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 11, 2007 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Republicans eating their own. I love it!

Posted by: acindc007 | December 11, 2007 3:02 PM | Report abuse

sltiowa, do you have to register with a party in advance to attend their caucus? Or can you make your choice at the last minute? Do you plan to caucus this year at all? It seems like you have an actual opportunity to help choose a nominee. As a resident of a later primary state, I'm a bit jealous, and I'd hate to think of you staying home and wasting that opportunity.

Posted by: Blarg | December 11, 2007 3:02 PM | Report abuse

sltiowa: Fair enough. I've got no problem with people like you who are basing your choice on the candidates instead of their particular religion. I've had my doubts about Romney's waffling too, but I don't see the other candidates as being any better. It's a rather disappointing race so far.

The thing about Romney that gives me some hope is that he really has actually accomplished hard things most everywhere he's gone. That's wouldn't be such a bad thing for our country right now.

Posted by: elbeau | December 11, 2007 2:54 PM | Report abuse

elbeau,

While I do not agree with all your comments concerning Huckabee, I do agree that Huckabee has been flying under the radar screen similar to Jimmy Carter. Time will tell if all the allegations are true or if only half truths have been told.

I live in cold wintery and now icy Iowa. I am originally from the East coast (D.C. area). I am not officially registered with any party so I have not officially participated in any caucus vote. However, I have been interested in McCain and Huckabee on the R side and Obama and Richardson on the D side. I tend to favor governors over senators since they have had to work with both parties to get things accomplished. Romney has an impressive resume, however, his stances on many issues seems to vasolate with whomever he is speaking with (all candidates do this to some degree...Romney and Guiliani do this a lot more).

I do consider this a form of an attach ad since MH full position and reason is left from the content (distortion of the truth) through it is not the slimy type hitting below the belt.

Posted by: sltiowa | December 11, 2007 2:43 PM | Report abuse

mark: WMR = Willard "Mittens" Romney? I like it.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 11, 2007 2:28 PM | Report abuse

The ad is not negative and not desperate.

It is truthful.

You know this when many of you would come away from watching this ad preferring MDH's
position to WMR's.

I did. I want to send the IAs back and I want to doc all the undocs but I do not want their kids prowling the streets in the meantime.

Ad was clean.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 11, 2007 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Here's my voting preference in order:

1. Romney
2. McCain
3. Guiliani
4. Obama
5. Clinton
6. Huckabee

If candidates 2 through 5 take down Romney, fine, that's politics. If Huckabee does it after playing to the religious fears of the evangelicals, I'll walk away from the republican party forever. It's not because Huckabee is an evalengical...I've supported the big "W" during both of his terms...it's not about my religious feelings. The problem is that if the "religious right" wants nothing but a certified Protestant, then they don't want me. Why would I be loyal to a party who would reject me because of my faith?

Huckleberry can run a "political" add claiming to be a "Christian Leader"?...and everyone falls over themselves like lemmings. In my opinion, that's no different than someone running based on the color of their skin. Any candidates want to put "White Leader" in their next add?

Posted by: elbeau | December 11, 2007 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Romney must be pretty desperate to do that.

Yeah, I agree with the commenter before that this is likely his death knell.

It used to be easier to go negative and get away with it, before people started having all these tech tools at their disposal, and targeted under-the-radar ads didn't get released to the whole world.

Posted by: WillSeattle | December 11, 2007 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Wow...It's incredible how much blogging you can miss by going to lunch....let me try to catch up a little...

"Conservative voters look at Gov. Huckabee and see possibilities. The Republican party has been demoralized by hypocrisy, hubris, and ineptness. It is high time for a new kind of leader and leadership"

No...Conservative voters look at Gov. Huckabee and see a candidate that hasn't been under the microscope until now. Once you zoom in a little he doesn't look fiscally conservative at all. The only thing that makes people think he is "Conservative" is that they have the term "Christian Leader" confused with the word "Conservative". His whole platform is his religion. The only things voters knew about him before now is what he said about himself, because the other candidates ignored him too long. The problem for the other candidates here is timing...he is surging at the best time for himself...The voters will come down off of the Huckabee euphoria, but it might not happen until after the first few states. Sucks to be Romney right now.

Posted by: elbeau | December 11, 2007 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: vbhoomes: "We leave that type of dirty politics to the Masters, Clinton Inc."

What alternate universe does this thought come from? I'm no Clinton fan, for policy reasons, but the Clintons have been vilified, crucified, tried--and come out legally clean. They are nowhere within a million miles of Lee Atwood, Karl Rove, and the Swift-boaters when it comes to lies, innuendoes and character assassination. And those guys are the brains and values representatives of the Republican party.

Posted by: edwcorey | December 11, 2007 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Don't confuse Huckabee with facts. He has faith he is right. Does he hear a voice too? Is it the same one Bush hears? Huckabee ,another hypocrite.

Posted by: notabeliever | December 11, 2007 2:08 PM | Report abuse

"the perils of lurching left, just like NYTimes, MSNBC, Air America, etc..."
Posted by: kingofzouk

Sir, just what exactly does your point have to do with this blog entry? Please keep the media bashing on the Freeper site, OK? It's old and has no relevance whatsoever.

Posted by: vegasgirl1 | December 11, 2007 2:04 PM | Report abuse

"It was the people who served with Kerry who drew distinctions(3 Purple Hearts, no scratches) not me or you or anybody else who wasn't there."

Not exactly, hoomes. The people who actually served with Kerry -- that is, on the same boat, not somewhere in the vicinity, like the Smearboaters -- said his accounts were accurate and the Smearboaters were full of it.

But of course, the Smearboaters had the GOP behind them funding their activities.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 11, 2007 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Zouk, do you have a link on that Global Warming story?

For the record, I agree with you, the manmade component of Global Warming is likely very small, and is not reducable in any case without far more pain to society than any benefit gained.

Of course, this is an unpopular position in the PC press, and it doesn't serve to advance Gore's fame or power.

Posted by: JD | December 11, 2007 2:01 PM | Report abuse

ceo1,
Are you saying Romney is the only person that will restore your faith in government?

Posted by: SteelWheel1 | December 11, 2007 2:00 PM | Report abuse

"John McCain was serving his country as a youth, wearing the uniform just as his forbears did in honorable military service. But of course, Mitt has made clear that his sons are serving the country by supporting his run for president. That should even things up with the military folks."

You have a point, proudtobeGOP. Romney is an incredible phony, and his sons should be ashamed of themselves.

As for going negative in campaigns, well, I'm shocked, shocked! (Please note the sarcasm there). Until enough Americans start reading and researching more on what a candidate's true record is, this type of mindless campaigning will continue. So everyone, read up and think for yourself!

Posted by: vegasgirl1 | December 11, 2007 1:59 PM | Report abuse

muna9nine ,
thanks for the information and i agree Gov Huckabee may well have a glass jaw; however, he is not burden down with the negative luggage the other top candidates have that has the conservatives holding their noses while voting.

Conservative voters look at Romney and see a guy that has been as liberal as Hillary but now talks conservative.

Conservative voters look at Rudy and see manure, useful only in one area of their life but undesirable everywhere else.

Conservative voters look at Fred and say he is dead (figuratively).

Conservative voters look at Senator McCain and see a true Patriot but not person they want in higher office.


Conservative voters look at Gov. Huckabee and see possibilities. The Republican party has been demoralized by hypocrisy, hubris, and ineptness. It is high time for a new kind of leader and leadership.

Posted by: SteelWheel1 | December 11, 2007 1:58 PM | Report abuse

If Huckabee wins, I for one will not be voting in the general election. The only person I believe in is Romney. If he is not a nominee, I really don't care what happens in government because for me it will be a lost cause and completely irrelevent. I cannot see myself becoming involved in politics in the future, nor do I think the way politicians handle issues are relevent to how the issues will be dealt with. I am getting to the point where I believe it is time for another Revolutionary (Civil) war on our own land to change government. The bureaucracy has royally messed the entire government up. I am all done! Sincerely, An Almost Undecided

Posted by: ceo1 | December 11, 2007 1:54 PM | Report abuse

I'm glad the author changed his description of the ad from negative to comparitive. I didn't think the ad was negative it was just stating differences in their policy, which is certainly fair.

The fact of the matter is that Huckabee will give away the store to 20 million illegals who are breaking our laws daily.

Please look at www.gohunter08.com

Duncan Hunter is a REAL CONSERVATIVE.

Duncan Hunter is truly the best of all Republican candidates, he just needs to be recognized by the media and voters.

Posted by: fighterDC | December 11, 2007 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Claudia, i do not want to spend to much time refighting the 2004 race but it was Kerry who declared himself a War hero thereby making his war record relevant. It was the people who served with Kerry who drew distinctions(3 Purple Hearts, no scratches) not me or you or anybody else who wasn't there. Surely you will not besmirch the people who served with Kerry. Oh that's right you think all War Veterans are Baby killers.

Posted by: vbhoomes | December 11, 2007 1:50 PM | Report abuse

SteelWheel1 - I agree that Guliani would be a terrible nominee, especially if we want to retain our soul...however, regarding Huckabee, let me share this link and you be the judge...
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashhu.htm

There's a reason the Dems want Huckabee to win...

Posted by: muna9nine | December 11, 2007 1:42 PM | Report abuse

It's going to be a real pleasure watching Romney and his boy-band get permanently retired from politics.

Posted by: dfc102 | December 11, 2007 1:40 PM | Report abuse

muna9nine,
you said "Huckabee has so many liabilities it makes him an easy target". You are kidding right! You don't think Rudy has a warship size of negatives? Did you see Rudy on Meet The Press? Come on!

Actually, I think the Democrats would have a bigger problem with beating Gov. Huckabee. And here is why I say this. Romney's flip flops will haunt him. Romeny, will look more liberal than Hillary in the general election.

Rudy's pass, present and future will tank him the moment he becomes the the nominee.

John McCain's message isn't resonating with republicans. So, even if he by some chance gains the nomination his message of "Stay the course", Amnesty, and his age will make him a lame duck candidate before he even begin to campaign.---I don't like saying this about Senator McCain. He is the only real Patriot in this race

Fred Thompson is already showing signs that he is very tired and ready to return to his comfy Lazy Boy chair.

With the exception of the latest revelations about Gov. Huckabee, which I don't believe has much sticking power, there isn't much to carp about.

Posted by: SteelWheel1 | December 11, 2007 1:35 PM | Report abuse

'I suspect the club for growth set is a subset of the so-called 'wall street' GOP; does that group split between Mitt & Rudy?'

certainly they are, bsimon and they will likely go for mitt, because rudy is too unpredictable to suit the business community. he would be their second favority though because he's a money puppet.

Posted by: drindl | December 11, 2007 1:35 PM | Report abuse

LoudounVoter - no, I don't think that most Americans take the time to research a candidate, but if you're on this site and posting even, then you obviously have a vested interest. That being the case, you of all people should be taking the time to do proper research instead of regurgitating anything you read...unless you want to categorized as just another ignorant American, and my feeling is you don't - so don't be one.

Posted by: muna9nine | December 11, 2007 1:35 PM | Report abuse

John McCain is damaged goods, sorry. His Boy Scout duty-honor-country shtick would sound noble if we were in 1950 but when he talks about "victory" in Iraq and spends all his time with septuagenarian WWII vets he makes me wonder just what century he thinks he's in.

I think he has Baghdad mixed up with Pearl Harbor. Since his market stroll with a hundred-soldier escort after which he declared "the streets are safe" I wouldn't trust him with anything more responsible than heading the VA.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | December 11, 2007 1:34 PM | Report abuse

"What would make me feel better was knowing that Americans make an educated choice based on facts about candidates, regardless of whom they choose, not what they read in papers or see on the news. When that starts to happen, I'll feel good about the election situation..."

Then you'll never feel good about the election situation. You should count your blessings if most Americans even learn something about the candidates from the newspapers or tv news before they go to vote. Do you expect most people to read candidates' position papers? Be realistic.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 11, 2007 1:32 PM | Report abuse

What would make me feel better was knowing that Americans make an educated choice based on facts about candidates, regardless of whom they choose, not what they read in papers or see on the news. When that starts to happen, I'll feel good about the election situation...

Posted by: muna9nine | December 11, 2007 1:28 PM | Report abuse

muna9nine, I'm gonna ignore that ignorant comment on account of my holiday cheer, but suffice it to say you know not of which you speak. I don't happen to think that Romney is less of an American because of his lack of military service, it's just that I trust McCain more on that level and on a variety of others as well.

If it makes you feel better, I and many others would (probably) vote for Mitt over Hillary if it came to that.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | December 11, 2007 1:26 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP - so you would force your sons to serve in the military if they didn't want to to fit your conception of patriotism...and that makes you more American?

Posted by: muna9nine | December 11, 2007 1:24 PM | Report abuse

JimD52 writes
"Giuliani will hang in there and his campaign will get a big boost from Tsunami Tuesday. His clearest shot at the nomination depends on Huckabee and Romney remaining active for a while. He would almost certainly win three way contests with Huckabee and Romney."

Jim, how do you see GOP primary voters splitting among Huck, Romney & Giuliani? If Huck gets the social conservatives & Rudy gets the neocons, where do the rest go? I suspect the club for growth set is a subset of the so-called 'wall street' GOP; does that group split between Mitt & Rudy?

Posted by: bsimon | December 11, 2007 1:23 PM | Report abuse

and the winner is .. Ron Paul!!

Very tough to slime the man because he is 100% the real deal.

Congressman Paul is honest, fiscally minded and has the experience we need in Washington. He cares about more about our troops, protecting the constitution and the controlling the deficit than almost anyone else in our government today. Dr. Paul will put the rights of the individual ahead of special interests. He's a religious man but does not wear his faith on his sleeve to gain votes.

Posted by: oneman | December 11, 2007 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Claudialong,

Your analogy goes both ways. I see both sides making despairing comments about the other party. I suggest you do a little homework yourself.

Posted by: sltiowa | December 11, 2007 1:20 PM | Report abuse

As an Iowa resident I would note that in addition to the Romney ads that the Club for Growth is running anti Huckabee ads featuring videos of him tallking about tax choices to his state legislature in Arkansas implying that he will raise taxes. ThTHTH

Posted by: ejgallagher1 | December 11, 2007 1:19 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP - are your sons in the military serving in Iraq? No? Does that make you less American?

Posted by: muna9nine | December 11, 2007 1:18 PM | Report abuse

"when he was 19 he volunteered to give two years of his life to something he believed. And he paid for it too. What were the other candidates doing at 19?"

Well good for Mitt, he was touring Europe on his mission quest as a teenager, but he still could not beat Obama in the general.

John McCain was serving his country as a youth, wearing the uniform just as his forbears did in honorable military service. But of course, Mitt has made clear that his sons are serving the country by supporting his run for president. That should even things up with the military folks.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | December 11, 2007 1:15 PM | Report abuse

wow, 5 posts in a row by zouk. Notice, CC, how he is destroying your blog? that's his purpose -- other than spewing nonsense about climate change.

seem to have a lot of time on your hands to hang around this blog, zouk--what did you say you did for a lving again? i don't see how you can work when you post, literally, every 2 minutes... hmmm.

'Okay, class I have an assignment for you. Go and read Arthur Miller's "The Crucible", replace the word "Witch" with the word "Liberal" and you have the story of today's Republican candidate pool.'

Actually go back to any Hitler speech and replace 'jew' with 'liberal' and you will get the republican party line.

Posted by: drindl | December 11, 2007 1:13 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP writes
"what about that pork chop [Romney] picked up from the dirt and put back on the grill- which Iowan was the happy recipient of that gritty morsel of integrity?"

Ouch

Posted by: bsimon | December 11, 2007 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Wow, some of you think that was a negative ad? The media tells you something and like a flock of sheep you start bleating. Comparison advertising is not the same as negative. The Huckster is trying to pretend he is hard on illegal immigrants yet he wanted to put a hard working American student behind an illegal student. Unless Arkansas had all the money in the world an American would have been displaced by an illegal. He is to soft on crime. Letting 1,000 out of prison, almost ten time more than any other Governor in AK. You think George was bad just wait tell the Huckster gets the White House and God starts telling him what to do. Every illegal will be entitled to an education and he will turn loose all of the murderers and rapists because they have suffered long enough. Let the Judge and jury determine when they have suffered enough. We all know that this a media ploy to make the Huckster the Republican candidate so that their Dem can beat him badly. Then the Dems would have a mandate to do their will.

Posted by: DeanS1 | December 11, 2007 1:09 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP - the most flip-flops in politics? Are you really that out of touch with politics? He openly discusses why he changed his mind on 2 issues, and he is the worst flip-flopper in politics? You want to talk about character, when he was 19 he volunteered to give two years of his life to something he believed. And he paid for it too. What were the other candidates doing at 19? Obama already admitted that he was using drugs and having sex with as many girls as possible...and you want to debate character...wow.

Posted by: muna9nine | December 11, 2007 1:04 PM | Report abuse

I agree that an Iowa loss will not prompt Romney to withdraw. He is too well funded and organized to let one loss make him quit. However, the cascading effect will probably cost him in NH - which is much more wide open than Iowa. I don't think that Romney has a chance in SC.

Should McCain lose NH, I think he is finally finished. Thompson will hang on until SC and withdraw when he loses to Huckabee.

Giuliani will hang in there and his campaign will get a big boost from Tsunami Tuesday. His clearest shot at the nomination depends on Huckabee and Romney remaining active for a while. He would almost certainly win three way contests with Huckabee and Romney.

Romney's tactics in Iowa have the smell of desperation. I do not think he is going anywhere. I predict he will hang around just long enough to siphon off enough votes from Huckabee to give Giuliani the nomination.

Giuliani will definitely try to convince Huckabee to be his running mate. It remains to be seen whether Huckabee will be able to withstand the pressure the GOP powers to be will put on him to accept.

Posted by: jimd52 | December 11, 2007 1:04 PM | Report abuse

What's new? Another desperate Republican playing the race card and appealing to the most racist and bigoted elements within the party of hate. Hardly a surprise.

Posted by: TDewey | December 11, 2007 1:02 PM | Report abuse

"My candidate has certainly pandered to the so-called religious right, but at least he has had the integrity to draw a line in the sand..."

elbeau, Romney appears to have little or no integrity at all, so I'm not sure what your'e refering to here. He has changed his positions more times than anyone in politics, and it always seems to be at just the right electoral moment...coincidence? I don't think so.

Voters can tell who is honest and forthright and who is just mouthing propaganda and poll-tested statements. Romney is a master at the latter, but is lacking a depth of character that is evident in many other ways. (what about Seamus? and what about that pork chop he picked up from the dirt and put back on the grill- which Iowan was the happy recipient of that gritty morsel of integrity?)

These anti-Huckabee ads only add to the perception that Romney's a negative guy in general, and has no positive message of his own. Deep pockets cannot replace character.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | December 11, 2007 1:00 PM | Report abuse

another liberal fairy tale falls victim to the facts:

There's been a lot of talk within the past, oh three election cycles, about how the "smartest" or most "intellectual" candidate would make the best president. Coincidentally, they are all Democrats:

In 2000, Al Gore was considered more "intellectual" than George W. Bush, despite the fact that his college transcript was rife with Cs and C-minuses. He also dropped out of the Vanderbilt Divinity School after receiving a number of Fs.
In 2004, John Kerry was touted as being "smarter" than George W. Bush, even though his undergrad GPA was one point lower than Bush's - a fact that was conveniently unavailable until after the election.
Hillary Clinton has been anointed the best and brightest of the class of 2008, followed closely by the "clean and articulate" Barack Obama - although don't expect to see Mrs. Clinton's grades anytime soon; they likely have been sequestered like her papers from her days as First Lady.

hillary failed the DC bar -the easiest in the country. then tried to hide it. what elese is she hiding?

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 11, 2007 12:57 PM | Report abuse

More liberal nonsense debunked. Imagine that, the sun is warming the planet - not al gore's gasbag $6000/minute speeches.

Sun, Not Man, Main Cause of Climate Change, New Study Says
By Monisha Bansal
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
December 11, 2007

(CNSNews.com) - According to a new study on global warming, climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia found that the climate change models based on human influence do not match observed warming.

That is contrary to the views held by former Vice President Al Gore, who accepted the Nobel Prize on Monday along with the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and who thinks that climate change is largely caused by human action.

Gore wants nations to tax carbon dioxide emissions and not build any new coal plants, among other steps. "It is time to make peace with the planet," Gore said in his Nobel speech, as reported by the Associated Press. "We must quickly mobilize our civilization with the urgency and resolve that has previously been seen only when nations mobilized for war."

The new report, which challenges the claims of Gore and the IPCC, was published in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society.

The report was written by David Douglass at the University of Rochester, John Christy at the University of Alabama, and Benjamin Pearson and S. Fred Singer at the University of Virginia.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 11, 2007 12:55 PM | Report abuse

the scarecrow will be a crow'e nest soon.

"Among independents, Reid drew a positive rating from 32 percent while more than half -- 52 percent -- said they were not happy with his performance.

"I don't think it is his tangling with the president that is the real problem," Davis said. "It is that Nevadans are like typical Americans, they hate bitter partisanship on both sides."

In October, a Review-Journal poll showed Reid's favorability rating among Nevadans had dropped to 32 percent, a low that alarmed Democrats and cheered Republicans looking for signs that he might be vulnerable when he is up for election again in 2010. "

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 11, 2007 12:52 PM | Report abuse

the perils of lurching left, just like NYTimes, MSNBC, Air America, etc.

NEW YORK- Fourth-ranked broadcaster NBC has quietly begun reimbursing advertisers an average of $500,000 each for failing to reach guaranteed ratings levels, the first time a network has taken such a step in years, media buyers said. Networks usually offer make-goods -- free advertising slots -- in the event of such shortfalls

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 11, 2007 12:50 PM | Report abuse

"you really have morphed into zouk,"

still obsessedd with me I see. you got out two whole posts before falling back to your natural inclination toward mud slinging.

still no paying gigs for the queen of smear? Lucky for the pack of jackels who follow you all day, I suppose.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 11, 2007 12:49 PM | Report abuse

bankney: You're being nieve.

First, in the interest of full disclosure, I AM a Romney supporter, but I am not in any way affiliated with his campaign. I AM a Mormon but have only voted for a Mormon once in my life (Harry Reid...big mistake). The things I accused Huckabee of are verifiable, except the he-said/he-said parole issue. Just do a little research.

Huckabee pardoned or granted clemency to one convicted criminal every 4 days in office. This is NOT a similar pattern to any other governor that I know of and it is NOT a similar pattern to the previous three governors of Arkansas - Including president Billy. These are straightforward facts. He has NO regard for the decisions of our juries. That is a very viable consideration for someone running for president. It's amazing to think, but the issue of unreasonable pardons is actually an issue that Hillbillary could use AGAINST the republican nominee if Huckabee wins.

As far as the religion thing goes, I'm sure it is very comforting to see your candidate post "Christian Leader" in his adds, or go to Salt Lake City yesterday and declare that we need to rescue this nation for Christ...but you don't have to be a Mormon to see that he is not running on his platform, he is reminding voters that he is the "safe" candidate. He tells the media that Romney needs to explain his religion, but acts offended when asked religious questions himself.

My candidate has certainly pandered to the so-called religious right, but at least he has had the integrity to draw a line in the sand and tell the voters what role his personal faith would have on their lives.

Posted by: elbeau | December 11, 2007 12:46 PM | Report abuse

vbhoomes,
I agree with you that pointing out a candidates economic record or pass bad decisions amount to "going negative". The problem for Gov Romney is the timing of it.

Gov. Huckabee's economic record was there the entire time Gov. Romney was the near undisputed front runner in Iowa and now he decides to bring it up along with some other seemingly unsavory decisions that Gov. Huckabee has made.

Gov. Romney has good reason to feel desperate. Americans do not suffer losers, be they real or perceptual very long. This truth is what has been at the heart of why it took Iowans, I think, to warm up to Gov. Huckabee in the first place. Remember, the reason why the "Values Voters" didn't support Gov. Huckabee from the beginning is because he wasn't "electable". This is just another way of saying we don't back losers even if he is one of us and represents everything we hold so dear to our heart.

What I want most to happen is for Gov. Huckabee to win the nomination so Pat Robertson and the rest of the phony leaders of the "Values Voters" explain why they backed a non-God fearing man Rudy over a God fearing Gov. Huckabee.

Posted by: SteelWheel1 | December 11, 2007 12:41 PM | Report abuse

ROFLMFAO!

Huckabee, a "liberal"? Keep using that as a slur, Republicans, and it will become increasingly meaningless.

Ok, class, you have the following assignment: Go read Arthur Miller's "The Crucible", and everytime you see the word "witch", substitute it with the word "liberal". The result will show you the current political climate of the Republican rack of candidates.

Class dismissed.

Posted by: deaniac | December 11, 2007 12:40 PM | Report abuse

vbhoomes,
I agree with you that pointing out a candidates economic record or pass bad decisions amount to "going negative". The problem for Gov Romney is the timing of it.

Gov. Huckabee's economic record was there the entire time Gov. Romney was the near undisputed front runner in Iowa and now he decides to bring it up along with some other seemingly unsavory decisions that Gov. Huckabee has made.

Gov. Romney has good reason to feel desperate. Americans do not suffer losers, be they real or perceptual very long. This truth is what has been at the heart of why it took Iowans, I think, to warm up to Gov. Huckabee in the first place. Remember, the reason why the "Values Voters" didn't support Gov. Huckabee from the beginning is because he wasn't "electable". This is just another way of saying we don't back losers even if he is one of us and represents everything we hold so dear to our heart.

What I want most to happen is for Gov. Huckabee to win the nomination so Pat Robertson and the rest of the phony leaders of the "Values Voters" explain why they backed a non-God fearing man Rudy over a God fearing Gov. Huckabee.

Posted by: SteelWheel1 | December 11, 2007 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Huckabee will not win the nomination once the primaries start coming out of the Bible Belt, although dems would love to see it because Huckabee has so many liabilities it makes him an easy target. Romney's add was probably the most positive "negative" ad I've ever seen, so I don't think it will have the political fallout that many are predicting.

Posted by: muna9nine | December 11, 2007 12:38 PM | Report abuse

ROFLMFAO!

Huckabee, too "liberal"?? Remember, Dubya called ultra-conservative John McCain a liberal too.

Okay, class I have an assignment for you. Go and read Arthur Miller's "The Crucible", replace the word "Witch" with the word "Liberal" and you have the story of today's Republican candidate pool.

Posted by: deaniac | December 11, 2007 12:36 PM | Report abuse

bankney: "AIDS: Bringing out 15-year-old comments really is worse than desperate. His position doesn't seem unreasonable to me for 1992. Treat HIV/AIDS like other infectious diseases was the argument. Today, it's viewed differently."

Then why can't Huckabee say that and say that his position has changed? Should be a simple matter to do so.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 11, 2007 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 11, 2007 12:33 PM | Report abuse

Left unsaid is that whoever may be leading in GOP polls is nevertheless someone that no voting majority feels especially good about. Not a one of them is breaking 40% support according to the NYT.

I'm glad to see Romney going down in flames, his rallying cry to religious fanatics everywhere was distasteful. Rudy has probably seen the best days he's going to, people are getting sick of him already and there is nearly a year of this to go.

And Huckabee? Sure, he'll get 90% of 30%. The last thing we need is a guy who thinks he can pray away the world's problems.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | December 11, 2007 12:29 PM | Report abuse

elbeau

The only thing sadder than your post is the Romney attack ad.

I'm an undecided Republican voter. I initially supported Thompson. But he has run a terrible campaign.

But posts like yours (and I suspect you work for the Romney campaign) really demonstrate everything wrong with politics. Lie. Misrepresent. Tell half truths. And hope something sticks because your candidate is in so much trouble.

I want a candidate who supports low taxes, fights crime, suports a strong defense. I want to be inspired. I want a candidate to tell me why he (or she) is right for America.

I don't want to read nonsense like you posted. Just a few quick comments on them:

Huckabee pardons: Any governor is going to have to grant pardons and commute sentences. If you look at his entire record, it's mixed. But your effort to make him sound like Dukakis is laughable.

Taxes: Let's compare Arkansas taxes with other states. Let's compare the tax rates between MA and AR. It's a joke when someone hammers a governor of a low tax state for raising taxes. When Huckabee left office, he had a balanced budget and some of the lowest taxes in the nation. Again, I hate to see anyone raise taxes. But which taxes did he raise and why?

Illegal Immigration: It's silly to think we can deport 12 to 20 million people. None of the leading Republican candidates has a great record on illegal immigration, especially Romney, Huckabee and Giuliani. But let's hear them explain their decisions. Let's hear their plans. Let's avoid ridiculous attacks when Romney has illegal immigrants doing his lawn care.

Parole Board: Again, let's look at the facts. No parole board member suggested Huckabee pressured him or her until after the murder occurred. Convenient for Clinton appointees to say that. Do you have any evidence that Huckabee's lying about it? I didn't think so.

200 hard drives: Let's see what happened. I haven't seen a report. And I doubt he was there wiping the hard drives clean. But I want more information.

AIDS: Bringing out 15-year-old comments really is worse than desperate. His position doesn't seem unreasonable to me for 1992. Treat HIV/AIDS like other infectious diseases was the argument. Today, it's viewed differently.

I called the Romney campaign today and said that I would never consider him after the attack ads. I support the Reagan principle on that. I'm not sure who I'm going to vote for. But I have one less option.

I really think efforts to smear Huckabee are going to backfire. I'm looking for a reason to vote for someone. Romney gave me a reason not to vote for him.

Posted by: bankney | December 11, 2007 12:27 PM | Report abuse

I'd agree with bsimon there. Romney might start hobbling, but there's no way he'd pull out after a loss in Iowa. Given what he's invested, I imagine he'd have to have incredibly poor showings in all pre-Tsunami states to withdraw completely before Feb. 5.

The only one I can see flat out pulling out after Iowa is Thompson. If, after moving there, he still completely flounders in Iowa, then why even bother? I suppose if Romney crumbles, he could hope to pick up some of Romney's SC vote, but it feels like a stretch.

Posted by: Skip_Lively | December 11, 2007 12:24 PM | Report abuse

AndyR3 writes
"If Huck wins Iowa which would eliminate Romney. You then go into NH with Huckabee, Guiliani, and McCain (Thompson pulled everyone out of NH today)."

Andy, while an other than first finish for Romney in Iowa will be a setback, it won't knock him out entirely. He has far too much money available to fall by the wayside so quickly.

Posted by: bsimon | December 11, 2007 12:15 PM | Report abuse

AndyR3: I really don't see it playing out your way. If Romney looses Iowa, he PROBABLY won't win NH, but it's not a definite write-off. Even if McCain wins NH, there is a lot of bitterness among Republicans against the guy, I think his best chances are to win NH, then fizzle just like last election. If you eliminate Romney in the first two contests, Guiliani will probably coast to the nomination. I'm not a Guiliani fan at all, but I think that's what we will see.

Posted by: elbeau | December 11, 2007 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Willard "Mittens" Romney is the epitome of an empty suit. This man has run to the left of Ted Kennedy! Now he is running to the right of Mike Huckabee!

That's not a flip-flopper, that's a contortionist.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 11, 2007 12:14 PM | Report abuse

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/10/poll.head.to.head/index.html

With those polls, I actually am not sure they are as actually damaging as they are in appearance. It looks like a blow to any sort of electability argument, sure, but commentators have also pointed out that it can be largely explained by the fact that there are still a large number of voters who don't really know Huckabee. That number's going to dwindle, but right now he's seriously hampered by how little most voters (those who are far removed from blogs such as these) know about him.

It's interesting that these head to heads are also in such contrast to the last Rasmussen ones for Huckabee v. Clinton and Obama. Those had Huck losing to Clinton by only one point.

Posted by: Skip_Lively | December 11, 2007 12:13 PM | Report abuse

This is a mistake by Romney. He's thinking like a management consultant here--that voters just run down a checklist of issues (abortion, taxes, immigration) and pick the candidate who agrees with them on the most issues.

In the end, most voters pick the candidate they LIKE, with electability being perhaps the other major consideration. Huckabee is likeable. Romney not so much. Romney is going to increase the likability gap by going negative. And does anyone really think he's going to be able to convince voters that Mike Huckabee, a pastor from Arkansas, is a big scary liberal?

Posted by: edwardlahoa | December 11, 2007 12:12 PM | Report abuse

Mitt Romney needs to "speak up" about his positions and clearly define how they differ from his opponents; who presently are the other Republican candidates.

Governor Romney has basically changed his views on certain issues, much like some of the rest of my fellow citizens. With more information and critical thinking, our judgements evolve. My definition of flip flopping is going back and forth on issues just to satisfy everyone. Romney has held fast to his beliefs and expresses them over and over. He is honest about the reasons he has changed his stand on certain moral issues. I respect his decision to be consistent regardless of his audience.

I think Romney will best bring about necessary changes in our government, making it more "for the people, of the people, by the people". He has a history of turning things around in the private sector exemplifying his leadership ability.

President Romney will be my choice.

Posted by: gram.malinda | December 11, 2007 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Oops...I need to read better...sorry :)

Posted by: elbeau | December 11, 2007 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Louden,
I wouldn't write off McCain yet. If Huck wins Iowa which would eliminate Romney. You then go into NH with Huckabee, Guiliani, and McCain (Thompson pulled everyone out of NH today). If McCain can gather enough of Romney's old supporters to over take Guiliani for the win it would do two things.
First it eliminates Guiliani until AT LEAST florida (where Huckabee is winning now) thereby creating a two person race.
Second it would give all the momentum to McCain heading into SC.

Now I could see a tsunami tuesday where McCain's name recognition, and his general positive approval nationwide wins him the big states on Feb 5. Then he makes a deal with Huckabee to run togethor so to solidify the GOP ticket, especially if the Democrats are still fighting it out. McCain/Huckabee or Huckabee/McCain would depend on who won the most delegates on Feb 5th.

Posted by: AndyR3 | December 11, 2007 12:09 PM | Report abuse

claudialong: "Swiftboat -- smear a war hero. that negative enough for you bhoomes? accuse Clinton of murder, with zero evidence... that negative enough for you? you really have morphed into zouk, drool on every post."

You mentioned me right before you said this...I don't get it. Was this aimed at me?

Posted by: elbeau | December 11, 2007 12:08 PM | Report abuse

I've been working myself into a rant over this for a few days now, and as it's more or less on topic, my apologies, but I'm going to vent.

Cillizza: "When a candidate is riding as high as Huckabee currently is, voters tend to ignore negative information about him (or her) as they are too busy falling in love."

I'm trying very hard to skip that stage. I'm becoming progressively more enamored with Huckabee, but have worked very hard to remain intellectually honest and critically analytical as information was released. Results have been mixed.

But I never expected the biggest blow to my opinion of Huckabee to come from Huckabee himself.

Romney's ad is launching the wake of Huckabee's new immigration plan. Huckabee's (let's just be blunt) idiotic immigration plan.

I found Huckabee so incredibly refreshing on immigration. He and McCain stood apart from the rest of the Republican foray on the issue - apart and above. In a nod to fairness, Huckabee didn't talk about giving illegal immigrants a completely free pass, but he spoke with compassion and optimism and hope - the hope this country represents and the hope this country can retain. He refused to stoop down to bigotry and fear.

Now, my measured assessment of his new immigration plan and his slightly revised rhetoric has to admit that he hasn't come full circle. He still talks about compassion, he still speaks against fear, and he hasn't become an angry little man.

No, his plan falls prey to another trap - blind idealism and political rhetoric. He knows that, if not in the general, at least in the primaries, his immigration record is being played as a weakness. (See Romney ad, exhibit 37.) So he wants to staunch that. And somehow, in his mind, the best way to do this was to have illegal immigrants make the formal gesture of going back to the country (voluntarily) before returning legally. Everyone's happy, right? Illegals aren't penalized in their application, legals are bumped below illegals on the immigration list, and current citizens can stop pitching a fit.

But all this is premised on a (frankly absurd) idea that the immigration process should take no longer than a credit card application. Now, that would be fabulous. Really. If it happened, if we streamlined the immigration process like that, then perhaps it would all work. Now, you'd probably still need a window larger than 120 days, but in this idealistic scenario, illegals have the chance to set their affairs in order, go back to their home country briefly (I'd say you can chalk the expense of that trip up to a reasonable fine), apply, and return legally.

But unless Huckabee is going to turn around and explain exactly how he's going to make that happen, the plan is both foolish and unworkable. He exchanged leadership and practicality for a political dreamboat which may just sink him.

I may still have a crush on Huckabee, but I've still got plenty of nice thoughts for McCain and Obama.

Posted by: Skip_Lively | December 11, 2007 12:06 PM | Report abuse

There's a South Carolina push poll telling voters that Obama had a Black baby.

Posted by: BurfordHolly | December 11, 2007 12:01 PM | Report abuse

bsimon: It seems to me that McCain -- despite being a better general election candidate than the Huckster, Willard "Mittens" Romney, or "Hizzoner" -- is considered yesterday's news by GOP primary voters. Presidential candidacies have expiration dates. Joe Biden is another example.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 11, 2007 11:56 AM | Report abuse

You forgot Huckabee doesn't beleive in science, elbeau.

Swiftboat -- smear a war hero. that negative enough for you bhoomes? accuse Clinton of murder, with zero evidence... that negative enough for you? you really have morphed into zouk, drool on every post.

Posted by: drindl | December 11, 2007 11:55 AM | Report abuse

"More bad news for the Huckster.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/10/poll.head.to.head/index.html "

Interesting. Could also be spun as good news for McCain, as the only GOP candidate to beat or tie (or lose least badly) to the Dems. Yet the GOP doesn't seem interested in nominating him at all.

Posted by: bsimon | December 11, 2007 11:54 AM | Report abuse

Huckabee Pardons: 1033 (That might be a new world record! By Comparison, Bill Clinton, Frank White and Tucker granted a TOTAL of 507 clemencies in the 17 1/2 years they served as governor)

Huckabee''s financial answer for Arkansas: Raise Taxes!

Huckabee''s answer for illegal immigration: Give illegals scholarships!

Huckabee''s biggest lie so far: "I didn''t pressure the parole board - Everybody else is lying"

Hickabee''s Coverup: Destroying 200 hard drives that belonged to the public when he left office.

Hickabee''s ignorance: Lock up everybody with AIDS...and he wouldn''t even retract it until he saw the media pressure building and building.

But don''t worry, he''s a "Christian Leader" who will "take this country back for Christ". THAT''S HIS ENTIRE PLATFORM!

His campaign is RIDICULOUS, but it is pandering to what the evangelicals want to hear. This is truly pathetic.

Posted by: elbeau | December 11, 2007 11:47 AM | Report abuse

oh really hoomes? how about our current president's campaign spreading rumors in SC that McCain has a black child? was that negative enough for you?

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 11, 2007 11:46 AM | Report abuse

I wonder if there's any buyer's remorse among GOP primary voters (in SC in particular) for allowing Bush's slanderous rumormongering to knock McCain out in 2000?

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 11, 2007 11:44 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 11, 2007 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Hokiepaul --

That's not going to happen, at least if Huckabee keeps his word. He has stated unequivocally that he would not run on the same ticket as someone who is pro-choice.

A commentator on CNN said that recently as well. It's simply not going to happen, and if it does, Huckabee will do quite a number on his socially conservative credentials, undermining some of the support he would lend to Giuliani.

Posted by: derek.dobachesky | December 11, 2007 11:33 AM | Report abuse

"The first volley in that campaign within the campaign -- entitled 'Choice: The Record'"

The word you're looking for here is "titled," not "entitled."

To be "entitled" means to deserve something, not to have a particular name.

Posted by: derek.dobachesky | December 11, 2007 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Giuliani can not afford to attack Huckabee, nor would it make much sense. Huckabee is a favorite or a large chunk of the population that would not be voting for Giuliani anyway in the primary. He is better off staying nice and cordial with Huckabee and setting up a potential Giuliani/Huckabee ticket that will draw out a wide range of general election votes.

Besides, Giuliani is too easy of a target if things get negaitive. His best bet is to take the higher ground and let Romney fight off Huckabee on his won. Romney still remains a much greater threat to Giuliani than Huckabee does at this point.

Posted by: HokiePaul | December 11, 2007 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Smells like desperation to me. Romney´s campaign has been a mile wide and an inch deep. He has done enough flip-flopping and pandering for 10 campaigns and now it is showing through.

I predict he will fall apart faster than a $20 suit. By this time next year, he´ll be remembered as the Ed Muskie of 2008.

Posted by: pfalduto | December 11, 2007 11:22 AM | Report abuse

I do not believe pointing out some of the ecomomic liberlism of Huckabee is going negative. To me negative means insinuating he is an adulterer, Liar, sodomizer, etc: We haven't got there yet. We leave that type of dirty politics to the Masters, Clinton Inc.

Posted by: vbhoomes | December 11, 2007 11:21 AM | Report abuse

I agree with the first commenter that Romney should be careful of letting Huckabee run wild because he is starting to go very far p in Iowa and he could very well end up sweeping it all. Just take a look at yesterday's stunning polls, with Huckabee tied with Giuliani nationally and AHEAD BY 11% IN SOUTH CAROLINA!! Link: http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2007/12/huckabee-keeps-rising-as-attacks.html

Posted by: campaigndiaries | December 11, 2007 11:19 AM | Report abuse

Astute post, CC. Agree. And agree with you, bsimon. We liv in hope.

If I were Rudy, I think i would be a little hesitant to attack Huckabee on immigration--it was hilariious watching him and Mitt and 'Sanctuary City' and 'Sanctuary Mansion'.

Also, Rudy recently said this -- it's on UTube..

Q:.How should we address illegal immigration in America?

A:"I think the Nutrualization Service should give them immunity.
In New York City, we don't consider udocumented immigrants criminals, we provide them with medical services without reporting them, their children are in public schools, we allow them to seek protection from the police..."

Can you say, 'amnesty'?

Posted by: drindl | December 11, 2007 11:19 AM | Report abuse

It reiterates, for me, just how wide open the GOP side really is. If we get lucky, Romney, Giulianni & Huckabee will knock each other out, leaving McCain.

Posted by: bsimon | December 11, 2007 11:12 AM | Report abuse

This could very easily backfire and cause Romney to sink even lower in the polls to the point where he no longer really has a shot at Iowa. It wouldn't take much at this point. He could turn into the whipping boy for the rest of the field, eager to attack Romney for going hard negative against a fellow Republican and violating Reagan's 11th Commandment.

Romney's people aren't stupid. They must know how very risky this approach is. Which tells me that Romney thinks that he is in very serious trouble here, meriting a bold attempt to change the situation, no matter how risky that might be.

Their internal polls must be pretty scary stuff to prompt this kind of action.

Posted by: JacksonLanders | December 11, 2007 11:03 AM | Report abuse

This commercial is Romney's death kneel.

Guiliani should be careful of letting Huckabee run wild in Iowa. If Huckabee wins with say 50 plus percent of the vote then he might take that momentum through all four early states and sweep the nomination.
Also Guiliani needs to look at the polling showing Huckabe in a real close second in national polls.

Posted by: AndyR3 | December 11, 2007 11:03 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company