Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Why (and How) Huckabee Can Win Iowa

The rise of Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee in the Iowa polls over the past month reveals (yet again) the incredible level of fluidity that exists in the GOP nomination fight.

Mike Huckabee
Huckabee shows off his shooting skills on the campaign trail in South Carolina on Sunday. (AP Photo)

The latest Washington Post-ABC News survey and a series of other recent polls show Huckabee in a solid second place, prompting many in the political community to wonder whether the lightly funded former preacher can rise even further to topple the mighty organization built by Mitt Romney in the state.

Our view is that it is possible, but it won't be easy.

Huckabee has history on his side. (Regular Fix readers know what a sucker I am for historic parallels.) In the last three competitive Iowa GOP caucuses, the candidate (or candidates) seen as the most socially conservative has taken somewhere between 23 percent and 25 percent of the caucus vote (either on his own or split with another candidate with a similar ideological profile).

In 2000, Gary Bauer, former president of the Family Research Council, took 14 percent while Alan Keyes garnered 9 percent. Four years earlier, Pat Buchanan -- the clear social conservative choice in the field -- took 23 percent, good for second place. As far back as 1988 this trend was apparent: Sen. Bob Dole won the GOP caucuses with 37 percent that year, but Rev. Pat Robertson placed a strong second with 25 percent.

In each of these instances, the social conservative standardbearer was drastically outspent but still managed to win a significant vote share. While Huckabee's fundraising has picked up in recent weeks, there is NO chance he will match Romney (or even Rudy Giuliani) in spending on the ground in Iowa.

That said, for Huckabee to grow his support beyond the 20 to 25 percent level, he must find a way to stay within financial shouting distance of Romney, according to several unaffiliated Republican strategists we spoke to over the past few days.

"The only thing standing between [Huckabee] and widespread acceptance as a true top-tier contender is money in the bank," said Whit Ayres, a Republican pollster. Ayres added that Huckabee's best bet to close the financial gap is to spend time between now and Jan. 3 courting the Bush Rangers and Pioneers ("whales" in Fix speak) who have yet to commit to a candidate. (As Matt Mosk and I wrote a few months ago, there are still many whales sitting on the sidelines.)

To its credit, Huckabee's campaign is seeking to capitalize on his gains in Iowa and places like Florida. On a daily basis now, a fundraising e-mail from Huckabee's campaign lands in The Fix's inbox; "The surge we are experiencing in Iowa is spreading," Huckabee wrote in a missive to potential donors last night.

It's that "surge" that serves as the second major reason why Huckabee can win Iowa. These nomination fights are driven as much by momentum as money and it's clear that Huckabee is the momentum candidate at the moment.

"This is all about momentum and he's got it," said Alex Vogel, a Republican lobbyist and political adviser to former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (Tenn.). "If he can pull this off, it buys him more than enough momentum to get to South Carolina where the real friendly real estate for his social conservative credentials kicks in."

One needs only look back to 2004 to see just how powerful momentum can be in the nomination fight. Democrat John Kerry was running out of money and was written off by many political gurus by early December 2003. But he went on to score a stunning come-from-behind victory in the Iowa caucuses a month later. In the immediate aftermath of the Iowa vote, Kerry's poll numbers shot through the roof in states where he had been mired in single digits just days earlier -- buoyed by a massive surge of media attention.

The question (and potential problem) for Huckabee is that his current rise in the polls may set expectations too high; that is, if he doesn't topple Romney in Iowa, he won't enjoy the media surge that he might have if his momentum had come a few weeks closer to the caucuses.

"He is in danger of peaking too soon and as a result not doing a good job in managing his expectations," said one senior party strategist who was granted anonymity to offer his candid assessment of Huckabee's chances. "The fact that national reporters are talking about him winning is good in the short term but may be trouble in long term. He needs to let people know that he should be held to same standard as everyone else which is top three is a win."

That sentiment was echoed in several other conversations in which unaligned Republican operatives expressed doubt that Huckabee could overcome Romney in Iowa.

"Romney has spent too much for anyone else to win," said Ed Failor Jr., executive vice president of Iowans for Tax Relief. Failor's advice to Huckabee? "Make sure every media person in the U.S. understands that no matter what Romney does, it isn't a real win."

Doug McAuliffe, a longtime Republican media consultant, was similarly skeptical about Huckabee's ability to beat Romney. "If Romney continues to utilize his major advantage -- money -- to execute his high wire act on social issues it seems hard to see how he loses," said McAuliffe.

McAuliffe added that Romney could be beaten, but Huckabee's profile made it a difficult task. "Huckabee must sustain and improve his socially conservative vote and the way to do that is to aggressively draw contrasts with Romney," said McAuliffe. "Yet with his significant financial disadvantage, questionable record on taxes and spending and the coming cacophony of attacks by all the GOP candidates in Iowa that will make his task the equivalent of threading the eye of a needle."

The very fact that the political world is buzzing about the possibility that Huckabee can win Iowa is a victory of sorts for the former Arkansas governor. But moral victories only take you so far in politics. In order to make a real run at Romney over the final five weeks of the Iowa campaign, Huckabee must find ways to continue to increase his fundraising while simultaneously unifying social conservative behind him and reaching out those voters who have yet to choose a candidate.

It's a difficult task, but not an impossible one. No harder, say, than surging into second in Iowa with no money and little organization.

By Chris Cillizza  |  November 28, 2007; 12:48 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obama Invests in Feb. 5 Strategy
Next: CNN/YouTube Republican Debate Preview

Comments

I think Huckabee certainly can win Iowa. It really looks like Romney has New Hampshire in the bag, but 2 months is forever before voting actually begins. I think Huckabee will turn his rise in the polls and momentum into cash. Of course, he won't be able to turn it into as much cash as Romney or Guiliani. But he will turn it into cash none the less. Huckabee isn't contending for New Hampshire, so if he can win Iowa he will take that momentum into South Carolina...where he is running in 3rd place. That's right, 3rd place in a very close SC primary. If Huck wins Iowa, he will also likely use that momentum to win in SC as well. In Hucks mind, he must hope that Guiliani wins in New Hampshire now and McCain takes alot of votes away from Romney. If that happens and Huck wins both Iowa & SC, it could be turned into a 2 way race: Huckabee vs. Guiliani. One must think that if Romney loses Iowa, New Hampshire & SC he's effectively eliminated. Even if he wins in New Hampshire and Huck wins SC & Iowa, Romney's chances then are very minimal. Guiliani has to win on Feb. 5, and that's what he is planning for. If Huck wins in Iowa & SC, then he must try & win Florida on the day of the Michigan & Florida primaries. That's 3 of the first 6 he has a real shot at. Things are shaping up for him pretty good. F. Thompson may as well drop out. If McCain can somehow win New Hampshire, at this point a long shot, he has a real shot to get back in the game in SC. But right now, McCain's chances are looking slimmer & slimmer. Romney looks to be fading, he's definately in a tough situation here at the end of November. Huckabee is the rising star & Guiliani really has stayed up higher than I ever thought he would. I give him his due for it.

Posted by: bryant_flier2006 | November 29, 2007 9:29 AM | Report abuse

Huckabee has picked up clandestine support in South Carolina that has helped him reshape his campaign and will probably be as successful for him as it was for Bush in 2000. Romney and Giuliani may kill each other; Thompson's laziness may get the best of his supporters, McCain might bow out gracefully, and Ron Paul may leave the race kicking and screaming - leaving Huckabee sitting on top of the heap, with that "aw shucks" grin and God only knows what else the clandestine support team will come up with (since one can expect that some mud will be slung at some point, and his hands will be as dirty as anyone else's).

Posted by: Knathenak2 | November 29, 2007 2:13 AM | Report abuse

Just trying to play be "their" rules drindl. That is the only way for them to fear me, the same way I fear them. Tough I don't fear for myself. The military shook me of the idea of "fear" and pain. I fear for my children, and the battle they face upcoming. For all the indoctrination they say the left does, I say they indoctrinate kids. Through their kids propognada and parents. Look at o'reilly writing books for kids. Look at all the youth who think their vote doesn't matter. Why? They have been ingrained that they cannot make a differance. So, if their vote doesn't count, if they are not represented, who is? Think on that.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | November 28, 2007 7:41 PM | Report abuse

remember the 60 vote rule. Remember it when the r's are irrelevant.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | November 28, 2007 7:38 PM | Report abuse

I agree with Colin's numbers, of course.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | November 28, 2007 7:35 PM | Report abuse

KOZ -- The entire discussion assumes that Roe has been overturned. Which, in turn, assumes that a conservative President has appointed a conservative new Supreme Court Justice.

You are correct that 60 votes would arguably be needed. Of course, that's true for ANY senate action, which is always subject to a filibuster. Not sure what your point is there. Your previous statement that 300 + congressman and 66 Senators would be required is patently false.

Posted by: _Colin | November 28, 2007 7:19 PM | Report abuse

"I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence."

Thank you, Jason. *applause.*

No cold shoulder, rufus, just didn't see your post. Loosen up a little dear, I know how you feel, but you let your rhetoric go over the top. I know you're young, but chill a little.

Posted by: drindl | November 28, 2007 7:11 PM | Report abuse

The vote happened in the 70's. It's over. you lost. Stop sabotaging the government because you hate what the court rules and YOU get with the program. If you don'y like this countires freedom move elsewhere. Stop the sabotage. If I had my say you would charge all YOUR leaders with treason for choosing bribes and outside influences over their own country. Your lucky us liberals don't play by the same rules as you tim mcveigh murdering facists.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | November 28, 2007 6:58 PM | Report abuse

"sounds like someone sh*t in you rceral", zouk?

A little upset your facsist party is crumbling before your very eyes? Good luck with your huckabe or Paul election.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | November 28, 2007 6:55 PM | Report abuse

Wrong - a 60 vote fillibuster proof Senate would be required for any legislation that involves that much campaign donations. and 66 if the Pres is in the opposite party.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 28, 2007 6:52 PM | Report abuse

Mark - correct. that is accurate, because for all we know, all the DINOs who were elected with a D next to thier name but claiming R stances, it may take fewer than I proposed to change the law.

In cases like these, we mathematicians typically assign probabilites based on some sort of previous Bayesian "prior distribution". this is considered very accurate and very accepted in most circles.

What would you estimate the prior probability of a majority of congress voting to severly change Roe? (I would say about 20% to be generous) now you will have to estimate what the updated probability will be, and it will need to be pretty big to move the prior off its mark (like 80% to even get to 50% for the updated probability). the updated probability assumes you have a big change in congress and that this issue rises to the forefront.

the math is not going your way. better stick with something more religious - like global warming.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 28, 2007 6:50 PM | Report abuse

KOZ -- the posts above show why, if Roe is overturned, a 2/3 majority wouldn't be required to pass a federal abortion ban. Given that the current vote regarding Roe's validity is arguably 5-4 right now and JPS is 87, not such a silly debate to be having.

Mark -- You may be right about a complete ban, although I candidly am not sure what the Court might do if Stevens is replaced with an extremely conservative justice. And the whole conversation does, of course, assume that one of the "liberal" members of the Court has been replaced.

I suspect such a Court would uphold an otherwise complete ban provided that it contained a life of the mother exception. What scares me about that is how much control legislatures would be given in determining what threats truly implicate a mother's life.

Posted by: _Colin | November 28, 2007 6:47 PM | Report abuse

I wonder how much money G bush will collect for those pardons? I wonder how much chinese money he has in his library account? I wonder if he'll make off with the silver and all the AF-one memorobelia and a truck full of WH furniture.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 28, 2007 6:43 PM | Report abuse

KOZ said

"a precondition for congress passing an anti-abortion law would be something like 66 hard core Repub Senators and 300 like-minded Repub congress members. those days are gone."

True.

But we do not know if it is a true "theory", because it has not been tested, and it only takes one failure to disprove a theory. I am learning, here.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | November 28, 2007 6:41 PM | Report abuse

that process only eliminates the really dumb posts you know. I have never ever had that problem.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 28, 2007 6:40 PM | Report abuse

claudia - same experience here. I enter a post and submit it...things whirl around and I get an error message saying I haven't signed in and the post is forever lost. In my case, this is a GOOD THING. It forces me to save my posts, pasted in MS-WORD which has this great invention called a "spell checker" and another one that even checks punctuation! So, if I spend a bit of time, some of my remarks are actually semi-literate! (Your's don't suffer from those problems, by the way.)

Posted by: mibrooks27 | November 28, 2007 6:37 PM | Report abuse

how many angels can dance on the head of a pin ? - seriously, you guys need to get your feet back on planet earth. a precondition for congress passing an anti-abortion law would be something like 66 hard core Repub Senators and 300 like-minded Repub congress members. those days are gone.

get real gang. the battle is in the president who appoints judges (unless Webb opens the Senate for 30 seconds each day), not in the congress.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 28, 2007 6:36 PM | Report abuse

dave: Libby had his sentence commuted, not a pardon. Many of us here said he or the others involved in the outing of Mrs. Wilson [V. Plame] would not spend a day in jail for what most folks think was indeed an act of treason. When Hillary takes the office of POTUS in 2009, I wonder how many, if any, will not be pardoned before GW leaves office.

Posted by: lylepink | November 28, 2007 6:32 PM | Report abuse

On Congress criminalizing abortions, I agree with Colin - think "plenary" and you get the general notion of the Supremes' view of the Congressional power under the commerce clause [short era of "states' rights" under Rehnquist excepted].

I do not think that even a very conservative, but honorable court, would go so far as to say a fetus has the same rights as a "person", because of the actual language in the document about who has rights. In other words, I do not think a Congressional TOTAL ban on abortion would be upheld by the Supremes -
but I could see a Scalia opinion that spoke in terms of protecting the adult woman's life, only; not her health, or any other "lesser" test.

Colin, what do you think? LV?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | November 28, 2007 6:27 PM | Report abuse

Why don't we create another political party and call it the "Puritan Party". AHH yes let's go back to the good ole days of the 1600's.

Posted by: Pumpkin31 | November 28, 2007 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Why the cold sholder drindl? What's up? How's life been on the fix? I've seen you've been a one woman army, not counting 27. :)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | November 28, 2007 5:35 PM | Report abuse

"It's also true that in excess of 90% of American's believe in God"'

but not necessarily the same one...


CC- fix The Fix!

I've never seen such a buggy site. It swallows half the comments. Can't the WaPo afford competent IT people?

Posted by: drindl | November 28, 2007 5:30 PM | Report abuse

As I've said here many times. The republcains have waged a war against america. "you are with us or against us."

Nobody can NOT pick a side. If you refuse to pick a side, to me, you are a republican enabler. I'm sure some Germans did not want the facsist to war war on the entire world, last time the facsists tried this nonsense. They lost. We will not lose.

Anyone ever see the new Star WArs movies? I know i'm going to get blasted for this. But I have no ego :). The Emproer takes over. After all the wars all the killing, all the double cross. All the sabotage. He waged wars to split and splinter those that could stop him.

Anyway at the end he sits and smiles. And he Says "PEEEEAAAACE. Finally PEACE."

May be over your heads. But this is the GOP. Twisted mentality. Black is white up is down. Firefighters starting fires. Free speech proponents silencing free speech.

We were told this day would happen. orweel warned us. now we know what the gop is. the question becomes, WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | November 28, 2007 5:24 PM | Report abuse

"I'd bet, most of them, even most scientists, both believe in a God and in evolution - e.g. believe in evolution directed by God. Is that so hard to accept?" -MikeB

That seems a fair compromise to me. My own father (an environmental engineer at the EPA) is a scientist who believes that creationism and evolution can coexist as an imperfect human understanding of a complicated process started by God. My younger brother is now unconvinced by either sides arguments, despite having been a creationist as recently as a few years ago.

The terrifying thing is not believing in God or that God created man, but believing that evolution does not exist at all. I posted a link to the open letter that started the Flying Spaghetti Monster phenomenon earlier but I'd like to put a quote in here for those who don't know anything about FSM-ism.

"I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence."

Posted by: JasonL_in_MD | November 28, 2007 5:20 PM | Report abuse

To me, age doesn't matter. As the old rules no longer apply. This is a new age, a new time. When you drive do you drive backwards? Do you drive looking only in your rear-view? What would that accomplish? how does that help you. It's true if you don't know the past you are doomed to repeat it. That is the trick. Respect the past and learn from it. But do not be a slave to it. When driving it is the next mountain that is to be considered. The one you just went over is of now consequence.

OLD WORLD ONE PEOPLE

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | November 28, 2007 5:16 PM | Report abuse

JasonL -- Federal law trumps state law(whether the state law is a statute or a state constitution), provided the Federal Law is itself constitutional. So yes, a Federal Abortion ban would trump whatever Maryland residents' preferences are regarding abortion policy.

Posted by: _Colin | November 28, 2007 5:16 PM | Report abuse

claudialong,
"Speaking of pardons, there was the matter of Scooter Libby the traitor to his country who purposefully outed one of the most important covert agents in this country's anti-nuclear proliferation efforts"

Ummm, no. He did not do the alleged outing. And the alledged outee, her self-grandizing claims notwithstanding, was never, ever one of the country's most important covert agents. But you are correct in that Libby was pardoned.

Posted by: dave | November 28, 2007 5:14 PM | Report abuse

"I merely found the way you made the comment interesting. There have been pockets of progressivism in recent years, but not much of a cohesive movement. "

Only a few of you know I am a young man. Don't rain on my parade. Let the words speak. If I'm wrong tell me how, so I and others can grow through conversation. to sit around and bash accomplishes nothing. That was never my goal here. I'm trying to help people stuck in the past, grow. That must come through mental conflict.

don't step on Superman's cape :) Just kidding.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | November 28, 2007 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for the assist, Colin. I rather thought that might be the case.

Can federal laws override state constitutional amendments? If, for example, Maryland had an amendment specifically authorizing abortion at the request of the mother, could a federal law still be enforced? If it couldn't, could outlawing abortion could be tied to federal funding the way transportation funding was tied to the speed limit?

I find this possibility decidedly unpleasant. I'm pro-choice of the "legal, safe, and rare" variety. I would never advocate a family member or friend getting one for anything other that incest, rape, or personal health but I think the choice remains theirs to make. The idea that the Federal Government could take away that choice would be very disconcerting to me.

Posted by: JasonL_in_MD | November 28, 2007 5:11 PM | Report abuse

"It's also true that in excess of 90% of American's believe in God"

I find 90% believing in God to be a far less shocking statistic than 45% believing the Earth is 8 to 10 thousand years old. If the latter is true, God certainly has a unique sense of humor in giving us the ability to question His works, and in providing so many deceptive clues about our planet's age.

Posted by: bsimon | November 28, 2007 5:10 PM | Report abuse

Since it's been a while since I've been here. Is everybody impressed with the progress us progressives/liberals have made since I left? Pretty impressive, no? I still think Fox is going down any day now. Even the republicans are calling them bias for rudy, as I told you people. Rush almost went under. I'm sure the drug addict will slip up. He ego is so huge he WILL try and temp fate again. Teh GOP is done. The internet and truth/enlightenment killed it. To move to the next century you people need to change your approach. People don't like getting lied to by their leaders. People don't like being told one thing, then hear the candidate say the exact opposite a day later. Change your stradegy gop. The old rules no longer apply. Change or get left if in the wind.

The old rules no longer apply. Civilians are getting killed now. Play time is over. Now get in the closet gop where you belong and let the future take over

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | November 28, 2007 5:10 PM | Report abuse

"Am I wrong?"

I merely found the way you made the comment interesting. There have been pockets of progressivism in recent years, but not much of a cohesive movement.

Posted by: bsimon | November 28, 2007 5:07 PM | Report abuse

bsimon - Again, so what. It's also true that in excess of 90% of American's believe in God, with the vast majority of them identifying themselves as Christian's. I'd bet, most of them, even most scientists, both believe in a God and in evolution - e.g. believe in evolution directed by God. Is that so hard to accept?

Posted by: mibrooks27 | November 28, 2007 5:05 PM | Report abuse

Carter is the last democrat to me. And what happened to him? How much unity did he have, from the right? Or did they sabotage him at every turn? October Surprise.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | November 28, 2007 5:00 PM | Report abuse

"rufi, have you even been alive for 30 years?"

What's up simon? How's life on the fix been?

No, your right. Am I wrong? Enlighten me, then.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | November 28, 2007 4:57 PM | Report abuse

mikebrooks -- no need to apologize. After all, my UserID doesn't list my occupation. :)

JasonL -- Traditionally, the Supreme Court has read the commerce clause VERY broadly. The most famous example is Wickard v. Fillburn (sp), in which the Court held that Congress could properly regulate through the commerce clause wheat grown for personal consumption that never entered commerce at all, let alone interstate commerce. Admittedly, the Rehnquist court briefly attempted to limit that jurisprudence -- even striking down the violence against women act. But more recent jurisprudence, such as Gonzalez v. Raich, make such attempts to reign in Congressional authority look like the exception rather than the rule.

Given all that, it's highly doubtful that a federal ban on abortion would be struck down. At the very least, Congress could preclude individuals from leaving one state to have an abortion in another state. That kind of scenerio, described by mikebrooks above, rather clearly impacts interstate commerce. Any for-profit abortion provider who advertises accross state lines would likewise implicate interstate commerce. You get the idea.

Posted by: _Colin | November 28, 2007 4:56 PM | Report abuse

"Unless only 9-12% of the population is Dems (the same 11% who still approve of congress???) "

HAHAHHAHA. come zouk. your not that lost are you. do you think ALL democrats are happy with congress? Why are republcains dropping like flies? Is it because they feel all the heat is towards the dem's. Come on. your not that ... I'll be nice today.

you show your face. i really think you are going to showed to learn what the real gop number is. your 20% are no longer holding this country under your terrorist thumbs.

The differance is. The left holds all acountable, as you can see by the heat they are taking from democrats. That is the problem. The right are clone puppet dittoheads. you vote as one unit, like the borg. is that freedom? is that america? Is that politics? No. your alliance of religous, econmic, and criminal "thugs" is done. Splintering as we speak. Enjoy your irrelevance.

Zouk is a facsist. ( for old times sake)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | November 28, 2007 4:54 PM | Report abuse

colin - Please accept my apology. I had no idea that you were a lawyer, too. I figured you were another well read amature like me/the rest of us. My postings about Oregon's laws are based on a series of articles that were printed in the Eugene Register-Guard and the Portland Oregonian. Maybe we are too sanguine here, but we are being told that our state laws take precedance over mere COngressional actions.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | November 28, 2007 4:48 PM | Report abuse

"I was told the war would be over. I was told about 5 day work weeks, about eliminating corruption, about balanced budgets, etc.

not doing enough indeed. more accurately - not doing anything, not even passing the most essential approps bills, not one.

"

Call your senate and congressmen then zouk. Tell your republcains freinds to stop being obstructionists. Telling them to stop standing in the way of progress. It's not us liberals holding things up. If you want those things, make it happen, like WE do. you can get those things past, if you do what the gop never does. Hold your own accountable, for once. Like us liberals do. That is what got us in this mess. your cronyism. your gop greed. your hatred of liberals. you people need only look into the mirror to see why the gop is done for thirty years.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | November 28, 2007 4:48 PM | Report abuse

"it feels like the progressives have not been anywhere near politics in 15 years, or even 30."

rufi, have you even been alive for 30 years?

Posted by: bsimon | November 28, 2007 4:46 PM | Report abuse

"A lot of people want instant results, but things are so polarized that it is going to take a lot of time and effort to bring back the sort of genuine bipartisanship that we so badly need if we are to survive."

I FEEL YOU. it's hard. it feels like the progressives have not been anywhere near politics in 15 years, or even 30. I get frustrated. The gop gets it all their way, or they take their ball and go home. It seems like nobody has held this presiednt accountable for anything.

you know I see the clintons and Kerry as republcians is sheeps clothing. so, to me, the republicans have run the show since the 70's. All us liberals do is give america the internet, and civil rights and the things necessary to run a democracy. But all these things are in spite of the facsist sell-outs, not because of them. The gop is fighting change at every turn, as well as growth. Old cow folk, scared of teh future. Want their movies like they were in the 50's. boring republcian propoganda. All the laws have to be their way, or they will tim mcveigh us. Or get their freinds in saudi aravia to do it for them. All the while calling us traitors.

Frustrating. But I feel you. Change never comes overnight, and it is almost never easy.

God Bless.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | November 28, 2007 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Your statistics are incorrect, Chris. Alan Keyes finished 3rd place with 14% and it was Bauer who finished 4th with 9%. If anything, this is indicative of bad news for Huckabee, who's acquired many of Bauer's longtime operatives and supporters in the state of Iowa. Bauer polled extremely well all the way up to Caucus Day, only to fall hard, and well below expectations.

Huckabee's natural support has topped out, and half his people still haven't discovered his a fiscal liberal yet.

Posted by: devon.shaw | November 28, 2007 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress are so confident about regaining control of Congress in 2008 that none have stepped down or announced they will not run for reelection in 2008.

Oh did I type "none"? I meant "dozens." Oops!

Posted by: Spectator2 | November 28, 2007 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Unless only 9-12% of the population is Dems (the same 11% who still approve of congress???) then the belief in god and not in evolution is very widespread.

http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/creation/evol-poll.htm

this is from 2001 but a recent one was similar. Only 12% think that god is not involved and 45% think only god is involved.

As usual, you moonbats on this site think your own little sheltered world holds the key to the universe.

typified by drindl - who once actually spoke to a conservative - "down in that little redneck bar with the peanut shells on the floor".

Why are you stooges always so shocked when you lose elections time after time. you are really so clueless.
but the funny thing is you describe yourselves as mainstream.

Ignore the evidence, you always do.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 28, 2007 4:26 PM | Report abuse

LoudounVoter - I tyhink you are being too pessimistic. First, it wouldn't cost that much for a woman to fly to Oregon from (say) Utah to have a safe legal abortion. Also, people just like me would contribute money to make sure they had that option! But, I genuinely believe that something just like this would spark a flood of liberals displacing reactionary conservatives in elected office all over the country. At the risk of sounding cynical, I don't view that sort of outcome as a bad thing.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | November 28, 2007 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Colin, how would you justify the outlaw of abortions using the commerce clause. I'll be the first to admit that we've made some pretty radical changes using the commerce clause but abortion? Would the argument be that abortion prevents the fetus from engaging in future interstate commerce? That a "patchwork of state laws would cause people to cross state lines seeking abortions?

I'm not trying to be cute here. I'm seriously asking. General Con Law wasn't my best class. (I loved my 1st Amendment Rights class, though. Great prof.)

Posted by: JasonL_in_MD | November 28, 2007 4:21 PM | Report abuse

venicejazz writes
"It is amazing though, how many Republicans apparently DON'T believe in evolution."

I don't know how party affiliation is related, but I was reading an article last night that claimed 45% of Americans answer Yes to the question:

Do you believe that God created man more or less like he is now, in the last 10,000 years?

That, to me, is a shockingly high number.

Posted by: bsimon | November 28, 2007 4:20 PM | Report abuse

You know, whenever I hear something like "Republicans don't believe in evolution" I figure it's just ill-informed trash-talk carried out by snobby Bostonians who like to feel better than everybody else. It is amazing though, how many Republicans apparently DON'T believe in evolution. They may dispute the value of the theory of gravity too. It's a good thing to have different viewpoints but not when some of them are completely wacky.
I'm thinking we need a third-party, based on common sense. Maybe I'll write in bloomberg's name after all...

Posted by: venicejazz | November 28, 2007 4:17 PM | Report abuse

I read somewhere that only about 5%[five] show up for the Iowa caucaus. The repubs are highly motivated by faith. I can see MH winning there with the C,P, and J vote and Mitt taking the somewhat smaller Mormon vote. From accounts I've seen about 40% of the votes would fall into this small [5%] of the total. Lets assume I am correct on these numbers, and someone in Iowa can give us the approxmate number of voters, this will show how few people have so much power.

Posted by: lylepink | November 28, 2007 4:13 PM | Report abuse

drindl - can you inform me as to the price of a pardon in the next clinton admin? who do I contact? I am contemplating a felony but want to make sure my campaign donation gets in the right hands before the sentencing. do you have hillary's brother's contact info, I heard he is the middleman for pardon sales. If they could throw in a night in the Lincoln bedroom, that would be saaawwwweet.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 28, 2007 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Drindl -- If I remember the Atlantic article accurately, they hypothesized that state-by-state decisions regarding abortion would almost immediately cement Democratic majoritie in Florida, Tennessee (surprisingly), Montana, Arizona, and Colorado, in large measure b/c republicans in those states would be presured into proposing near total bans.

Posted by: _Colin | November 28, 2007 4:10 PM | Report abuse

mibrooks: while i certainly applaud the progressivity of your great state regarding abortion rights, i think you underestimate the difficulties that women in less-enlightened states might face.

Getting from Mississippi to "Oregon or Washington or California or Mass. or NY" is not such an easy matter for someone who is poor.

Posted by: Spectator2 | November 28, 2007 4:10 PM | Report abuse

LoudounVoter - First, excuse my lousy typing. I'm at work and try to fit these posts in during brief breaks...too brief to do a respectful job of checking for typo. I do not mean this as being disrepectful of you and other forum member and ask your forgiveness and understanding.

As for state laws, I live in Oregon. We have a state law permitting legal abortions and it is our understanding that our state abortion law would override any attempted federal ban, just as it does with our assisted suicide law. Second, the vast majority of American's support legal abortions in cases involving rape, incest, where the life or health of the mother is at stake, in cases of detected severe birth defects, and for minor females. I know that isn't broad enough for many "choice" proponents, but that is what something like 70% of the voters want permitted. I would expect that those states that do not have laws permitting abortions in those instances would quickly pass such laws. There might be a very few states that outlaw abortions in all circumstances....for a while. I would expect that enraged voters would soon remove elected officials that passed laws preventing safe abortions in those circumstances. In the meanwhile, any woman wanting a safe legal abortion could go to Oregon or Washington or California or Mass. or NY or any of a number of other states that would permit abortions. This whole issue is much ado about nothing. This country is pro-choice and whether that is by state laws or federal laws matters very little to me.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | November 28, 2007 4:06 PM | Report abuse

mikebrooks -- if Roe is overturned, no individual right would exist precluding federal action on issues like abortion. Some COULD argue that Congress would nonetheless lack the authority under the commerce clause to regulate abortion, but Scalia and Kennedy at least have backed away from such a narrow reading of the commerce clause in recent years.

You don't have to take my word for it, but I doubt Mark will tell you anything different unless he and I took vastly different Constitutional law courses in law school. I've never dealt directly with an abortion-related issue in practice but this is pretty elementry stuff: If Congress has the power to do it and the law doesn't violate an individual right, that's all she wrote.

Posted by: _Colin | November 28, 2007 4:06 PM | Report abuse

mibrooks27: The Supreme Court's ruling in the Oregon assisted suicide case (Gonzales v. Oregon) was that the federal law (Controlled Substances Act) did not authorize the AG to go after the physicians. The Court most definitely did not rest its holding on some inability for Congress to preempt state law. In short, you are wrong.

Posted by: stickeen | November 28, 2007 4:02 PM | Report abuse

drindl - time for another visit to the pharmacy.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 28, 2007 3:59 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of pardons, there was the matter of Scooter Libby the traitor to his country who purposefully outed one of the most important covert agents in this country's anti-nuclear proliferation efforts, thereby endangering a whole community of agents and collapsing a program that took years to set up--but no big deal. He's a repubican, so it's okay.

Posted by: drindl | November 28, 2007 3:56 PM | Report abuse

parkerfl writes
"The question isn't just Iowa: It's about everywhere else, too. Can he realistically get the nomination? That's very unlikely. "

I'm losing track... Are you talking about Huckabee, Romney, Giulianni, Paul, Thompson, McCain or someone else?

Don't they all have 'fatal flaws' that will preclude their nominations in one way or another?

Posted by: bsimon | November 28, 2007 3:54 PM | Report abuse

In 1981 Judge Hastings was charged with accepting a $150,000 bribe in exchange for a lenient sentence and a return of seized assets for 21 counts of racketeering by Frank and Thomas Romano, and of perjury in his testimony about the case. He was acquitted by a jury after his alleged co-conspirator, William Borders, refused to testify in court (resulting in a jail sentence for Borders).

In 1988, the Democratic-controlled U.S. House of Representatives took up the case, and Hastings was impeached for bribery and perjury by a vote of 413-3. Voters to impeach included Democratic Representatives Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, John Conyers and Charles Rangel. He was then convicted in 1989 by the United States Senate, becoming the sixth federal judge in the history of the United States to be removed from office by the Senate. The vote on the first article was 69 for and 26 opposed, providing five votes more than the two-thirds of those present that were needed to convict. The first article accused the judge of conspiracy. Conviction on any single article was enough to remove the judge from office. The Senate vote cut across party lines, with Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont voting to convict his fellow party member, and Arlen Specter voting to acquit.[1]

The Senate had the option to forbid Hastings from ever seeking federal office again, but did not do so. Alleged co-conspirator, attorney William Borders went to jail again for refusing to testify in the impeachment proceedings, but was later given a full pardon by Bill Clinton on his last day in office.[2] (healthy donation to follow)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcee_Hastings

Politics as usual for Dems

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 28, 2007 3:52 PM | Report abuse

_colin - I would want to hear from mark on this one. In Oregon we have first hand experience with this sort of stuff. We passed an assisted suicide law here (several times, in fact) and the unlamented Republican Congress attempted all sorts of end runs to overturn that law. They actualy did pass a federal law pre-empting Oregon;s law. The Supreme Court through that out. Then, they attempted to regulate/outlaw drugs that would be used for doctor assisted suicide...and the Supreme Court through that out. This garbage went on and on until the COngressional fishwives just gave up. It was pointed out in newspaper articles at the time that our state abortion laws have exactly the same standing - e.g. Congress cannot override our state laws. Unless mark says otherwise, I figure this is simply hysteria being drummed up by the Clinton-feminist mob.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | November 28, 2007 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Vanessa Griddine
Is she a scheduler? Is she a staff assistant? Is she a Legislative Assitant? No one really knows, but one thing's for certain, her name is Vanessa Griddine, and she gets paid more than the D.C. Legislative Director and Chief of staff Fred Turner. All of these people are paid by the tax payers of the United States, at the discretion of Member of Congress Alcee L. Hastings.

Vanessa Griddine often goes weeks without going to work. Sometimes when she doesn't show up, she even sends an email to say she won't, usually she saves herself the effort. I don't believe she's ever once showed up to work on time, or five days a week. She shows up to trips to Europe with the Congressman though (Alcee Hastings that is). While Fred Turner gets a hefty diem courtesy of tax dollars when he travels with Alcee Hastings, even he doesn't get a trip to Brussels paid for by tax payers. Alcee Hastings and Vanessa spent 4 days in Brussels, without any committee backing, and used approximately $18 000. But that all schedulers were so lucky?

Surely not!? Not Alcee Hastings! But he hates it when Bush and other Republicans waste tax payers' money, right? Because the money should be helping low-income families? All these figures can be obtained through the clerk's office, as wage disbursements are published annually.

So why does this elusive member of staff get paid so much more than the diligent David Goldenberg and Fred Turner? Well folks, if her interview for the job (in person at Hastings' private residence one night) is any indication, she works a lot more nights than the boys do. Alcee Hastings rewards night shifts generously. Hence she's driving a new BMW while David Goldenberg the LD is stuck with a tired used car.

http://alceehastings.blogspot.com/

the man is a crook - no question about it.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 28, 2007 3:49 PM | Report abuse

The question isn't just Iowa: It's about everywhere else, too. Can he realistically get the nomination? That's very unlikely.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: parkerfl | November 28, 2007 3:49 PM | Report abuse

did you see the FL poll I posted earlier Colin? Only about 15% of Republicans want a ban on all abortions.

Posted by: drindl | November 28, 2007 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Mibrooks: While it was difficult to read your last post due to the horrific spelling and grammar, one thing is clear: You didn't respond to my post.

I said nothing about state laws allowing abortion. I also said nothing about Congress passing laws. My post was about state laws making ALL abortions illegal that would take effect immediately on the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

Once again, for a self-proclaimed "liberal," your views on this subject are astoundingly naive/simplistic/idiotic.

Posted by: Spectator2 | November 28, 2007 3:43 PM | Report abuse

mikebrooks -- thanks for posting the linke about Hastings. I'm not a fan of his, and am glad he was passed over for the chair Mark noted, but he wasn't convicted. That IS an important detail.

As far as Roe v. Wade goes, the Atlantic actually ran a story on what would happen in individual states if the decision was overturned. Given various "trigger laws" that exist right now, I believe more than 1/2 of the states would immediately outlaw abortion with several others presumed to follow in short order. Additionally, a simply majority in the house and senate could pass a federal ban that would make state laws on the topic a nullity. If Roe is overturned, no constitutional amendment would be necessary to take such action.

Not saying that should be a deciding factor for you, but at least worth considering. Personally, I tend to think that overturning Roe would be biggest electoral boon for Democrats in a generation. At present, singlue issue voters on that issue are all on the 'R' side of the isle. I suspect there are a lot of otherwise conservative leaning suburban voters who would be unhappy in a post-Roe world.

Posted by: _Colin | November 28, 2007 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Mike Huckabee has the potential to beat Mitt Romney. It comes down the issue of faith

Romney is getting setback by the issue of his religion: Mormonism. A substantial number of people won't vote for him because they don't think Mormonism is the right faith to belong to.

Mike Huckabee, has faith on his side. He is a devout evangelical Christian. This could appease the base enough to turn the tide to Huckabee. Granted some of his other stances are not "conservative" enough for the crowed, be he is by all accounts of the favored faith.

Posted by: lieb666 | November 28, 2007 3:40 PM | Report abuse

It's not a matter of whether it's a "state issue"--there's no such legal doctrine when it comes to preemption. You are making things up. The only legal question would be whether such a law would be within Congress's power under the Commerce Clause, and it almost certainly would be.

Posted by: stickeen | November 28, 2007 3:40 PM | Report abuse


mark, this is what i was telling you about Rudy and 'fiscal responsibility'

'As New York mayor, Rudy Giuliani billed obscure city agencies for tens of thousands of dollars in security expenses amassed during the time when he was beginning an extramarital relationship with future wife Judith Nathan in the Hamptons, according to previously undisclosed government records.

The documents, obtained by Politico under New York's Freedom of Information Law, show that the mayoral costs had nothing to do with the functions of the little-known city offices that defrayed his tabs, including agencies responsible for regulating loft apartments, aiding the disabled and providing lawyers for indigent defendants.

At the time, the mayor's office refused to explain the accounting to city auditors, citing "security."

The Hamptons visits resulted in hotel, gas and other costs for Giuliani's New York Police Department security detail.'

and this was only one of many... she had a round the clock security detail of her own... and we taxpayers had to pay for it.

Posted by: drindl | November 28, 2007 3:37 PM | Report abuse

LoudounVoter - Then you loose, either way. Either the majority of the American people are opposed to abortion and you are shoving it down their throats or the majority of the American people are for legal safe abortions and Congress wouldn't dare pass such a law. But, in the end, you are just plain wrong. Federal "reemption" would not apply beccause previous Supreme Court rulings have already established this as a state issue. There is flat out nothing significant Congress could do that would effect legalized abortions in states with laws permitting them.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | November 28, 2007 3:35 PM | Report abuse

"There's a little thing called "preemption" you don't seem to be aware of. If Roe was overturned, AND a federal law were passed making abortions a crime, state law would be preempted." -Stickeen

Well that might happen, but it woul dbe very likely that several states would sue and there would be an injunction against enforcing the law until the Supreme Court ruled on whether or not it was a state issue. Remember that Congress has limited Constitutional authority in what laws can be passed unless it can be deemed necessary and proper that the law fall outside of those limitations. I think, though Colin and Mark would be better judges of the cases merits, that the Supremes would side with states on the matter. Although, an interstate commerce argument might be able to be made. Mark, Colin? Little help?

Oh and, as for evolution v. creationism, I point you towards the Flying Spaghetti Monster, may he/she/it guide our hearts and minds.
http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

Posted by: JasonL_in_MD | November 28, 2007 3:35 PM | Report abuse

kingofzouk - Nice talking point, but it is being doine to prevent Bush's recess appointments and you know it!

Posted by: mibrooks27 | November 28, 2007 3:31 PM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin - I wouldn't want to claim that she doesn't make mistakes in judging character. She may have with Murtha and I am sure she did with the person you write about. In that case, however, Alcee Hastings was accused of taking bribes and censored. He was later acquitted. So, he was never convicted of any crime, only accused and tried and found innocent. (ref: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/28/hastings.intelligence/index.html). I wouldn't want to denigrate her for wishing to appoint a man who had been found innocent! (same, by the the way, with John Murtha.) But, and I would ask this of you, go read about her and her history. She is genuinely one of the good guys.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | November 28, 2007 3:29 PM | Report abuse

"Abortions would be illegal in maybe 4 or 5 states fo a short while. A woman needing one would have the inconvenience of travelling to a neighboring state where it is legal. And, as polls show the vast majority of American's supporting "choice" in cases of rape, incest, severe congenital defects, or where the life or health of the mother is at risk, and for children under the age of 16, I am pretty sure laws just like this would be passed by those states in very short order. I think you are just being hysterical if you think otherwise."

Your ignorance on this topic is astounding. Far more than "4 or 5" states have passed laws outlawing abortion in all cases that are to go into effect immediately upon Roe v. Wade being overturned.

For a "liberal" to know so little about this subject is quite remarkable. No wonder you are supremely blissful about what might happen if someone like Huckabee becomes president.

Posted by: Spectator2 | November 28, 2007 3:24 PM | Report abuse

faults her for not doing enough,

Min wage has passed - that's it. If you were honest, you would admit you were expecting more. especially considering all the campaign promises. I was told our gas would be cheaper - it went up 50%. I was told the war would be over. I was told about 5 day work weeks, about eliminating corruption, about balanced budgets, etc.

not doing enough indeed. more accurately - not doing anything, not even passing the most essential approps bills, not one.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 28, 2007 3:22 PM | Report abuse

mibrooks27: "stickeen.the.dog - Your ignorance of law is either deliberate or truly profound. If Roe were overturned, the ONLY effect it would have is on federal law. It would not effect state laws permitting legal abortions."

There's a little thing called "preemption" you don't seem to be aware of. If Roe was overturned, AND a federal law were passed making abortions a crime, state law would be preempted.

Posted by: stickeen | November 28, 2007 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Which seems more hokey to a Lib:

1. appointing a judge when there are 190 openings and the Senate refuses to act, much less pass any legislation. this procedure is outlined in the laws of the country and is called recess appointments.

2. call the Senate to order for 30 seconds with a single Senator in attendence and an otherwise empty chamber.

I must enact willful disbelief to be a Lib.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 28, 2007 3:18 PM | Report abuse

I'm over Huckabee. Had a little 15-minute fling with the idea of voting for him over Hillary based on his economic populism, but the flat-tax advocacy (genuine or not) is about as anti-populist as it comes.

And the creationism thing, well, that's troubling. Being faithful is fine and good, but if your faith leads you to disbelieve in the mounds of empirical evidence for evolution, both the validity of your faith and your ability to reason are called into question.

Posted by: novamatt | November 28, 2007 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Hi rufus! It's great to have you back! Missed you a lot. I think I understand Cindy Sheehan and I genuinely am saddened by her loss of her child. I got both of mine back safely from that useless meat grider and thank God every day. I know that's selfish, but that's how I feel. Ad for Nancy Pelosi, she is someone I have been following for some time. She is a classic liberal with stances that parallel mine very closely. She is also one of the most open and honest politcian's you will ever encounter - a genuine Amercian patriot and hero. What she has been trying to do is build consensus on issues. Now, I happen to know that she she wants out of Iraq immediately, wants universal single payer health coverage, etc. but she is trying to wed together the various factions inot some sort of agreement to avoid the polarization that has typified Congressal actions in recent years - sort of like Tip O'Neal used to do. A lot of people want instant results, but things are so polarized that it is going to take a lot of time and effort to bring back the sort of genuine bipartisanship that we so badly need if we are to survive. LOZ faults her for not doing enough, but if he looks at it from that point of view, she is a courageous and dignified woman and a genuine visionary. I hope and pray she succeeds and goes on to become our first woman president.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | November 28, 2007 3:17 PM | Report abuse

stickeen - oh OK, if you say so.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 28, 2007 3:06 PM | Report abuse

MikeB, Speaker Pelosi wanted to name a former federal judge who had been convicted of taking bribes and impeached and removed from the bench, chair of the House Intelligence Committee. Hastings cannot even be security cleared!

Only the loud wailing of the legal community [including me] saved us from this ignominy.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | November 28, 2007 3:06 PM | Report abuse

"ram it down their throat garbage'

Actually no discussion was permitted by the minority.

the five day work week - gone
the corruption reforms - non-existent
the pay go - ha ha, you're kidding right
the 8 for 08 - 1 for 8
the most do-nothing congress in decades.

don't make things up about Pelosi, I haven't.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 28, 2007 3:04 PM | Report abuse

stickeen.the.dog - Your ignorance of law is either deliberate or truly profound. If Roe were overturned, the ONLY effect it would have is on federal law. It would not effect state laws permitting legal abortions. In fact, Washington State and Oregon, had laws legalizing abortion *before* Roe. Roe had no effect whatsoever on that procedure in those states. It's rather like Oregon's law permitting doctor assisted suicides. No other state has a similar law and even Bush's very conservative Supreme Court upheld it as a state issue. The same would apply if Roe were overturned. Abortions would be illegal in maybe 4 or 5 states fo a short while. A woman needing one would have the inconvenience of travelling to a neighboring state where it is legal. And, as polls show the vast majority of American's supporting "choice" in cases of rape, incest, severe congenital defects, or where the life or health of the mother is at risk, and for children under the age of 16, I am pretty sure laws just like this would be passed by those states in very short order. I think you are just being hysterical if you think otherwise.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | November 28, 2007 3:03 PM | Report abuse

stikeen.thedog writes
"First, evolution--speciation over time--is a fact, not a theory. It has been observed in the laboratory, in the field, and in the fossil record."

Careful there, dog; I was just reading last night about how there is a growing group of creationist geologists who are working to develop scientific proofs to explain the young earth theory. For instance, the 'fossil record' demonstrates how different species lived variable distances from water when the great flood happened (noah's claim to fame), thus burying different species at different depths. Apparently they're still stuck on explaining how radio carbon dating is apparently scientifically valid, but conflicts with the young earth theory (i.e. the earth is ~ 8000 years old). In my opinion, these guys aren't much different from the Mormon scientists culling North America for proof that Native Americans are a lost tribe of Israel.

Posted by: bsimon | November 28, 2007 3:03 PM | Report abuse

kingofzouk: gravity is both a fact and a theory, just like evolution.

mark_in_austin: "stickeen, MikeB is correct. If R v. W. is overturned, each state will have its own law."

Not if Congress passes a law making abortion a federal crime. A constitutional amendment is not needed, if Roe is overturned.

Posted by: stickeen | November 28, 2007 3:03 PM | Report abuse

"she also took an ill-advised trip to syria along with trying to make Murtha #2"

And syria was at Bush's "peace" negotiation this week, IN AMERICA. So what's your point. Same with Demascus. What's your point, or do you have one. tough guy. Why aren't you in iraq again?

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | November 28, 2007 3:02 PM | Report abuse

I don't generally concern myself with Pelosi's character since I have not heard any dirt on her. I do call into question her abilities based on the record. she also took an ill-advised trip to syria along with trying to make Murtha #2. She is not above reproach and in fact is target #1 as the leader of the worst congress in history. you will notice I have not likewise generally concerned myself with Obambi's character, rather calling into question his expereince and naivite.

dirty Harry Reid is another story - he being crooked and spineless and deserving of any exposure as to his dust like qualities. hillary ,as everone knows, is the crime family of modern politics, stopping short of nothing to gain power.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 28, 2007 3:01 PM | Report abuse

"If R v. W. is overturned, each state will have its own law"

And what good would that do? Would someone that wants an abortion go to a state that has it legal? What are you peopel trying to accomplish. I say you are just working people up. Taking their minds off real issues. throwing a monkey wrench in the works.

you know i see nothign good in the gop. Divide and conquer. Sabotage for personal profit. I think you people are traiotrs and should be treated like traitors. Choosing party over country is treason. Always has been

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | November 28, 2007 3:00 PM | Report abuse

stickeen, MikeB is correct. If R v. W. is overturned, each state will have its own law.
MH opposes that result. He wants a Constitutional amendment that would ban abortion, as Colin noted.

KOZ, neither Darwin nor Mendeleev seem to have known of the other's work - but taken together, we now have the field of genetics.

You probably actually know this and are just foolin' with our heads.

My 1:15P cancelled so I get to play here briefly.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | November 28, 2007 2:56 PM | Report abuse

"You couldn't possibly be more wrong."

this is fairly typical of a Lib with strong views and no support for them. also typical is the utter lack of any objective links or reference to anything but the owner's personal opinion.

If gravity is NOT a theory, please explain to me exactly how it works and how it interacts with the other forces known to man? can you direct me to the nearest gravity wave? I have been watching for it a while now.

you Libs still confuse things we can observe and other things we can explain. Evolution explains certain observations, but this is not the same as a complete understanding. Actually there is a system which explains this phenom in full - it is called creationism and has about as much scientific basis as global warming or liberal statism - you must simply believe.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 28, 2007 2:55 PM | Report abuse

What's up mibrooks27. this is rufus. I wanted to get your opinion, as you seem to have held this site down nicely in my absence.

Do you think cindy SHeehan is realy going to run against pelosi? Since you bring it up. Don't youthink we need a stronger leader representing us? What has she done right, in terms of progrssive politics? how has she held anyone to account? And was her taking impeachment off the table when she did, the right thing to do?

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | November 28, 2007 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Majority Leader Harry Reid arranged for "pro-forma" Senate sessions to be held to prevent the executive branch from making recess appointments.

LOL -- koz comes here again to display his ignorance. Recess appointments are an attempt to override the Congressional mandate that Senate approval is required for certain appointments, fool. And then you undermine your own idioitic argument by the following:

'Nothing accomplished, but the executive branch remains stymied and the federal government remains understaffed. (If such a thing is possible in the current Leviathan.)'

The executive isn't a king. It's called 'checks and balances' but I know you'd rather have Mussolini.

Posted by: drindl | November 28, 2007 2:52 PM | Report abuse

KOZ - Cut out the attacks on Pelosi! She is one of the most decent people around. Disagree with her if you must, but you cannot find one instance of her taking a bride, siding with a corporation based on a huge donation, or any other improper behavior. She has been trying to rule by consenus, bridging gaps between the conservative and liberal wings of the Democratic Party (rather like herding cats) and, at the same time, bring Republican's into policy decisions. She is a breath of fresh air from the narrow ram it down their throat garbage we saw before her. At least I can see that McCain is decent guy, even though I disagree with him on most every issue. Can't you at least do the same for Pelosi?

Posted by: mibrooks27 | November 28, 2007 2:49 PM | Report abuse

kingofzouk: "evolution is simply a theory with many holes in it. It is not science. it has some interesting notions but has not been proved."

You couldn't possibly be more wrong. First, evolution--speciation over time--is a fact, not a theory. It has been observed in the laboratory, in the field, and in the fossil record. The "theory of evolution" has to do with the explanation of why speciation happens. If you say "evolution is only a theory," you are just as ignorant as someone who says "gravity is only a theory." Second, evolution is science. It is successfully used to predict results , for example, when flu vaccines are designed.

mibrooks27: "To actually outlaw abortion would require a COnstitutional Amendment"

Not if Roe were overturned.

Posted by: stickeen | November 28, 2007 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Still fighting Roe vs Wade? there was a decision. you facsists lost. move on. Stop trying to force your agenda down our throguhts. The courts ruled. WE won. Freedom of the individual won. Get a new straw man.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | November 28, 2007 2:46 PM | Report abuse

MikeB - Not all of R v. W. is a "stretch".

If the question were framed:

"May a state deny medical care necessary for the life or physical health of a woman, if that care necessarily includes aborting the fetus she carries?"

The answer would turn on the constitutional protection afforded to the person already born, the woman, whose life cannot be taken by the state without due process.

The rest of the case is a stretch.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | November 28, 2007 2:46 PM | Report abuse

zouk and mark are in for a rude awakening. I can't wait to see all the propogandsits sad put-ums. It's goign to be great. Were you people living in a cave during the sweep of 06? Did you see Shepard smith on fox, near tears. OOOHHH it was great. Almost as great as hearing Bohener cry and yell. Great comedy.

that's what the gop does. Whines cries and complains until they get their way. then they got the neo-cons to do their strong arming. now the democrats have us progressives. So who wins. Time will tell. I'll take truth and america anyday over the gop lies and treason (selfing outside influences over their own country). As well as greed. Selling out your country for personal profit is treason, gop. Lying to do it detroyed your party. Americans are not as dumb as you dittoheads are. this is the internet age. Enlightenment is just a click away. Don't blame the liberals for yoru downfall gop. blame the internet. Blame enlightenment.

HHAHAHAHAHHA.

Where have you been living for the last 2 years zouk? In a cave?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | November 28, 2007 2:44 PM | Report abuse

_Colin - And, he would have zero chance of overriding those state laws. To actually outlaw abortion would require a COnstitutional Amendment and anyone thinking that 2/3 of the states would go along with that is just being delussional. It would be akin to overturning the Second Amendment. Not gonna happen!

Posted by: mibrooks27 | November 28, 2007 2:40 PM | Report abuse

"And Loudounvoter, I am more critical of Democrats than Republican's? I am critical of crooks and scumbags from both sides! Clinton IS a scumbag, as is Jefferson, and Kennedy and Chuck Schumer. I am delighted and proud to point out that they are money grubbing corporate hacks that need to be retired"

As everyone should. It is the gop's unwillingness to hold their own to account that got us into this mess. No matter how many times they blame "liberals"/democrats.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | November 28, 2007 2:39 PM | Report abuse

didn't we cover this whole evolution vs creation thing a while back. evolution is simply a theory with many holes in it. It is not science. it has some interesting notions but has not been proved.

this is about the dumbest way to choose a candidate I can think of. is that why you Libs keep bringing it up? something like 90% of americans beleive in some sort of god.

there is an important concept in scientific methodology that many novices miss. we can only disprove theories, one can never prove them right. A single contrary example will suffice. for example - the advance of the perihelion of Mercury.

But that is very stuffy indeed. the lack of evidence can also be convincing in a non-University setting. Juries use this all the time. consider the famous Sherlock holmes trial where the dog didn't bark when an intrudder entered. Why didn't he bark. the lack of this evidence leads you to a conclusion. similarly, you must consider the lack of any missing link when contemplating Darwin. It is not settled - not like global warming is settled, that is. Te he.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 28, 2007 2:38 PM | Report abuse

_Colin - This is the first I've heard of that. I'll check the web for the citation. Nonetheless (and still!) SO WHAT! Jimmy Carter and Kucinich both claimed to have seen a UFO. From everything I've ever heard and seen, they are still two of the most decent men around.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | November 28, 2007 2:36 PM | Report abuse

mikebrooks -- Huckabee has already affirmatively said that he does NOT think abortion is a state issue and would, accordingly, support federal legislation banning ALL abortions and a constitutional amendment stating the same.

Posted by: _Colin | November 28, 2007 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Roe v. Wade is a fantom issue. Oregon, Washington, and most states have already passed laws permitting abortion. If Roe were overturned, it would have ZERO EFFECT on those states...and on the ability of women who needed medical abortions to obtain one. Now, I am "pro-choice", but I can certainly understand the argument that it was a stretch for the Supreme's to read legalized abortion into the right to privacy. It was quite a stretch and anyone with half a brain knows it. If Roe is removed, this is a state issue, just like Oregon's assisted suicide law.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | November 28, 2007 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: gtb38 | November 28, 2007 2:30 PM | Report abuse

JD - quite the opposite. you see the Repubs are debating ideas and entertaining different points of view.

the Dems on the other hand march in lockstep, refusing to alter any views formed in the 60s despite any possibility of obsolecence. consider they still claim the surge is a failure. the ultimate in audacity over objectivity. but to humor you, consider every single Dem candidate thinks:

Government is good - the bigger the better

Taxes are good, the higher the better

War is bad, it should be ended no matter what the consequences

Health care should be free to anyone who asks and paid by those who succeed

Retirement under the SS system is great but a big 401K handout is still needed

college should be free to anyone and paid by the rich, after wages can be set by the graduates

corporations and profit are evil, unless you make anti-American movies

Oil should be banned except for private jets

the world will begin boiling tomorrow

Issues don't matter - it is personality that counts

selling pardons is OK

doing interns is just sex, doing campaign workers is consentual, doing your wife is to be avoided

balancing the budget is easy - just cancel the DoD money

the enemy can be talked into peace

so you see, if you want to consider the issues and vote accordingly, you will want to review the R candidates, there is a full menu of options.

If you are a non-thinking ex-hippie with aspirations for power and cultish admiration of your elected officials, don't even stop to think, just vote D.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 28, 2007 2:29 PM | Report abuse

KOZ: "the executive branch remains stymied "

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Posted by: stickeen | November 28, 2007 2:28 PM | Report abuse

"What concern is it of your's if someone believes in evolution or not?"

Usually, I wouldn't care. However, when the "someone" is running for President, a position that requires ability to evaluate science and make policy, I care a lot.

Posted by: stickeen | November 28, 2007 2:26 PM | Report abuse

MikeBrooks -- vote for Huckabee if you want, but he affirmatively stated at a GOP debate that he does not believe in evolution. That's not my biggest objection to the guy, but it is a fact and not mud slinging.

Posted by: _Colin | November 28, 2007 2:23 PM | Report abuse

And Loudounvoter, I am more critical of Democrats than Republican's? I am critical of crooks and scumbags from both sides! Clinton IS a scumbag, as is Jefferson, and Kennedy and Chuck Schumer. I am delighted and proud to point out that they are money grubbing corporate hacks that need to be retired. It you who are an polized idiot. Get the blinders off. There are a lot of decent men and women serving in elected offices and there are more than a few corrupt self serving swine. A genuine liberal put morality and ethics BEFORE everything else. Elect a self serving scumbag and, once in office, they do pretty much what they want, or whatever whoever is paying them the most wants (like Kennedy and Schumer and Clinton and increasing the number of H1-B visas, amnesty for illegal immigration, etc.).

Posted by: mibrooks27 | November 28, 2007 2:23 PM | Report abuse

stickeen.the.dog - What concern is it of your's if someone believes in evolution or not? I have no idea of Huckabee's stance on evolution vs. creationism and I'd bet you don't either. This is all just more of the Clinton mud slinging campaign to cut off any genuine R. competition. It's like Hillary's whispering campaign that Obama was a "Muslim by birth". Trash, lies, garbage, and spin. Aren't you even the slightest biut embarrassed by the Queen of the Gutter and the depths to which she will sink?

Posted by: mibrooks27 | November 28, 2007 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Those goofy Dems - at it again:

Majority Leader Harry Reid arranged for "pro-forma" Senate sessions to be held to prevent the executive branch from making recess appointments.
Reid's solution to this impasse was to call pro-forma sessions. That is, a single senator would show up Tuesday, Wednesday, and the Friday after Thanksgiving, bang the gavel, wait 30 seconds, end of session. Nothing accomplished, but the executive branch remains stymied and the federal government remains understaffed. (If such a thing is possible in the current Leviathan.)

What's more, Democrats' saw this as a media opportunity. CNN camera crews followed Jim Webb into the Senate on Wednesday. "This is the first time coming to work actually makes news," Senator Jim Webb, responsible for banging Wednesday's gavel, told the cameras. You know what would also make news, Senator Webb? Doing actual work. In case you were wondering, here's the status of all the appropriations bills:

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/approp/app08.html

We're well into the new fiscal year and it looks like Democrats are moving things along at a glacial pace.
And like that it was over. All that was missing was Harry Reid in flightsuit standing behind a huge banner that said "Nothing Accomplished." As for the rest of us, well, I beheld the Senate, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the citizens they had no light. I wait, on pins and needles, for what Reid and Pelosi have in store next.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NGFhOGUxYTc3Y2FjYjk3ZDNhZjRiZjcyNDQyNGRjMTg=

If you can list clintons accomplishments on top of the Reid/Pelosi congress', you will have the largest non-document ever created.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 28, 2007 2:12 PM | Report abuse

LV, personally for Tancredo I'd go with the fact he said overturning Roe would be the greatest day in our country's history. What about the history of the WORLD. Clearly, not a believer in the cause.

Oh and you forgot Hunter. Doesn't like the Chinese poisoning us with toys?

Posted by: zmeunier | November 28, 2007 2:10 PM | Report abuse

The ace in the Huck deck is that that MSM is completely corrupt and refuses to ask him details about his record on immigration. If that were revealed to all the voters, he'd be driven down to the single digits. In fact, he's even worse than Bush on this issue. Here's just one example:

http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/007268.html

And, here's another:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5Dp7FaKIJo

The only reason he's still in the race is because the MSM won't do their job.

Posted by: LonewackoDotCom | November 28, 2007 2:06 PM | Report abuse

'If you think Bush's Supreme Court nominees were conservative, try to visualize who someone like Huckabee might nominate.'

Judge Roy Moore -- the guy who kept a copy --from an old MGM set -- of the Ten Commandments in his courthouse.

Posted by: drindl | November 28, 2007 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Back to work in 3 min, I just want to know if I heard the Edwards spot correctly when he referred to "20 generations [of progress in America]". If I did, was he speaking on an Indian Reservation? Anybody know?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | November 28, 2007 1:59 PM | Report abuse

a state like iowa should not set the tone or determine the momentum for the nominating process, neither for repubs nor democrats. iowa is simply not reflective of the general population.

Posted by: heatmiser | November 28, 2007 1:55 PM | Report abuse

"former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson is the only other candidate in double digits at 11%"

I have to say, the Actor from Hollywood is demonstrating more staying power than I gave him credit for. My prediction was that he'd be out by Christmas - 4 weeks from now. But if he retains double digits through that time he might just earn a delegate or two to the party in St Paul...

Posted by: bsimon | November 28, 2007 1:54 PM | Report abuse

mibrooks: You bash Democrats even more than the most rabid Republican partisan on here.

To say you'd vote for someone like Huckabee based on the absurd notion that you think you'll be getting another Ronald Reagan makes your party affiliation laughable.

If you think Bush's Supreme Court nominees were conservative, try to visualize who someone like Huckabee might nominate.

Posted by: Spectator2 | November 28, 2007 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Exactly, Loudon. None of them are pure enough.

Oh yeah, what's Huckabee's dog problem? I already know Rudy's -- his wife. Just kidding. Her former occupation I mean.

What we are possibly overlooking in analying polls and stats is the emotional factor... whose supporters are among the most fanatical/enthusiastic, who will be SURE to vote? And that would most likely be Paul, Huckabee and Obama.

Posted by: drindl | November 28, 2007 1:51 PM | Report abuse

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of the Iowa caucus finds former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee with 28% of the vote, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney with 25% support, and everyone else far behind. National frontrunner Rudy Giuliani gets just 12% of the vote in Iowa at this time while former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson is the only other candidate in double digits at 11%.


In your opinion do you believe the Iowa Caucus is important or a true representation of national consensus?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1084

.

Posted by: PollM | November 28, 2007 1:47 PM | Report abuse

Funny list. I await KOZ's response on the Dem's candidates, pointing out the lack of purity among their group.

(Excepting Kucinich I guess, but he isn't getting elected unless they suddenly allow Martians to vote)

Posted by: JD | November 28, 2007 1:44 PM | Report abuse

mibrooks27: "fanatical Democratic ideological garbage" like evolution, I suppose.

Posted by: stickeen | November 28, 2007 1:43 PM | Report abuse

LoudonVoter: Sorta points out the problem the GOPers have these days, huh? What's a rightwingnut to do?

Yup.

Mark: "E-mail every dog owner in IA the url to Ann Romney telling the Seamus-on-the-roof story."

Huckabee has his own dog problem.

Posted by: stickeen | November 28, 2007 1:41 PM | Report abuse

I'm not overly enthusiastic about most of his policies, but Huckabee is a genuinely decent guy, an honest-to-god politician who cares about the country and its people. What a breath of fresh air when compared to the likes of Clinton, Romney, and Guliani. If the Democratic ticket has Clinton on it anywhere, I will gladly vote for Huckabee figuring I'm electing another Ronald Reagan - another decent leader, one I am ashamed to say I never voted for, based on fanatical Democratic ideological garbage. The nut cases from the left like "stickeen.the.dog" put that stick where the sun don't shine. Decency, honor, honesty, jobs, concern for the country will determine the winner of this election, not the mindless trash talking rabble of the Clinton mob.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | November 28, 2007 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Mark: good point. So let me add:

Tancredo: Total nutbar. Therefore he's a liberal. 8>P

Posted by: Spectator2 | November 28, 2007 1:35 PM | Report abuse

LV, good post. Have you auditioned for Tancredo?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | November 28, 2007 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Not that MH needs my advice, but Chris added "[how] he can win..." to the topic.

E-mail every dog owner in IA the url to Ann Romney telling the Seamus-on-the-roof story.

That'll do it.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | November 28, 2007 1:29 PM | Report abuse

stickeen: Sorta points out the problem the GOPers have these days, huh? What's a rightwingnut to do?

Huckabee: Raised some taxes. Therefore he's a liberal

Rudy G: At least somewhat pro-choice. Therefore he's a liberal

Thompson: Actor. Therefore he's a liberal

McCain: Pushed for limits on campaign expenditures. Therefore he's a liberal

Mittens: Former governor of Massachusetts, not an evangelical Christian. Therefore he's a liberal

Ron Paul: Opposes the war in Iraq. Therefore he's a liberal.

Apologies to any liberal I might have left out.

Posted by: Spectator2 | November 28, 2007 1:29 PM | Report abuse

Some interesting factoids, Loudon. They are worried because he will definitely take the fundies' vote... he's clearly a guy who finds separation of church and state a nuisance.

' The panel also ruled in 2003 that Huckabee's campaign violated state law when it used its funds to pay for an event during the summer of 2002 called Gospel Fest.'

And his supporters are true, enthusiastic beleivers...

"Mormons spend two years of their lives as missionaries, preaching an anti-Christian doctrine. I don't want someone out there, if I can help it, who's going to be acting on an anti-Christian faith as the basis of their decision-making," - Barbara Heki, 51, from Johnston, Iowa, a Huckabee supporter.

"I'm concerned a lot of Christians are thinking about the values issues and forgetting about the creator behind the values issues. I guess I feel like this country and this world needs a president who would be able to pray to the God of the Bible for guidance and he would be able to hear his prayers," - Glenda Gherkey, an evangelical from Evansdale, Iowa, on why she's supporting Huckabee.

Posted by: drindl | November 28, 2007 1:25 PM | Report abuse

Success for Huckabee would be a boost for the creationist fundy wackos. That's a bad thing.

Posted by: stickeen | November 28, 2007 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Huck must be doing well -- the other candidates are digging into his record as gov.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/huckabee_record

Posted by: Spectator2 | November 28, 2007 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Success for Huckabee would be a huge kick in the teeth to the Club for Growth idiots. That's a good thing.

Posted by: Spectator2 | November 28, 2007 12:58 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company