I've All But Crossed Huckabee off my List...

This Washington Times article really highlights the Huckster's tenure as Governor of Arkansas, and why he is NOT the right man to be the GOP nominee, let alone leader of the free world.

Diverting the funds of a conservative PAC to a Democrat who was opposed by a Republican in a state legislature race, demanding people be "with Huck or against him", calling other Republicans "shi'ites" (which, in return, Arkansas Republicans called him a "Christian Socialist"), and attempt to find any reason to destroy any Republican who didn't fall in line with him.

He seems like a nice enough guy, but...

Fred Thompson Drops Out of GOP Race, Who Should I Endorse Now?

So my man, Fred Thompson, is out of the race officially. Between the not-so-hot finishes in Iowa and South Carolina, tending to his sick mother last week, and a mixed GOP base...I can see why things just didn't go for him this time.

Since Thompson hasn't endorsed anybody, I now have to find a new candidate to support.

Do I go with John McCain, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, or Ron Paul? Well, let me weight them out...

Mike Huckabee...while I like the idea of the FairTax, I don't think it is something that could be implemented without serious short-term economical damage. Other than that, Huckabee doesn't have much going for him with me. His record on issues isn't very sparkling when it comes to fiscal prudence, and he's heavy on the SoCon platform, which is very divisive in today's political sphere. Factor in Huckabee's lack of real ideas on the foreign policy front, and there isn't much for me to agree with as far as I've seen. Until he shows me something different, I cannot (in good faith) support Huckabee. Not with these other candidates in the field.

Ron Paul...while I like limited government and free markets, Paul strikes me as just a tad too isolationist for my tastes, especially since we're a big part of the global economy. Paul wants to pull out of Iraq immediately, even though many Dems even agree that things are now going in our favor and we can create a better situation in that region if we continue on the current course. I like libertarian ideals, but I'm a federalist at heart, and Paul and I just don't quite click enough to work.

John McCain...I respect McCain's independent streak, and I agree with him on fiscal issues (not just tax cuts, but spending cuts are necessary). He claims to have "heard the people" in regards to immigration, but that remains to be seen. McCain has the experience, the bipartisan appeal, and the intelligence to be a good leader. However, with that comes a certain amount of unpredictability about his performance. Then again, I thought McCain would've been a good leader in 2000 over George W. Bush. 50/50 shot with McCain, here.

Rudy Giuliani...The man I originally leaned towards for President until Fred Thompson came around and inspired me to endorse him. Rudy is smart on most of the issues, but has been basically repeating the same routine for about 8 months now. However, should he win Florida, the race changes dramatically. I like Rudy, and I think he'd make a pretty good leader. However, he's been dormant for so long that I don't know what to think.

Mitt Romney...Mitt appeals to me on fiscal issues, but has changed his position on various issues to move himself further to the right from where he was as a candidate for the U.S. Senate and as Governor of Massachusetts. With the economy being the top priority for the majority of voters right now, I would believe that Romney could be one of the best candidates to bring revival to the American economy, as he (along with his father) is a model of capitalist success. Another possible pick, but I'm just not sure at this point.

Do any of you have any ideas? Here's your chance to sell your candidate to me.

Mitt Romney Wins in Michigan GOP Primary

With many projecting a possible Romney loss in his native state of Michigan, and ultimately the final blow to his campaign, Mitt Romney pulled out a very solid win in the Michigan primary yesterday.

Romney won with 39% of the vote, John McCain finished second with 30%, Mike Huckabee came in a distant third with 16%.

This was, in many minds, Romney's "must win" state to continue his campaign. It also further muddles up the GOP primary picture, as McCain and Huckabee were beginning to separate from the pack.

Hillary Clinton was the only major Dem contender on the Michigan Democratic Primary ballot...and still only pulled 56%. However, the primary was meaningless as the Democratic Party stripped Michigan of all of it's delegates to the Dem National Convention as punishment for moving up the date of the primary.

GOP Race: DC/Maryland/Virginia May Matter...And so Will Money

That's what David Freddoso thinks. Give it a read, this primary season is shaping up to simply be the best...primary...ever. At least for historical purposes.

As many others have said, Freddoso believes that a lot of the Huckabee vote in the South (and Giuliani vote overall) hinge on how well Fred Thompson does in South Carolina.

Also, as Freddoso points out, money may become a factor if this becomes a total national slugfest. This is where Romney's ability to self-finance and raise funds will come into play, as he will be able to sustain himself much longer than most of the other candidates.

I haven't seen fundraising numbers for Huckabee or McCain, but I do know that Giuliani is in trouble (asking for campaign workers to voluntarily stop receiving paychecks), and Fred Thompson's fundraising has picked up to the point that current fundraising challenges have had their limits increase due to the fact that donations have picked up recently.

An Anti-Huckabee Evangelical...?

This comment from the South Carolina Debate thread at Michelle Malkin caught my eye. Unlike much of the thread, she doesn't praise Fred Thompson (although she espouses some love for him at the end, she is a Mitt Romney supporter, first), but this person, whose handle is "RealImmigrantChick", brings up some interesting points in her comment...

I am an evangelical and I will NEVER vote for the Huckster. I will also not vote for McCaine. I would rather sit it out in 2008 if either of these guys is our nominee. Why do so many Christians (I am sorry if I offend my brethren) fall for someone just cause they can quote the Bible? Look at his fruit: 1) misplaced compassion for the criminals, not the victims; 2) misplaced compassion for the illegals, not legal immigrants and citizens whose wages have plummeted cause of illegals; 3) raising taxes for social programs and big government (the Bible leaves good works to us, as Christians, not government. It also says, those who do not work, should not eat (St. Paul)- i.e., no welfare, etc., and Huckster sounds like a goverment services type of guy). No way to him or McCaine. I will hold my breath with Rudy, since he is a bit more bearable, but never these 2. I like Mitt. I believe his change on abortion. I have chaned my position too, I used to be pro-choice, now I am vehimently against it. So, his change does not bother me, I APPLAUD IT!!!!! More people should since that is what we want, changed hearts on this issue. I love Fred also.

A lot to digest, there, but I found it to be rather interesting. An anti-Huckabee evangelical...could we be seeing a bit of a backlash?

Rasmussen Polls on Both Sides of the Mason-Dixon...

Head-to-head matchups between Republican candidates and Democratic candidates, courtesy of Rasmussen Reports.

Maryland (as if we expect surprises here)
Obama 48%, McCain 42%
McCain 45%, Clinton 43%
Obama 55%, Romney 34%
Clinton 52%, Romney 39%

There is a surprise in Maryland...McCain has a lead over Clinton. Maryland is one of the "bluest" states in the nation, so for McCain to make a crack in the Dem foundation here is encouraging.

Oh yeah, and Martin O'Malley has a 33% approval rating as Governor, which is lower than President Bush's 36% approval rating amongst Marylanders...HA! Bring back Bob Ehrlich, Maryland, he was good for you. Moving on...

Pennsylvania
McCain 48%, Clinton 42%
McCain 46%, Obama 38%
Clinton 49%, Romney 39%
Obama 43%, Romney 38%
Clinton 46%, Huckabee 44%

Pennsylvania is a very odd state. They like their Democrats conservative and their Republicans liberal (well, to an extent). That would explain Huckabee's ability to hang with Hillary. Romney isn't doing well here, either...but his gap between himself and Obama is half of what it is with Hillary. Once again, that's The Keystone State's tendency to buck the trends, as Romney tends to match up better with Clinton than Obama.

I previously examined the battleground states, and I did not include Pennsylvania because of recent trends. However, given that McCain and Huckabee are doing so well up there, I may soon include Pennsylvania as a swing state if this trend continues.

Hope for Fred in SC

Hunter Golden said it best...

I think the ONE guy who could sneak into the mix is Thompson, with Romney now completely sunk, I think you're going to see some defections to the Thompson crowd. If he takes the conservative stance, he can do well in South Carolina. I think while Huckabee and McCain are essentially playing to the same crowds.

This has actually been part of Fred's campaign strategy as of late. Get 3rd in Iowa, ignore New Hampshire for obvious reasons, and make the push in South Carolina. A 2nd place, or better, finish in SC will provide the shot in the arm to Fred's chances. The defection from Romney to Thompson has been predicted by other prognosticators, as well.

Good news for Fred.

N.H. GOP Primary: McCain's Win Anti-Climactic, Romney's Still Got a Chance

Anyone else feel that John McCain's win in New Hampshire was not nearly the surprise that some have made it out to be?

Sure, he's come back from being nearly dead in the water 8 months ago. However, for about 2 weeks now, we've pretty much known that McCain would overtake Mitt Romney in New Hampshire and win. McCain has been surging for 2 months now, and is actually starting to take away Mike Huckabee's heat (thank God).

Many are already counting Mitt Romney out, but be careful about that kind of prognostication. If McCain, Huckabee, and Rudy Giuliani trade victories all over the United States, Romney seems poised to come in 2nd or 3rd in all of the primaries. He still will collect plenty of delegates even if he gets mostly silver-medal finishes.

With Huckabee's popularity pretty well isolated to evangelicals and other social conservatives, and McCain being a "boom or bust" candidate whose boom or bust depends on the state, Romney could be the most consistent "delegate-collector" of all the candidates.

With the possibility of a contested convention in September, and no one candidate really breaking away to collect enough delegates to win on the first ballot, Romney may put himself into a very advantageous position by winning a few states, and getting a lot of 2nd place finishes.

Honestly, as wide open as this race is...I can definitely see the possibility that no GOP candidate reaches the magic number of 1,191 delegates by the time this thing is over.

After New Hampshire, CNN has the delegate count as follows...

Romney 30, Huckabee 21, McCain 10, Fred Thompson 6, Ron Paul 2, Giuliani 1, Duncan Hunter 1. While it's still REALLY early, we've got Michigan, Nevada, South Carolina, and Florida coming up before Super Tuesday.

Fred Thompson is making his "Last Stand" in South Carolina. Smart move to hedge his bets there, as that is the next "big focus" primary, and the site of the next debate. This is his best shot to get back into this thing.

"New Hampshire" = "Nasty Heat" for Candidates

These were the best debates, so far. Charles Gibson did a good job moderating the debate, and the format was much more of a "debate" and less of a "question and answer" session. Kudos to ABC, and the "unity" moment of having all the candidates from both parties greet each other onstage between debates was a nice touch.

Diane Sawyer, though, really seemed out of place in the whole scheme of things. Anyway, on to my thoughts.

On the GOP side...

- Fred Thompson had an excellent debate, and even George Stephanopoulos said so in his post-debate comments. He put Romney on the spot without attacking him (and forced Romney, on one occasion, to completely waffle on a question), handled Ron Paul like nobody else has done, and had a generally good overall performance. He seemed very comfortable in this debate, was on-point with his policies, and answered questions directly. Also, I noticed that more candidates said "Yes, Senator Thompson is right..." and would go on to repeat Fred's words. That's because Fred is correct.

- Mitt Romney was attacked by everyone on stage in some way, shape, or form. I must say that Romney handled most of the criticism well, considering the bombardment of attacks from many sides, especially from John McCain. McCain, while having some good quips, seemed more intent on spitting out a "zinger", then flashing a silly grin right before they cut away from him. His performance was a bit forced, in my opinion.

- Huckabee was almost non-existant for long stretches, playing the "let them knock each other out" card. Good job by Charles Gibson not to allow that to go on forever. Giuliani had a relatively strong performance. He made his stances fairly clear, pointed to his record of law enforcement and economic turnaround in New York City, and deflecting criticism for being more liberal in his policies in the past.

- Ron Paul did a good job espousing his views, but also took more heat than normal, probably because he's a more serious threat than most of the other candidates realized. He got burned by Fred on the "money-printing/Iraq War/health care" tie-in that Paul stretched to make.

On the Dem side...

- All 4 candidates had relatively decent nights, nobody had a "bad" night. However, if anyone should come out of this looking better than before, it's Bill Richardson. He was on a much more level playing field in terms of speaking time, and made good use of it. Richardson will probably give Hillary more problems than Obama and Edwards, and Richardson appeals to the "experience" base of the Democratic Party.

- Obama is really pushing for the Independent/Republican cross-over vote. He made a point to address them as necessary to create a majority consensus for his policies. Unless someone like Huckabee gets nominated, I don't see many Republicans crossing over.

- As usual, more "anti-Republican" sentiments from the Dems than "anti-Democrat" sentiments from the GOP. In fact, the only time the GOP addressed the Dems was when they were asked to compare themselves to Barack Obama. The Dem candidates had a habit of bringing up "those horrible Republicans" when they needed a rallying point...instead of rallying around what they stand for.

- Hillary had a stronger debate than the previous few debates she took part in. However, Obama was solid and Edwards also had a stronger-than-normal debate. None of which helps her in the long run.

Iowa Results and Fallout

Dem Caucus
- Obama 38%, Edwards 30%, Clinton 29%, Richardson 2%

GOP Caucus
- Huckabee 34%, Romney 25%, Thompson 13%, McCain 13%, Paul 10%, Giuliani 4%, Hunter 1%
Note: Thompson edged out McCain in the number final number of votes each received, which gives Fred a third-place finish.

Last night was a spectacle to behold, really. While the GOP is smart to keep it simple and plain in their caucus (which really makes it more like a primary), it is notable that the Dems have a much more interesting way of going about their caucusing because it involves a lot more interaction and stumping by caucus-goers for their candidate.

- Clinton was destined to lose, here...but not by 9 percent. With New Hampshire a total dogfight between Obama and Clinton, Hillary has a lot of making up to do and only a few days to do it.

- Fred Thompson got the 3rd place finish that he needed to move forward with some momentum heading towards South Carolina (Fred isn't getting much in New Hampshire, and never really will). If Huckabee gets stomped in New Hampshire, that helps Fred...but also helps Mitt Romney in South Carolina. The next 2-3 weeks are key for Fred's campaign.

- Ron Paul polled a solid 10%, it will be interesting to see the effects that will have.

- Joe Biden and Chris Dodd both have dropped out of the running for the Dem nomination. Somewhere, Johnny Camacho is weeping gently over a piece of Biden's hairplugs.

- ABC has dropped Duncan Hunter, Mike Gravel, and Dennis Kucinich from Saturday night's GOP and Dem debates. The reason was due to the fact that none of the 3 met any of the requirements to debate. There are 3 requirements, and a candidate must reach one...those requirements are: Finishing 4th or better in Iowa, poll 5 percent or better in New Hampshire, or poll 5 percent or better in one of the major national surveys. This, combined with the dropouts of Biden and Dodd, leave 4 Democrats and 6 Republicans to debate on Saturday.

Iowa Polls: Huck and Mitt Still Lead, Fred Entrenched in 3rd Place

Courtesy of Real Clear Politics, here are the latest Iowa polls.

LA Times/Bloomberg (12/20-12/26)
- Huckabee 36%, Romney 28%, Thompson 10%, McCain 8%, Giuliani 8%, Paul 1%

Research 2000 (12/26-12/27)
- Huckabee 34%, Romney 27%, Thompson 11%, McCain 8%, Giuliani 8%, Paul 8%

Strategic Vision (12/26-12/27)
- Huckabee 29%, Romney 27%, Thompson 15%, McCain 14%, Giuliani 4%, Paul 4%

Interesting, even though all 6 candidates place in the same general order, some conclusions can be drawn from these polls.

First, while Huckabee leads in all 3, his amount of support wavers quite a bit between the 3 polls. Romney seems to have the steadiest base of support. Fred's numbers go up 4-5 points from pre-Christmas to post-Christmas. McCain has spotty, but all-over-the-place support. Giuliani has no hope in Iowa, and Ron Paul goes from 1% to 4% to 8%...which one is it?

Nonetheless, I'm coming to the conclusion that Huckabee/Romney will be a 1-2 finish either way, but the coveted 3rd spot (which candidates need to carry momentum past Iowa) should go to the now-resurgent Fred instead of John McCain, who seems to be betting on New Hampshire as his true launching point.

Romney vs. Huckabee

An article by Laura Meckler and Elizabeth Holmes at the Wall Street Journal's website discusses the difference between the two GOP frontrunners in Iowa, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee.

They are very contrasting figures. Romney is a northern-bred fiscal conservative who comes from a business and political background, has a carefully polished image, and relies on many tactics of the business world (PowerPoint presentations and the like) to accentuate his points.

Huckabee, in comparison, is a southerner (born and raised) who was raised in a working class family, wears his faith on his sleeve due to his past as a Southern Baptist minister, and uses "good ol' boy" humor, southern charm, and biblical references to make his case to the public.

Interestingly enough, I can identify with both men on a personal level. I'm the son of a firefighter and grew up middle class, just like Huckabee. However, much like Mitt Romney, I am more of a northerner by birth, I tend to keep my religion to myself unless it's brought up by someone else, and I like a good suit.

While Huckabee says things in a down-home, folksy manner that appeal to the common man, Romney has experience and leadership advantages over

If asked to choose between the two, Romney would be the man I would vote for. He's produced results in the business world and the political realm by using sound fiscal prudence and intelligent decision-making skills.

Huckabee, in my opinion, has not proven himself to be a fiscally prudent executive based on his record as Governor of Arkansas and may continue to expand government, which is the opposite of the true solution. His foreign policy knowledge and stances are rather weak, as is his stances and history on illegal immigration.

But alas, outside of Iowa, I don't think the Huckster's momentum will carry him to many more victories. Between Romney and Giuliani's strength in other states, and the resurgence of John McCain and Fred Thompson, Huckabee needs some meat behind his campaign talk...relying on religion and the FairTax alone does not make one a qualified candidate, in my opinion.

IHT's Early Odds on the Presidential Candidates

A lot of BS being shucked around in this one, but worth a look anyway. This is the International Herald Tribune's odds on who will be the 44th President of the United States as of right now.

Hillary Clinton: 3-1
Barack Obama: 7-2
Mitt Romney: 5-1
John McCain: 8-1
Rudy Giuliani: 10-1
John Edwards: 10-1
Mike Huckabee: 12-1
Fred Thompson: 20-1
All Other Republican Party Candidates: 25-1
All Other Democratic Party Candidates: 40-1

GOP Polls Gone Wild

Talk about some strange numbers, here's some of the latest out of Iowa...

Strategic Vision
- Huckabee 31%, Romney 25%, Thompson 16%, McCain 8%, Giuliani 6%, Paul 5%

American Resource Group
- Huckabee 28%, McCain 20%, Romney 17%, Giuliani 13%, Thompson 5%, Paul 4%

Insider Advantage/Majority Opinion
- Romney 28%, Huckabee 25%, Thompson 11%, McCain 7%, Paul 6%, Giuliani 5%

Rasmussen
- Huckabee 28%, Romney 27%, McCain 14%, Thompson 8%, Giuliani 8%, Paul 6%

Now, this is interesting. In some of these polls, Fred Thompson has established himself as the presumptive "bronze medal" winner, but John McCain claims that title in other polls. I've always felt that Thompson and McCain tend to draw from a similar crowd (the C-SPAN crowd). That coveted "3rd place" spot is important for momentum heading forward, as both Thompson and McCain are trying to drive their campaigns forward.

Either way, once you get past Huckabee and Romney, Iowa is a total horserace.

Two interesting notes from the American Resource Group poll. One is that 36% of caucus goers were "undecided". Another note of interest is that 98% of Romney supporters say their support is "definite", same goes for 80% of McCain supporters and 67% of Giuliani supporters. However, only 38% say the same for Huckabee. This means that anyone who will be running a solid, aggressive campaign in Iowa over the next few weeks (Fred Thompson comes to mind) might be able to break into Huckabee's seemingly impressive poll numbers.

On to South Carolina...

CNN
- Huckabee 24%, Thompson 17%, Romney 16%, Giuliani 16%, McCain 13%, Paul 11%

SurveyUSA
- Huckabee 28%, Romney 18%, McCain 16%, Thompson 15%, Giuliani 12%, "Other" 7%

Rasmussen
- Huckabee 23%, Romney 23%, Thompson 12%, McCain 12%, Giuliani 11%, Paul 5%

A lot of uncertainty in South Carolina, despite Huckabee's lead in all 3 polls. In the Rasmussen poll, only 51% of Huckabee voters were "certain" to vote for him in the primary, and Romney could only count on a certain vote from 41% of his bloc. Fred Thompson can rely on 59% of his supporters, McCain get's 55% certainty, and Giuliani 53%.

It's odd how the front-runners (Huckabee and Romney) have the least amount of certain support. The question remains, can any of the candidates behind these 2 capitalize on their shaky base of support?

Looking at the national polls...

USA Today/Gallup
- Giuliani 27%, Huckabee 16%, Thompson 14%, Romney 14%, McCain 14%, Paul 3%

Rasmussen
- Huckabee 19%, Giuliani 16%, Romney 15%, McCain 15%, Thompson 11%, Paul 6%

Reuters/Zogby
- Giuliani 23%, Huckabee 22%, Romney 16%, Thompson 13%, McCain 12%, Paul 4%

The Rasmussen Poll is crazy, as no candidate cracks 20%. The only poll where Giuliani really appears to be "the" front-runner is the USA Today/Gallup poll. He's virtually tied in the Reuters/Zogby poll and losing to the Huckster in the Rasmussen poll.

McCain and Thompson, again, seem to be battling for the same group of voters. Romney is joining those 2 on a national level, but is really fighting Huckabee and Thompson in Iowa and South Carolina.

Ron Paul keeps marching along, snagging up about 4-6% in the polls and being very loud and active with his fundraising. Those dollar bills, however, have not added up to support in the polls.

A Contested Convention...?

A column in the Washington Times anticipates the possible spectacle of a contested Republican Convention. This being based upon the fact that there doesn't seem to be a real frontrunner, and each of the candidates could carry large numbers of delegates into the convention.

There has not been a contested presidential nomination at a convention since 1948's Republican National Convention, when Thomas Dewey finally triumphed over "The Boy Wonder of Politics" Harold E. Stassen and Robert Taft right before the 3rd ballot due to Taft's concession.

It would be interesting to see such an event, although it may mean more fragmentation within the GOP. However, having the national convention be more than a glorified coronation would be a lesson in politics for the current generation, and it would also provide infinite amounts of topics and events for us pundits.

It would also be interesting to see Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, and even Ron Paul duke it out in a convention, especially once a candidate was eliminated...it would be very interesting to see who those delegates would support.

Iowa Rep. King Endorses Rom...no, Fred Thompson!

Courtesy of the Campaign Spot blog at NRO.

Iowa Rep. Steve King endorsed Fred Thompson for President today. The reason why this endorsement is noteworthy is because all of Team Romney was in attendance, thinking King would announce an endorsement of their candidate.

In fact, speculation is that King may have changed his endorsement mid-speech, as if while talking about the candidates, the decision to go with Thompson just dawned upon him.

Isn't it said that your "better sense" usually triumphs in the end? Looks like Steve King is an example of this ;)

UPDATE: Upon reading other articles, it seems that this endorsement is actually ringing very true amongst Iowa conservatives, and is one that many in Iowa were waiting to hear. This should be another key boost the the Thompson campaign, which has been gaining serious momentum for the past week. I really expect that Thompson will snatch at least a solid 3rd in Iowa...and if the tide that has begun to turn against Huckabee and Romney continues, I think we may see Fred snatch 2nd or even 1st place. Who knows at this point.

Fred on Face The Nation

Fred Thompson appeared on CBS's "Face The Nation" this morning, and turned in another impressive performance by promoting his consistent record and common sense politics.

Host Bob Schieffer try pin down Thompson with questions about immigration and opponents Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee. Thompson managed to denounce the two GOP opponents mentioned by bringing up their records, but did not get nasty with his statements.

When the topic of illegal immigration came up, Thompson explained why strong border security and tougher sanctions against the employment and entitlements given to illegals would actually lead to a war of attrition of sorts. By eliminating the opportunity to simply "hop" back and forth across the border, and by taking away the ability for illegals to gain employment or welfare, they would begin to leave on their own. In essence, this is a simple way of eliminating the problem of illegal aliens in our nation that are border-hopping, because rounding them up and shipping them out, as some have suggested, is not feasible nor is it practical. Once again, Thompson has a smart, common sense solution to a looming problem in our nation.

This would then leave us with the issue of handling those who simply have expired visas and the problems with have with the smuggling of people from China through our ports...which is a surprisingly quiet issue that I believe should be included in our talks about "border security", as our ports lie on the borders of our nation, too.

Anyway, I found this to be another excellent performance by Fred. You probably won't see much of him on the national airwaves until after Iowa, as he is planning to criss-cross the state, making at least 5 planned stops a day, and innumerable unplanned stops. You almost think that the standout performance at the Iowa debate and now non-stop holiday blitz in the Hawkeye State was part of some great plan to create momentum that wouldn't have time to fizzle out. Let's see if this holds true.

Huckabee Thin on Foreign Policy

In a world where our foreign policy is one of our nation's keys to success, Mike Huckabee seems to be a bit lean on answers to handling foreign relations, as evidenced in an NRO article yesterday.

Mike Huckabee’s extraordinary rise in the polls means he deserves to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate in a way he hasn’t been all year long. Serious candidates have well-formulated views on foreign policy. What are Huckabee’s?

He hasn’t been asked about them much — reporters prefer to inquire after his views on evolution—but Don Imus, on his resurrected radio show, queried Huckabee the other day about his foreign-policy experience. Huckabee not so humbly invoked Ronald Reagan, who also, according to the former Arkansas governor, ascended to the presidency with no foreign-policy experience. As Powerline’s Paul Mirengoff has pointed out, this is — to say the least — an inapt analogy. Ronald Reagan lived and breathed the global fight with the Soviet Union for decades, and had been an important voice on the right on foreign policy long before he was president.

Mike Huckabee, by contrast, cut his teeth on typical state-level fare in Arkansas and on weight-loss and wellness programs. This is probably why he felt compelled to quip to Imus, “And the ultimate thing is, I may not be the expert that some people are on foreign policy, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night.” (Powerline also points out that he used the exact same line on Imus a year earlier when foreign policy came up.) This won’t do.

Huckabee did give a long speech on foreign policy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in September. It combined a superficial rendering of conventional foreign-policy wisdom — which of course included many unfair criticisms of President Bush — with Huckabee’s inimitable folksy delivery. The former governor’s bottom line was that we should be nicer to other countries.

Huckabee has been pretty lean on the foreign policy side of things. He will either need to hire a strong foreign policy adviser or start reading up on his own plans. Huckabee does not seem to have a real plan for America in regards to the rest of the world, and given the current state of things in the rest of the world, that does not bode well for America.

Huckabee better start giving us more than a friendly smile, folksy demeanor, the Fair Tax, and his belief in God if he wants to be President.

Rasmussen: South Carolina Turned Upside Down

Wow, and wow some more.

In the latest Rasmussen Polls, Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton's 13 point lead from two months ago has shrunk to 2 points over Barack Obama in the key early primary state of South Carolina. At the end of September, Hillary was up 43%-30% on Obama. As of today, her lead is now a slim margin of 36%-34%.

On the GOP side in South Carolina, whose primary is a week earlier than the Dems, Mike Huckabee has surged to 1st place with 25%, which gives the former Arkansas governor a 7 point lead over both Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson, who both pulled in 18% apiece. At the end of September, Thompson led Romney by a margin of 24%-15% (and led Giuliani by 3 points, but Giuliani has also slipped 9 points in South Carolina since then), and Huckabee was in 5th place with only 3%!

With less than a month to go until the Iowa caucus, what other surprises are in store for us?

GOP Poll Bits and Bites

GOP Poll numbers...these are all over the place.

RealClearPolitics(RCP) GOP Nomination Poll Averages...
- Giuliani 25.3%, Huckabee 13.8%, McCain 13.7%, Thompson 13.2%, Romney 10.7%, Paul 4.7%.

Latest Rasmussen Reports GOP Poll...
- Huckabee 20%, Giuliani 17%, McCain 13%, Romney 13%, Thompson 10%, Paul 7%

Latest USA Today/Gallup Poll...
- Giuliani 25%, Huckabee 16%, Thompson 15%, McCain 15%, Romney 12%, Paul 4%

So Huckabee has taken over 2nd Place from Fred Thompson in the RCP Average, and leapfrogged McCain in the process, who also jumped past Fred by a slight margin. Huckabee's showing in the latest Rasmussen poll is crazy, as Giuliani has sunk to his lowest margin of support in that poll.

Going to individual states, here's the RCP averages for the key early states, and the delegates at stake...

Iowa (41 delegates)...
- Huckabee 26.6%, Romney 25.8%, Giuliani 12.0%, Thompson 10.4%, McCain 6.4%, Paul 5.0%.

New Hampshire (24 delegates)...
- Romney 34.2%, Giuliani 17.8%, McCain 16.2%, Huckabee 10.0%, Paul 6.2%, Thompson 3.2%.
McCain is posing a serious threat to Giuliani's once-solid 2nd place standing...Fred has no traction in this state.

Michigan (61 delegates)...
- Giuliani 23.7%, Romney 20.3%, Thompson 14.0%, McCain 12.3%, Huckabee 6.7%, Paul 3.7%.
Given that Romney's father was governor here and a former candidate for President, you'd think he'd be in the lead here.

Nevada (34 delegates)...
- Giuliani 28.7%, Romney 21.0%, Thompson 14.0%, McCain 9.3%, Paul 7.3%, Huckabee 5.0%
Sun Belt states will like Giuliani.

South Carolina (47 delegates)...
- Romney 19.8%, Thompson 16.8%, Giuliani 16.0%, Huckabee 13.3%, McCain 10.8%, Paul 5.8%
If Fred can get a boost somewhere here, he may snatch this state from Mitt.

Florida(114 delegates)...
- Giuliani 30.6%, Romney 15.0%, Huckabee 12.8%, Thompson 12.0%, McCain 10.8%, Paul 4.3%.
I'm a bit surprised Huckabee is ahead of Thompson, here...even more surprised that Mitt is doing as well as he is.

So, if these polls were to hold up going into Super Tuesday, things would look like this...

Giuliani - 209 delegates
Romney - 71 delegates
Huckabee - 41 delegates

So, despite Huckabee's surge, this race is still Giuliani's to lose at this point. Factor in the fact that, according to RCP, Giuliani leads big time in California (174 delegates) and is polling over 50% in New Jersey (52 delegates), suddenly Giuliani can add another 226 delegates to his column.

The other candidates have some work to do.