Fred vs Huckabee

Scott Miller at The Conservative Post has written an article talking about the fact that Huckabee may well be a Social Conservative, he is not a Fiscal Conservative (I would add that his protectionist talk falls into a different area: Foreign Relations Conservative).

The question is whether or not the Social Conservatives care. If the Social Conservatives just care about an "electable" candidate that is socially conservative, then they may not care that Huckabee is not conservative in any other way. On the other hand, if they look at other areas then they will reject Huckabee for someone else (I hope Fred).

I think that most social conservatives would be short-sighted to not include other areas as well. The reality is that the three areas overlap and effect each other. But then again, I think that many within the Social Conservative movement tend to litmus test candidates (e.g. they are really litmus testing Fred on the "Marriage Amendment" when his version of the proposed amendment will be easier to get passed, will achieve the same thing and is philosophically more consistent with the foundations of our government than the marriage amendment that they propose). The problem with litmus testing is that you lose the big picture for the sake of the small picture.

Here is my "big picture" question for Social Conservatives: which candidate do you think will stand on his principles, but yet be able to work enough with the opposing party to get those principles enacted into law?

If your answer is Ron Paul, then you are as nuts as he is.

If your answer is Huckabee, I would agree to a degree, but you will end up seeing social policy done more like what GW Bush has done rather than Reagan.

If your answer is Fred, then I would agree with you.

Another Take on Fred Barnes

Also in the Daily Standard, William Kristol wrote a companion piece to Fred Barnes take that it is between Rudy and Mitt. He paints scenarios for McCain, Huckabee and Fred to win. His larger point is that the election process is dynamic that the scenarios will change early and often.

Fred Barnes on Nomination Scenarios

Fred Barnes has written an article at The Weekly Standard saying that the Republican nomination is a two man race--and it is between Rudy and Mitt. His rationale is that the two of them have the only "credible" scenarios. I think Rudy's scenarios at this point are fairly apparent (winning big states--Florida, California, New York, New Jersey, etc.). Mitt's scenario is winning the early states (Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, etc.) and then use that as momentum builders to win the nomination. (Is it "credible" when his national support is so low? Barnes thinks so.)

Barnes does not think FDT's scenario works out:

Thompson's scenario involves doing well enough in Iowa and New Hampshire to be a viable candidate by the time South Carolina rolls around and winning there. What then? Beating Giuliani and Romney in Florida and winning at least the southern primaries (Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee) on Super Tuesday, plus Oklahoma and a few other states. But his strategy of running as the only "consistent conservative" hasn't stirred enough support to produce a credible scenario leading to the nomination.

First, I disagree with the drawing of his scenario. I believe that Fred is planning on winning Iowa--not "doing well enough". He is also, apparently, writing off New Hampshire. So I think the scenario is to win Iowa and South Carolina and using that momentum to carry him through the nomination process. I think winning the entire south is a very workable situation. Florida is another question, though if they lose half of their delegates I'm not sure that losing Florida is as big of a deal as it would have been before.

I have said before, I think it is entirely possible that Mitt wins NEITHER of Iowa or New Hampshire. I also think that figures into the FDT scenario for winning.

One last thing to note: Fox News in general and Fred Barnes specifically have not particularly been FDT fans. I'm not sure why. Even on the Weekly Standard page, a McCain ad runs right next to the FDT paragraph quoted above. I don't necessarily think Barnes is being objective here.

RealClearPolitics Analysis

Jay Cost has posted a two part series analyzing Fred's campaign. Part one covers what is right and part two covers what is wrong. Here are the links:

Thompson Goes Electric
...Without the Band

Basically Jay is arguing that Fred is breaking some traditional, "fake" rules of campaigning (like having to be at all of these debates and having 5 or more campaign stops per day, etc.). In doing so, he is getting a lot of free PR and makes himself appear to be an outsider. But if you are going to break the rules, you have to break them well. Jay contends that there have been some actual flubs by the campaign and he points to the 5 minute speech that Fred made in Florida and losing Hughes as an adviser in New Hampshire.

I think he general analysis is right on. While acknowledging that Fred HAS made some mistakes, I don't think that they are very abundant nor are they significant. For instance, I do think that the 5 minute speech was bad, but losing the adviser in New Hampshire is irrelevant. (Note, I do think that Fred has written off New Hampshire. He will do just enough to make it LOOK like he has not written it off. I don't see a reason for him to do much there anyway.) The other place that he has made mistakes has been the several times that he has admitted ignorance of issues. I don't think he should act like he has knowledge that he does not have, but there has to be a better way of saying, "I'll look into it" than stating that "I have no knowledge".

Most of these issues are Fred getting into the swing of the campaign. His stump speeches improved greatly within 2 weeks of starting the campaign. I think he will improve in other areas, as well. For instance, he completely negated one of his "no knowledge" statements and really produced a good positive by his discussion of the death of his daughter. He is continually getting better and it appears to me that his timing is very good. Fred is being patient to make sure that he peaks at the right time.

Laura Ingram Interview

Here is a link to Fred's recent interview with Laura Ingram. I don't think it is Fred's best interview, but the part at the end is worth listening to. Laura is trying to get the point across that the "millions" of people that she talks to every day want him to be more passionate and (to quote an old friend of mine) "call a spade a spade". His response is that he does call out his opponents, but his style is not to get on the table and jump up and down.

There are many people that are dissatisfied with his approach since it is calm and collected. By the way, I think that is exactly the kind of President that you want--who wants to see the leader of the free world banging his shoe on the table at the UN? You rather want one who can keep his wits about him when chaos is reigning around him. As time goes on I think people will begin to see his passion. It is just demonstrated differently.

Jimmy Kimmel's Thompson Ad

Via Fox News here is the satirical ad that Jimmy Kimmel's group put together. Just a little humor for the weekend.

The Road to the Nomination

Jim Geraghty at National Review's Campaign Spot has posted on the path that each of the big five (yes, Huckabee is included in his top teer list) would take to the Republican nomination. I think he has a pretty good analysis of the situation. In his section on Fred, he says:

I’ve said earlier that I have an easy time picturing the race coming down to Rudy and Not Rudy, and the Not Rudy candidate winning in the end as Republicans conclude they’re just not comfortable with a candidate with Giuliani’s flaws on abortion, guns, and gays. It’s in Thompson’s interest that he be seen as the most viable Not Rudy candidate as quickly as possible.

There are two ways that I believe that this can occur. First, is a very close Iowa. Even if Romney wins, having Fred come in a close second or even Huckabee coming in a close second weakens him. I think it is actually very possible for either Fred or Huckabee to win in Iowa. The second way is for Rudy (or anyone else) winning over Romney in New Hampshire. If these two things happen, then Mitt will no longer be the "Not Rudy" candidate. It is possible for Huckabee to slide into that role, but I do not really think that Huckabee has staying power in his current surge.

Democratic Party Press Releases

I find it interesting what the Democratic Party focuses on in their press releases. In the last week or so the Democrats has issued six press releases about Fred. Of course, most of their press releases have to do with Republicans running for President. Actually twenty of the forty-two press releases since October 9th have to do with the Republican primaries and candidates.

This doesn't even count the official Democratic blogs, which is what prompted me to write this. They have written a blog talking about Fred "changing his tune" on Presidential power. They are referring to the Nightline interview last night where Fred was shown his statements during the Watergate hearings where Fred suggested:

"I think obviously that in the future the president is not going to be the sole individual to determine what is a matter of national security," Thompson said at the Austin Peay State University campus in Clarksville, Tennessee.

The newspaper reported that "Thompson suggested the possibility of an executive and legislative committee to take on the task."

I find this grasping at straws (as if nothing has changed since 1974). But I think it is indicative that so much of the Democrat's energy is focused on the Republican's rather than on actual ideas. Of course, some of the Republican candidates seem to have the same problem. This is one of the places that Fred has a major advantage on his competitors. Rudy and Mitt seem almost preoccupied with running against Hillary. Fred is making the case for voting FOR him. There will be plenty of time later for defining Hillary.

FDT on Internet Taxes

Fred has a post on his blog praising Congress for extending the Internet Tax Ban.

Fred on Nightline

Fred was on Nightline last night. I got to see the interview, but I haven't seen the YouTube or equivalent yet. I liked it. But then again I like seeing Fred anytime, so I might not be anywhere close to objective on the subject. The good news is that he is getting PR. And the basic conclusion of the report was that Fred was not lazy.

Florida Debate FactCheck

I finally got around to reading the FactCheck article on the Florida debate. For Fred, it is very good. The only item that FactCheck took him to task for was stating that 40% of the people pay 99% of the taxes, which is incorrect. He should have said "income taxes" rather than simply taxes. I suspect that most people would have understood what he was talking about.

On the other hand, Rudy and Mitt had numerous excesses. Here is the summary of the article provided by FactCheck:

Tongues were sharpened before Sunday night's GOP presidential debate in Orlando, with the candidates drawing blood right out of the gate. We found them factually challenged in several areas:

* Giuliani stretched till he broke, in calling Thompson "the single biggest obstacle to tort reform" in the Senate.
* Romney boasted of his Massachusetts health care plan and criticized Hillary Clinton's, although her plan is strikingly similar to Romney's Massachusetts program. He also falsely accused her of favoring "all-government insurance."
* Giuliani claimed the price of health insurance would drop more than 50 percent if millions more people purchased it directly, a statement unsupported by any evidence he's offered so far.
* Thompson said the most affluent 40 percent of Americans pay "about 99 percent of the taxes." Actually, they pay less than 85 percent, and also have nearly 74 percent of all the income.
* Giuliani made an inflated boast about bringing down crime in New York "more than anyone in this country – maybe in the history of this country." But the decline started before he took office, continued after he left, and even the FBI itself warns against attributing crime statistics to any specific cause.

Giuliani in Freefall?

When Fred's numbers started dropping there was a lot of press talking about his post-announcement bubble bursting and that he was sliding out of the race. You still hear a bit about that.

What has not been commented on is a steady down-trend in Rudy's numbers bringing Fred to 2% down in the latest Rasmussen poll.

Rudy peaked on 10/14 at 30% support and his been continually dropping and today (10/25) is down to 21%.

Fred's peaked at 28% several times, but the most recent was on 9/18, about two weeks after his announcement. On 10/10 he dropped to 17% and then stabilized and has since floated back upward toward 20%.

So both Rudy and Fred at various times have dropped about 10%. Rasmussen points out that this indicates that the Republicans are in a quite fluid race. That is true with Rudy and Fred. It is not true with Romney who has stayed in a very narrow range throughout the campaign (low of 9%, high of 17%, almost always 12-15%). McCain has also stayed in a consistent range (8-15%). Huckabee is the only candidate to make significant and consistent improvements since August, but is still only at 10%.

The part that is fluid is really Fred and Rudy!

There is plenty of time for a lot more movement, but I would rather be where Fred is than riding the trend that Rudy is on.

Fred in SC

Fred visited South Carolina and here is a news report of this visit:



I have talked with people that challenge the value of visiting small places like this small diner with just a few people present. One of those benefits is the great publicity that it garners. This local news story is quite valuable because it reaches a much larger audience than just the visit AND it goes around the national media which has its own storyline to tell. This is great news coverage for Fred.

Fred on Law of the Sea Treaty

Contrary to thinking of Ron Paul supporters who say that Fred wants to submit the U.S. into a one world government, Fred has announced his opposition to ratifying the Law of the Sea Treaty saying, "The Treaty threatens U.S. sovereignty and gives a U.N.-affiliated organization far too much authority over U.S. interests in international waters."