Wednesday, August 15, 2007

BIG Michael Medved Article On Huckabee/An In-Depth Professional Analysis

Michael Medved has said this on his Salem network radio program, but today, he has an article posted at: Huckabee: He could be the "real deal"Wednesday, August 15, 2007

Huckabee: He could be the "real deal"
By Michael Medved
Wednesday, August 15, 200

Medved’s article pretty much says it all, comparing his Republican and general election advantages relative to the others. It sounds like I could have written it, myself, only I don’t have a national radio program!

has posted a link to and highlights of the comprehensive analysis of Ioea Straw Poll results by Dr. David Terr of the University of California at Berkley, and Lead Analyst for USA Election Polls. This Huckabee blog linked me to the report, but you should be interested in seeing the in-depth analysis of the Straw Poll and candidates. I particularly liked the dismissal of the shallow reports of conventional media. The initial summary was that Huckabee and Paul were winners and Romney was a loser: The web Site is USA Election Polls and should be bookmarked. The report is titled, “What the Media Should Report About the Ames Straw Poll” :


Stephen R. Maloney said...

It's important that Huckabee-ites and others find out who the real analysts, the objective ones, are and bookmark them for viewing throughout the electoral cycle. The political scientist/statistician from Berkeley is one of them. I hope that Jay Costa of the University of Chicago will have his "Horserace Blog" again. Jay is a Republican, but his polling tells you exactly what is rather than what he or anyone else wishes were the case. The problem with polls generally is that they "tell you what they tell you," which is sometimes wrong. For example, in 2004 one pollster (think it was Zogby) said that 8-out-of-9 "undecideds" were breaking toward Kerry. It just didn't happen that way. A lot of "undecideds" end up not voting at all. Exit polls aren't very good until shortly before the polls close, because Democrats and Republicans vote at different times during the day. I don't know if carefully studying polls make anyone a better person, but they sure can be fascinating. Jay Costa that I mentioned earlier had one bulletin after another on election day, 2004, saying that the early exit polls (that showed a big Kerry victory) were just wrong. He was right.

Stephen R. Maloney said...

Wow, that's probably the best article I've ever read by Michael Medved. I'm not a big fan of Townhall (Salem) in general, but Michael is a sane voice among the single-issue screamers. As I've said on my own blog, Mike's biggest challenge may be to save himself from SOME of his supporters, who just may be a lot more conservative than he is. Some of the things Michael says about other candidates influencing the election seem farfetched. Cynthia McKinney and Tom Tancredo don't have the energy to gather the signatures necessary signatures to get on the ballot. Tancredo has almost no support in Colorado, so I don't exactly seem him catching fire anywhere. McKinney is a non-entity. Ross Perot spent a gazillion dollars on his race, and he didn't win electoral votes in any state. As I said, the key is if Mike's supporters will allow him to move toward the center, which he must do to win either the nomination or the general election. I see in the Medved article comments (generally vile on Townhall) that he's being accused of being an "open borders" guy. In politics, truthfulness in words (e.g., the constant talk about "amnesty" in the immigration debate when it was never at issue) is sometimes rare to come by. Mike will be accused of many things, but probably not by Giuliani or McCain. The condemnations of Mike will come -- example, the Club for Growth and FAIR -- from the far right. He needs to keep all individuals who might resemble the anti-Catholic Rev. Rude locked in the attic. Media types on the far-left, such as Time's Joe Klein, will look for opportunities to portray Mike as religiously "weird" and a captive of the Rev. Dobson types. ("Mike, do you believe it's okay, as Rev. Dobson does, to beat children with wooden spoons?") He doesn't have an easy road ahead, and he will find the truth of President Kennedy's saying that "life is unfair." I believe Mike must move toward the center -- and even associate himself with some center-left people -- if he is to win the nomination, let alone the general.

As I said in a recent column, the race may come down to Huckabee vs. Giuliani, both pursuing different electoral strategies. If I were either of those men, I'd have Sarah Palin's number on speed dial.

steve maloney
ambridge, pa
palin 4 VP Coordinator

Larry Perrault said...

I have some things in my mind about political strategizing, Republican in particular, that I'll post, tomorrow. But, gernerally, I am almost certain that Huckabee would do the best job of de-fanging critics in the general election.

Yes, some accuse Huckabee of being lax on illegal immigration and, frankly on their narrow terms, he is. He understands that we must control the border first and that immigration must be legal and orderly. But, he doesn't have it out for immigrants. Like all American immigrants in history, most of them want to work, AND we need them. If some people can't sort that out through their anger, who needs 'em?

If Huckabee is the nominee, I can't see the momentum building for a third party.

And Huckabee will not equivocate on the sanctity of life. But, rather than assume the posture of a reactive pro-lifer on his back with his feet flailing, he expands the sanctity of life into something larger and positive.

If the Republican race boils down to Giuliani and Huckabee a la Bush-McCain in 2000, Giuliani will be in a world of hurt that I don't think he will survive. Huckabee's campaign has taken its baby steps before the public. Giuliani needs to work to kill that infant before it has a chance to run.

Stephen R. Maloney said...

Here's my problem, illustrated by this quote from your response: "And Huckabee will not equivocate on the sanctity of life. But, rather than assume the posture of a reactive pro-lifer on his back with his feet flailing, he expands the sanctity of life into something larger and positive." Larry, what precisely does that mean? As I've suggested, a lot of the pro-life movement consists mainly of rhetoric and calls for the impossible (a constituional amendment to ban abortion in all its forms). Does it have anything to do with those who have been born -- with children inhabiting the earth? Real morality has little to do with sentimentality and with applying the definition of "life" only to those yet to be born. When you think about that, it's bizarre. I want a pro-life movement that extends its concern to those a day or more in age. I want a pro-life movement that extends its efforts to all children, even those of the dreaded "illegal aliens." I realize there are some good people out there concerned about life in all its manifestations, and you certainly are one of them. But there's always a temptation to hear the words rather than to judge the actions. My whole point has been that the pro-life movement has been much too selective in its use of the term "life." There are too many elements of a "feel good" movement in it. I hope I'm wrong, but my assessment is based on 30 years of observation and participation.

Larry Perrault said...


I wrote and thought I posted a Yesterday, long comment on "Can Mike Huckabee win...", but it has not posted. Perhaps I made a mistake. But, you brush on one of the querstions, here: What I meant by "defensive pro-life flailing is the verbal confession without the positive effort that you are talking about. I also explained that I am INFINITELY familiar with the problem, in trying to mobilize efforts by pro-lifers here, locally. It's easy to say "I'm pro-life and scorn abortion. But, it's often like liberal morality, capsulating their moral efforts in a policy confession.

Mike Huckabee passed a bill in Arkansas to help provide private health insurance for poor children. But, another place where I disagree with him is that I don't even support a constitutional amendment banning abortion, while he does. I think Huckabee just thinks constitutional disfavor of abortion is just consistent with the intent of The Constitution. I do, too. But, I think it's practically misplaced.

I not only think such an amendment is unlikely, I think the federal government shouldn't and can't enforce such a ban. Respect for life needs to be the expression of communities, not a federal government abortion edict. I would support an action that merely expressed the idea that abortion violates the American "right-to-life (and respect for it) while charging enforcement (or non-enforcement - in California and New England, for instance might provoke civil war) responsibility to states.

I also expressed my dismay that you seem unable or unwilling to believe or accept my repeated insistence that the matter has nothing to do with my feelings. Rather, it's about my sincere belief about what is healthy and unhealthy for The United States. I know you don't agree. I only ask you to accept that that's what I honestly believe. So, insisting on an American respect for human life is not about feelings, but about good stewardship of my contribution to the process.

Stephen R. Maloney said...

Larry, I don't know what happened to your post, and I'm sorry it "disappeared." The only posts I would ever reject would be any that were obscene or that were from commercial spammers. People disagree with me vigorously on many things, and hey, it's America. I don't believe Mike is a panderer. But Fred Thompson is. Yes, finally after 66 years on earth, he's decided (conveniently) that he's for a constitutional amendment overturning Roe v. Wade and another one outlawing gay marriage. It's almost humorous. Bush couldn't get gay marriage amendment through a Republican-dominated Senate and the gay marriage amendment doesn't have the support of his own vice president (or of me). Why not an amendment making the Tennessee Volunteers "America's Favorite Football Team?" Laws about marriage belong to the states, period, and the horse long ago left the barn on gay unions. There is not support for a constitutional amendment banning abortion (overturning Roe would not do that anyway), and there will not be during our lifetime. Thompson exemplifies the kind of cynicism about the conservative "base" that assumes people are stupid and vindictive. Most aren't. Telling the truth about what you believe should be a primary requirement for politicians.

Stephen R. Maloney said...

If you remember 20 years ago, one of the criticisms of gay relationships was that they were inherently extra-marital and thus licentious. Oops! Be careful what you wish for, in other words.

Stephen R. Maloney said...

In my most recent piece, I cited a lot of poll data (by Pew and others) who have a reputation for being good. Someone like Mike would have to appeal to (partially convert) a lot of groups that feel that Patrick Hynes says believe Republicans don't "give a hoot about them." He didn't say "hoot," but used a more colorful term. Things like the immigration fiasco created a tremendous amount of political ill will, and it is going to be very hard to overcome it. I hope that Mike, Rudy, and others admit publicly that we are behind and show some understanding of why. They might disagree, but the debate would be good for the Party. I said recently that we have TWO women (Heather & Sarah) who could run credibly on the 2008 ticket. The Democrats have at least a dozen (Governors, Senators, and one or two others). You wouldn't like some of those Dem. women, but no one would faint dead-away if the got named by an Obama or Edwards. Mike and the other needs to face up to these systemic problems with the Party.

Larry Perrault said...

"Thompson exemplifies the kind of cynicism about the conservative "base" that assumes people are stupid and vindictive. "

Unfortunately, there may be a correlation between "stupid and vindictive" and the degree of political activity and intensity. :-(

Huckabee is doing that appealing across ideological lines. That's often the source of attacks from what are supposed to be conservatives. I was thinking about writing something about a particular example of that: He decries the "pure greed" of CEOs who make "500 times that of the average worker and reward themselves with bonuses while driving the company into bankruptcy and cheating employees of pensions and jobs. He says, we can't act like that's all right. Well, it's not all right."

It's true. Of course it's not all right. And Democrats will say things like this and follow it up immediately with a legislative proposal to intrude upon private operation of business. Huckabee does not. He says it and stops right there. He is right that government should call out and criticize such behavior. The public disfavor is punishment. Especially if we had passed a Fair Tax and gotten a lot of other taxes and regulation out of the system, we should even have criminal sanctions in blatant case like we saw with big corporations a few years ago.

But, he's right when he says that if Republicans won't speak out against such behavior, "...we won't win another election for a generation." And they shouldn't.