How the GOP Can Expand Our Base and Increase Support among Women

Some in the Republican Party want to know why we have a problem with the female vote. I should have made it clear that my previous article was written from the view of women. If men want to continue calling us “idiots” and make fun of us for seeing things differently than they do – the GOP will never make up the ground we’ve lost with women voters.

I firmly believe that women are made very differently than men. We are not as strong physically and we are different emotionally. Our brains are used differently. Some of us make decisions based on emotions. That is why I prefer strong confident men taking the leadership positions – especially when they are willing to listen to some input from us women so they can see some different views before making the final decisions.

Because we sometimes base decisions on emotion, trust and likeability are very important. We also base our decisions on how it will affect our family. That is why things like education, health care, how to provide food and shelter, national security, etc. are big issues. (The national security issue is probably the reason the liberal media wasn’t doing their job of reporting the news about what was going on in Libya and Iran before the election. They didn’t want to lose another election like they did against Bush.)

I’m more the traditional type of woman that is married to a godly man that has always provided for the family. He allowed me to work outside the home if I really wanted to – which was mostly volunteer work at various private schools where our children attended. He liked coming home to his wife and kids all being here. Even though our kids are grown, he still feels lost when I’m not home. He’s often teased that if anything happens to me he might have to buy some kind of life sized stuffed doll to hold my laptop and sit in my recliner next to his. He’d get our son to fix the laptop with some kind of sound system that would periodically either giggle or say, “Grrrrrrr!” and he’d be fine.

My sister (and several other women I communicate with) work/worked outside of the home. Therefore, their viewpoints are somewhat different than mine. Not all women have a strong godly confident man that understands the differences of the sexes and is willing to let both of us excel in our unique specialties to make the family complete in the way God intended. Those women do not want to return to the 50’s.

I mentioned in one of my comments under my previous article that I use Scripture when talking about why I believe in personal responsibility and don’t think government should be in the charity business. I often thought my mom’s favorite verse was the last part of 2 Thessalonians 3:10 “… if any would not work, neither should he eat.” She started quoting that verse as soon as we were toddlers. We had to clean up our toys before we ate. When we got older, we couldn’t eat supper until our chores (and at least some of our homework) were done after school. I taught my kids the same way. Shouldn’t more people be taught that kind of values today? We need to get back to calling government assistance “charity” rather than “welfare” or “entitlements” – even though the Robin Hood mentality really isn’t charity.

Some people bash the religious right for our godly views. But, maybe if more people would look to the Manual God provided for His creation the world would be a better place. How much better off would we be if work ethics like my mother were taught and some of these following verses were followed?

1 Timothy 5:3-11 3 Honour widows that are widows indeed. 4 But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to shew piety at home, and to requite their parents: for that is good and acceptable before God. 5 Now she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, trusteth in God, and continueth in supplications and prayers night and day. 6 But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth. 7 And these things give in charge, that they may be blameless. 8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. 9 Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man, 10 Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints’ feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work. 11 But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry;”

Those verses were written to the church not the government btw. Sometimes I wonder if the reason Legislators set up Social Security and government assistance have anything to do with either them (or their wives) not getting along with the in-laws when they got old and moved in with them. Also, is it possible those Legislators read some of those verses when they set up widow’s benefits for lifetime homemakers allowing her to use her husband’s Social Security?

Research shows that children raised in a home with both a mom and a dad are the most stable. Children need to see the differences in the sexes to help them understand their own differences and emotions. Stable families help make a stable community.

I’ve listed some reasons the religious right is such a huge part of the Republican base. John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” With an immoral society we need more policemen to protect us from thieves and violence. Our country was founded on godly values and works the best when they are followed. We should be explaining these values to more people rather than thinking about running away from them. We won’t need as much government if we are governing ourselves.

If we can find a way to teach some of these values to our youth and explain why our founders gave us a Republic rather than a Democracy – we might be able to get more of them to vote Republican.

Published in: on NovemberUTCbSun, 11 Nov 2012 16:04:50 +0000000000pmSun, 11 Nov 2012 16:04:50 +000012 4, 2008 at 4:04 pm  Leave a Comment  

Why a Moderate Independent Woman Voted for McCain in ’08 & Obama in ‘12 and Other Reasons Romney Lost the Election

On Thursday after the election I spent over an hour on the phone with my sister. We hadn’t talked politics since around the time of the Illinois primary. At the end of our conversation she asked me to write this blog article to explain why she voted for Obama this time (after voting for McCain last time) and why some people we know chose to just stay home. I will personally accept some of the blame for not thinking to contact my sister to try to sway her vote – but I admit I was shocked to find out she voted for Obama. (Btw her husband cancelled out her vote which wouldn’t have made a difference here in Illinois anyway.) I should also mention that her husband carried on running the family farm, expanded the family corporate farming business, and is on a major IL (and possibly national) farming committee. They run into politicians on a somewhat regular basis. My sister is just as vocal as I am and told me she will be sharing some of her views to politicians on both sides of the aisle.

Although she and I are a lot alike in some things – we have very different opinions on others. I admit I am a right wing conservative. She is a moderate Independent that has only voted in 3 primaries in the last 38 years because she hates “declaring” which ballot she wants. Her first time “declaring” was to vote for her high school government teacher that ran for office on the Democrat ticket. Through his teachings she is still an extremely strong supporter of “checks and balances” in which she believes different parts of government should be controlled by the different parties. She splits her ballot up between them. She “declared” in 2008 to vote for Huckabee and in this year’s primary to vote for Santorum.

Anyone that knows me knows that I didn’t decide to support Mitt until AFTER he picked Paul Ryan for his VP. His choice of Ryan helped me to trust that he would govern “as a conservative” like he said. But, not everyone is as familiar with Paul Ryan as I am by being a political junkie that also lives only about 20 miles away from him. My sister said Romney would have had her vote if he would have picked Huckabee or Santorum as his VP.

Mitt supporters were notorious for calling those of us that chose other candidates bigots. I know there are some bigots out there – but not many among those that I associate with. According to information from The Pew Forum, How the Faithful Voted: 2012 Preliminary Analysis; Romney received a higher percentage of the “Protestant/Other Christian” vote (including Catholics and Evangelicals) and really gained among the Jewish vote. Ironically, he lost 2 points among the Mormons compared to Bush in 2004. I’m not saying for sure that there weren’t some voters that stayed home because of bigotry. I just don’t see it as much bigotry as that moderate Republicans don’t give religious voters a good enough reason to bother voting – regardless of which Party they usually support.

Please don’t think of this article as Mitt bashing. I voted for Romney/Ryan and worked hard trying to persuade others to vote for them. But, if Obama doesn’t completely destroy our country and we do get another chance we need to answer the question – what did go wrong? I feel I can shed some light on this because I have so many friends and family that never warmed up to Romney for various reasons. These are the reasons my sister and I discussed yesterday:

• The first thing my sister said was a huge factor in her decision is that she still didn’t trust where Romney really stood on some of the issues because he seemed to change his views according to what he thought might help him get elected. She said he seemed to be trying to go to the middle after winning the nomination – but since he didn’t have a consistently conservative record to the right he didn’t have any wiggle room to keep the base when moving to the middle. (IMO this is another reason why moderate Republicans have never won a general election.)

• People want candidates to vote FOR – so tell us the best things about your candidate NOT the worst things about your competition. Several people we know have a huge issue with the negative campaigning during the primaries and some of them never got over it – whether they were done by the candidates themselves or by the Super PACs. Three quotes sum this up: 1. “He who slings mud generally loses ground.” 2. Reagan’s 11th commandment, “Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican.” 3. “If you don’t have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from.” Those of us that supported other candidates in the primaries realized how much it angered us that better funded candidates had the chance to define our candidate before they had the money to define themselves. Romney supporters didn’t really comprehend this roadblock until it happened to Mitt in the general election. Although I was fully on the R&R bandwagon – there was still that small voice saying, now the Romney team is facing what we did in the primaries – “What goes around comes around.”

• My sister worked as an accountant for decades. So, the issue of equal pay for men and women is a huge issue for her. After she told me she was upset by the “binders of women” in the debate (before it ever went viral) – I explained what Mitt really meant and how he actually worked toward that equality. (This point reemphasizes my previous point.)

• The way the GOP chooses the nominee needs to be changed. Solid blue states (and the bluest areas of red states) have way too much say in the GOP nomination. Electoral votes should be proportionally based by congressional districts. This will probably make the primary season take longer to decide on a candidate – but it will also help the majority of us to have a say on who our nominee is. Therefore helping us choose the strongest candidate for all of us to support. This point goes somewhat with my first point because the reddest states and the reddest areas of blue states tend to be more conservative.

• Like it or not Romney was just too wealthy. Even though some of us realize that was due to his being successful – it still made this election too easy for the Democrats to use class warfare in their campaign.

• Although my sister is not a SoCon and did not bring this point up, several of my SoCon friends have. The Chick-Fil-A appreciation day had several of us driving for hours to get to our closest Chick-Fil-A to stand in line for hours to buy “fast food.” Yet, Romney shied away from the SoCon issues and a good opportunity to speak up for the sanctity of marriage, the freedom of speech, and the freedom of religion.

• It has been recorded that Romney could receive fewer votes than McCain did and only 3 out of 10 eligible voters were able to re-elect Obama because of the lousy turnout. In my sister’s and my opinion part of why voters chose to stay home was due to the negative campaigning. Many Americans didn’t think Obama deserved to be re-elected – but instead of buying ads telling them why Romney/Ryan were the best for America – too much was spent telling them what they already knew was wrong with Obama.

H/T to whoever created this image that goes along with my last point.

Is Senator Rick Santorum Just a Social Conservative?

It appears to be common knowledge that Senator Rick Santorum is a strong social conservative. Many seem to think he is too far right on those issues and not strong enough on the other issues. Are they correct?

Quote from Was Santorum a Senate Spendthrift? (Emphasis mine)

For each session of Congress, NTU scores each member on an A-to-F scale. NTU weights members’ votes based on those votes’ perceived effect on both the immediate and future size of the federal budget. Those who get A’s are among “the strongest supporters of responsible tax and spending policies”; they receive NTU’s “Taxpayers’ Friend Award.” B’s are “good” scores, C’s are “minimally acceptable” scores, D’s are “poor” scores, and F’s earn their recipients membership in the “Big Spender” category. There is no grade inflation whatsoever, as we shall see.

NTU’s scoring paints a radically different picture of Santorum’s 12-year tenure in the Senate (1995 through 2006) than one would glean from the rhetoric of the Romney campaign. Fifty senators served throughout Santorum’s two terms: 25 Republicans, 24 Democrats, and 1 Republican/Independent. On a 4-point scale (awarding 4 for an A, 3.3 for a B+, 3 for a B, 2.7 for a B-, etc.), those 50 senators’ collective grade point average (GPA) across the 12 years was 1.69 — which amounts to a C-. Meanwhile, Santorum’s GPA was 3.66 — or an A-. Santorum’s GPA placed him in the top 10 percent of senators, as he ranked 5th out of 50.

Across the 12 years in question, only 6 of the 50 senators got A’s in more than half the years. Santorum was one of them. He was also one of only 7 senators who never got less than a B. (Jim Talent served only during Santorum’s final four years, but he always got less than a B, earning a B- every year and a GPA of 2.7.) Moreover, while much of the Republican party lost its fiscal footing after George W. Bush took office — although it would be erroneous to say that the Republicans were nearly as profligate as the Democrats — Santorum was the only senator who got A’s in every year of Bush’s first term. None of the other 49 senators could match Santorum’s 4.0 GPA over that span.

This much alone would paint an impressive portrait of fiscal conservatism on Santorum’s part. Yet it doesn’t even take into account a crucial point: Santorum was representing Pennsylvania.

Let’s use the Club for Growth’s information available by clicking on the individual presidential candidates’ pictures at the CFG website.

Santorum:

Rick Santorum spent sixteen years in Congress – four years in the House followed by 12 years in the Senate – before losing to Democrat Bob Casey in 2006. In the last two years of his Senate career, he had an average Club for Growth rating of 77%, compared to an average of 73% for all Senate Republicans over that same time period. In the previous thirteen years before the Club had a scorecard, Santorum accumulated an average score of 76% on the National Taxpayers Union scorecard. This compares to a 71% average among all Republicans. NTU is a non-partisan group that advocates for limited government.

Romney:

The Club for Growth wrote a white paper on Governor Mitt Romney back in 2007. Most of the information below is from that report, but since Romney has been outspoken on several issues since then, we’ve updated his record to reflect those positions. The Cato Institute, a free market think tank rates the country’s governors on a biennial basis. In both their 2004 and 2006 reports, they gave then-Governor Romney a “C” on tax and spending issues.

Gingrich:

The Club for Growth did not have its own scorecard for members of Congress during Gingrich’s tenure from 1979-98, but the non-partisan and pro-free market National Taxpayers Union (NTU) has been issuing a congressional scorecard for decades and Gingrich’s record on economic issues, as provided by NTU, is worth analyzing. From 1979-98, Gingrich had an average score of 61% (with 100% being a perfect score on supporting lower taxes and limited government). The average Republican score over this time period was slightly lower at 56%.

Summary from the information in the presidential candidates’ introductions at CFG:

Sen. Santorum received a rating of 4 points above the Republicans’ average during his “last two years” in the Senate and 5 points above average during his previous 13 years in the House and Senate.

Gov. Romney earned a “C” during his years as Governor. I don’t know if that “C” is among only Republican governors or if it is among governors from both parties.

Rep. Gingrich received a rating of 5 points above the Republican’s average.

It is really hard to compare their records using this. IMO Santorum’s fiscal conservative record doesn’t look all that bad.

Published in: on FebruaryUTCbMon, 20 Feb 2012 15:58:20 +0000000000pmMon, 20 Feb 2012 15:58:20 +000012 4, 2008 at 3:58 pm  Comments (1)  

“Give me liberty or give me death!”

America used to be “the land of opportunity” where Americans were “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Many Americans were able to achieve “The American Dream” with ingenuity and hard work.

In the last couple of weeks I’ve read several stories of changes in America that have caused me to write this blog. Here are just a few examples:

Most of us are aware of Obama’s contraception mandate that goes against religious freedom. But, are you aware that Matt Bowman of the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) points out that exemptions are being granted to various organizations, including unions, but religious ones still face a mandate?

I read an article pointed out by a fellow HucksArmy member earlier this week informing us Collecting rainwater now illegal in many states as Big Government claims ownership over our water

In Dependence at an all-time high Neil Boortz says:

It’s no secret that more Americans are dependent on government than ever before. The Heritage Foundation released its 2012 Index of Dependence on Government. The results emphasize our slide toward a European welfare nation.

This morning I read an article that got me even more upset. Food Inspector Confiscates Kid’s Homemade Lunch

NONE of our GOP presidential candidates are perfect. EVERY one of them has something that goes against some conservative views. Our liberties are being trampled on and instead of uniting together against the Democrats’ socialistic agenda – Republicans are fighting against each other.

Republicans had a better chance of defeating Obama before campaigns and Super PACS resorted to tearing their fellow soldiers down. Why can’t all of that money be used to point out the positives for their chosen candidate instead of negatives against their opposition?

The Republican Party and America needs a leader that will stand up and show us why he is the one to lead the fight to restore our liberties that are being taken away one by one.

I’m ready to fight to keep our freedom. America needs a Patrick Henry willing to lead the charge, “Give me liberty or give me death!” – before we are no longer a free Republic.

Published in: on FebruaryUTCbWed, 15 Feb 2012 09:38:45 +0000000000amWed, 15 Feb 2012 09:38:45 +000012 4, 2008 at 9:38 am  Leave a Comment  

2011 Conservative Leadership Conference and the 2012 GOP Race

Most of you know that I’ve taken some time off from politics for a family emergency. My son was on life support with an extremely dangerous type of pneumonia. Although he has not fully recovered (doctor says about 3 more months) – he is home from the hospital now. Praise the Lord!

When Huckabee dropped out of the 2012 GOP presidential race I became undecided on who to vote for and/or support. I have been trying to keep up on some of the news and watched most of the New Hampshire debate. I missed the Republican Leadership Conference due to other family issues. So, today I started looking for some of the videos. I’ll post a few links here for others that may be interested:

Here’s the C-SPAN link to the evening of Day 1. Newt Gingrich’s speech is around the 48.30 mark.

Here is the link to the C-SPAN video of Day 2 that includes Herman Cain (around the 01:57 mark), Ron Paul (around the 02:22 mark), Michelle Bachmann (around the 03:39 mark), and Rick Santorum (around the 04:28 mark):

Here is the link to the C-SPAN video of Day 3 just in case the direct link to the video of Rick Perry’s speech quits working. Perry’s speech starts around the 3:30 mark.

Rick Perry speech at the RLC

Herman Cain speech at the RLC

It has been reported and/or suspected that Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman bussed in supporters (found in comments under Race42012 article) to help them win the straw poll. If true, it must have worked because Paul won the straw poll and Huntsman came in second – even though Huntsman didn’t even speak at the convention. I’m disappointed that straw poll votes can be bought that way.

My vote is not for sale! I will remain undecided until one of the candidates earns my vote. After watching Rick Perry’s speech at the RLC, I hope he joins the race so there are more conservative candidates to choose from.

H/T: The Right Scoop for posting the Cain and Perry videos so I was able to find them easy and to Right Speak for posting a link for the schedule so I knew which potential candidates to look for in the RLC videos.

We Need to Protect Our Constitutional Rights

The Bill of Rights was added to our United States Constitution to grant us some guaranteed rights. The very First Amendment is under attack and many people are not even aware of it. What does that First Amendment guarantee us?

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
How is the First Amendment under attack?

The first things mentioned in the First Amendment guarantees us Freedom OF Religion and Freedom OF the Press. Those are the two things that we are going to lose if someone doesn’t step up and do something about it ASAP!

This week I received a telephone call with a taped message from former Governor and former Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee to inform me about a pending case against our Freedom of Religion. I don’t have a text of that recording; but here is a brief summary from the organization that called me under the Projects listed on their website:

Defending our National Day of Prayer
Right now a small but dangerous group is threatening to obliterate the name of God forever. The Freedom from Religion Foundation has succeeded in getting a legal injunction against the National Day of Prayer and is planning on using this as the basis of removing the mention of God from every aspect of our culture.

The judge that agreed to the injunction stated in her ruling that a national day of prayer “encourages all citizens to engage in prayer” and this is a “religious exercise that serves no secular function.” It is absurd to picture a society where our children and grandchildren are forbidden to pray as a nation. The reality is that if the Freedom from Religion Foundation wins this case, it would set a precedent that could eventually lead to the banning of any public mention of God.

That’s why we teamed up with Mike Huckabee to defend our God-given right to pray. We are standing up to preserve our National Day of Prayer and need as many supporters as we can get to stand with us in this battle to preserve and defend our right to pray for our country. This is a long and expensive fight, but with the help of our members and supporters we will have the power to win.

Last fall the Obama administration tried to boycott FOXNEWS but thankfully the rest of the media stepped up to keep that from happening.

The White House attempted to block Fox News from a round of interviews with “pay czar” Kenneth Feinberg Thursday, but the Washington bureau chiefs of the five TV networks included in the White House pool refused to interview Feinberg unless Fox News was included.

This spring a reporter was “confined” in a closet when he attended a Democrat fundraiser as the designated “pool reporter” to cover Vice President Biden’s visit.

Today I found out “The President was in Boston yesterday for a fundraiser. The Boston Herald requested access. It was turned down.”
H/T Mark @ Race42012

I know some of you have to be shocked I am taking up a cause that Romney is one of the leaders of. But, this is not about Romney – this is about our freedom!

How can a former instructor of Constitutional law (Obama) get away with breaking our Constitutional Freedom of (NOT from) the Press?

Something needs to be done now before we no longer have Freedom of Religion or a Free Press.

Thank you,
Donna

Published in: on MayUTCbThu, 19 May 2011 10:43:46 +0000000000amThu, 19 May 2011 10:43:46 +000011 4, 2008 at 10:43 am  Leave a Comment  

Comparing Huckabee, Romney, Pawlenty, and Daniels as FiCons

On one of the blog sites that I frequent a few supporters of other candidates questioned Huckabee’s FiCon credentials. On another site a contributor requested that someone “rank these same 4 as to who would be best for a poor economy?” I decided to give that a try using the data available at USGovernmentSpending.com. I’m hoping their information is accurate and am assuming it is from an unbiased source.

I’ll be posting only the information available during the years 3 of the 4 Governors (Huckabee, Romney, and Pawlenty) were serving together and include Daniels during the last two years of that time-frame so we can do our best to compare apples to apples. I hope I figured this correctly. Please feel free to check all the numbers and my math. (If the link starts working properly. I was having trouble with it most of the day.)

First we’ll compare the Gross State Product growth:

Arkansas GSP grew from $77.8 in 2003 to $97.6 in 2007 at an annual rate of 6.35%
Massachusetts GSP grew from $297.3 in 2003 to $353.8 in 2007 at an annual rate of 4.75%
Minnesota GSP grew from $212.4 in 2003 to $255.3 in 2007 at an annual rate of 5.05%
Indiana GSP grew from $239.6 in 2005 (when Daniels took office) to $263.1 in 2007 at an annual rate during the two years we can use to compare of 4.90%

Next we’ll compare the government spending in the state and local government for the four states:

Arkansas spending grew from $13.8 in 2003 to $19.1 in 2007 at an annual rate of 9.97%
Massachusetts spending grew from $40.7 in 2003 to $64.1 in 2007 at an annual rate of 14.37%
Minnesota spending grew from $37.6 in 2003 to $47.2 in 2007 at an annual rate of 6.38%
Indiana spending grew from $42.2 in 2005 to $46.7 in 2007 at an annual rate of 5.33%

Lastly, we’ll compare the Real State Growth:

Arkansas RSG was 3.0% in 2003, 3.7% in 2004, 2.9% in 2005, 2.7% in 2006 and 1.0% in 2007 with a 2.66% yearly average RSG
Massachusetts RST was 1.5% in 2003, 2.0% in 2004, 1.1% in 2005, 1.5% in 2006 and 2.0% in 2007 with a 1.62% yearly average of RSG
Minnesota 3.4% in 2003, 4.1% in 2004, 1.7% in 2005, 0.2% in 2006, and 0.7% in 2007 with a 2.02% yearly average RSG
Indiana 0.3% in 2005, 1.1% in 2006, and 3.1% in 2007 with a 1.50% yearly average RSG

In summary:
Huckabee saw the best annual rate of growth in Gross State Product. Daniels and Pawlenty saw the least growth in spending. Huckabee did the best in Real State Growth. Romney did the worst in all three categories.

I’ll be voting Huckabee for President 2012!

Note: If there is someone out there with the ability to put this in chart or graph form I would really appreciate it.

Update: I struck out the comment about Romney because it was properly pointed out to be inaccurate. H/T Jeff Fuller

Update 2: I was asked to calculate some information for Utah and Jon Huntsman during this time frame, too:

Utah GSP grew from $90.7 in 2005 to $109.6 in 2007 at an annual rate of 10.42%

Utah spending grew from $17.2 in 2005 to $20.0 in 2007 at an annual rate of 8.14%

Utah RSG was 5.7% in 2005, 6.6% in 2006, and 5.8% in 2007 with a 6.03% yearly average RSG

Note: I’ll be adding more information as I calculate it. I’m not sure if I’ll post the information here or write a new blog.

Published in: on MayUTCbMon, 02 May 2011 18:24:37 +0000000000pmMon, 02 May 2011 18:24:37 +000011 4, 2008 at 6:24 pm  Comments (4)  

Examining the “Huckabee Isn’t Running” Rumors

There have been rumors that Gov. Mike Huckabee won’t be running for President in the 2012 election cycle. I’m writing this to examine a few of those rumors.

Rumor #1: Huckabee has decided not to run and has released his South Carolina Team.

That rumor was squashed almost as soon as the so called story was “leaked”. Many reputable sites had updates on their stories immediately after posting them. One of Huckabee’s key supporters and part of the 2008 Huckabee Team in South Carolina posted the debunking of that rumor on Facebook.

An article posted yesterday evening has a few more quotes from South Carolina former Governor Beasley, Mike Huckabee 2012 Run Looking More Likely, Key Supporter Says

Rumor #2: Huckabee can’t raise money and can’t run a campaign without it.

Huckabee has voiced his concerns for fundraising; so we know that can be a real issue. It has been reported that he has talked to possible financial backers.

Huckabee recently presided over a series of meetings with financial backers in New York — where he hosts his popular television show on Fox News — in an attempt to ascertain whether he could generate the resources he would need to persuade him to set aside his comfortable private life in order to spend more than a year on the campaign grind.

According to aides, the takeaway was positive.

I know many of us not so wealthy supporters have been saving in hopes of him running again. So, if Huckabee is getting any kind of interest from some of the more wealthy donors he won’t have near the lack of money he did in 2008. Also, Huckabee still has an army of volunteer grassroots supporters as well as Team Huck that is getting set up across the country. How much money are all of us volunteers worth?

Rumor #3: Huckabee is making good money and building a mansion he won’t want to walk away from.

Even Huckabee admits that his good paying jobs and mansion will have to be part of his decision. But, those of us that know and love Gov. Huckabee know he’s been through that decision before and didn’t let money and a nice house stop him.

From page 5 of Huckabee’s book, From Hope to Higher Ground: My Vision for Restoring America’s Greatness:

By now, Janet and I had achieved a level of comfort neither of us had ever dreamed. We were both thirty-six years old, had three children, a good dog, and lived in a nice five-bedroom home with a pool on a cul-de-sac.

I vividly remember the long walk in the neighborhood we took one winter night. We decided that if we indeed were put on earth to become “comfortable,” then we had hit the target. Ours was an enviable life in many ways, but as we walked and talked and prayed, we decided that the purpose for being on earth is not our personal comfort but to strive to make the world better for our children than when we found it.

I know that book was written a while ago before he started the project of building a new home. So, I’ll include a quote from an article posted this week by KATV in Arkansas, On the Road with Huckabee:

But, it’s Huckabee’s prolonged decision that could be making his biggest employer a little anxious. A report this week claims Fox executives are questioning whether they should have Huckabee on the payroll, while his platform is being used to help his Presidential aspirations. Huckabee was quoted in the report that Fox is not pressuring him to make a decision. His comments to us, suggest if things line up the way he wants, he’s in.

“If I thought I could serve my country, and make this country great again, and help get it back on track by giving it leadership, yeah, I’d do it in a heart beat. I just have to be able to visualize a path to the finish line, and believe that I can do more than the platform that i do have, and it’s a significant one, and i’m not oblivious to that.”

Rumor #4: Huckabee needs to jump in now or it will be too late and his supporters will go elsewhere.

There aren’t many Huckabee supporters that are shopping around for other candidates. Huckabee is still polling very well in polls even with the numerous rumors that he won’t be running again flying around. Many of us are volunteering and working on our own as well as with other volunteers doing whatever we can to prepare to make a Huckabee campaign launch successful if he decides to run again. Huckabee does not have the name recognition problem or the unelectable label he had in the 2008 season. He has repeatedly said he’ll make his decision this summer. In the last video I saw where he discussed when this summer – he said, “Probably June.” Rumor is that is when his FOXNEWS contract is up. Maybe he wants to use the remaining time to think as well as to fulfill his contract commitment.

Here are a few quotes from Huckabee ‘asking folks to keep their powder dry,’ adviser says:

Mike Campbell, who chaired Huckabee’s South Carolina campaign in 2008, told CNN that he called his former boss after a South Carolina blog erroneously claimed that Huckabee had decided against running again in 2012.

The report quickly shot around the web Wednesday and forced Huckabee’s team to knock down the rumor.

Campbell called the blog item “a bunch of bull” but said he decided to call Huckabee anyway.

[clip]

Asked about his presidential intentions, the former Arkansas governor told Campbell, “I am weighing it very heavily and I am considering it as seriously as I have ever been.”

[clip]

Campbell said Huckabee can afford to wait longer than other candidates to enter the race because he has an existing network of supporters in key states ready to help him again, putting him in a “great position” to win the nomination.

Huckabee has said that the last election cycle was too long and people were getting bored with it before it was over. What is wrong with getting things started a little later than last time and being more in tune with previous elections? Do people forget that Ronald Reagan kept his media jobs and didn’t announce until November?

June is NOT too late for Huckabee!

Rumor #5: Huckabee isn’t running he’s just leading people on to sell books and keep viewers.

Quote from On the Road with Huckabee:

“It’s not a decision i’m ready to make yet. I’m getting closer and closer. I’m not playing a game with anyone. I think some people think, oh, he knows what he’s going to do, he’s just playing. I’m very mindful of what it takes to run for president,” Huckabee said.

I’ve read and heard from numerous places that it’s starting to look and sound more like Huckabee is “leaning towards” running again. An article posted on the Washington Examiner last night says:

These days, among the people who have known and worked with Huckabee, there is a growing sense that he’s leaning toward another run for the White House.

Stay tuned. We should know sometime this summer – “probably June”

H/T to my numerous HucksArmy buddies that post on HucksArmy.com and Facebook.

Update: I just found another article that was posted today that goes along with this blog article. Check out Huckabee Seems Likely To Run

Published in: on AprilUTCbFri, 29 Apr 2011 09:57:55 +0000000000amFri, 29 Apr 2011 09:57:55 +000011 4, 2008 at 9:57 am  Comments (6)  

The Latest 2012 GOP Polling Map

34 states have been polled since the midterm elections. Most of them were polled by Public Policy Polling. I included the polls done for Utah by Deserett News/KSL, the more recent poll done for Michigan by Strategic National, and the poll done for Georgia by 20/20 Insight because I’m not surprised at their results – Romney won the polls in Utah and Michigan and Huckabee won the poll in Georgia.

Huckabee has won the most recent polls in 17 states plus tied for 1st in 2 (AK, FL, GA, IA, IL, KY, MO, NC, NE, OH, PA, SC, TN, TX, VA, WI, WV plus ties for 1st in NJ and ME)

Romney has won the most recent polls in 10 states plus tied for 1st in 1 (AZ, CA, CO, CT, MA, MI, NH, NV, RI, UT plus tie for 1st in NJ)
Palin has won the most recent polls in 4 states (MT, NM, SD, WA)
Pawlenty has won the most recent polls in 1 state (MN)
Gingrich has won a tie for 1st in 1 state among the most recent polls (ME)

Out of the 34 states that have been polled since the midterms – Huckabee has won 17 states (one half of all the states that have been polled) PLUS he’s tied for 1st place in two additional states.

This weekend PPP is supposed to be polling Michigan and North Carolina again. Whether or not Romney and Huckabee will be able to hold on to their leads in those states remains to be seen.

Cross posted at RightSpeak

Published in: on MarchUTCbSat, 19 Mar 2011 15:28:23 +0000000000pmSat, 19 Mar 2011 15:28:23 +000011 4, 2008 at 3:28 pm  Comments (1)  

Who will prevail – special interest groups or the tax payers?

Money is power. How much money do special interest groups contribute to political parties? Do they receive power for their money? From what I’ve heard in the media over the years; Republicans owe their power to special interest groups – you know the most notorious ones – pharmaceutics companies, big business, financial institutions, NRA, etc. I stumbled on a very informative website while looking for some of that information. If you haven’t seen OpenSecrets.org yet – be sure to check it out.

Are Republicans really the ones that profit most from special interest groups? Let’s see what Open Secrets has to say. Who does Open Secrets term the “Top 10 Heavy Hitters” and how much did they contribute? Which Which political party received the most of the contributions from those “top 10 heavy hitters”? The info in brackets is from their page titled Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2010 – which also gives you information on other special interest groups – more than just the top 10. For even more info from Open Secrets – click on the links to see how it was split up and which specific politicians received the most money from them.

Top 10 Heavy Hitters:

ActBlue $51,124,846 [Democrats 99% Republicans 0%]

AT&T Inc $46,292,670 [Democrats 44% Republicans 55%]

*American Fedn of State, County & Municipal Employees $43,477,361 [Democrats 98% Republicans 1%]

National Assn of Realtors $38,721,441 [Democrats 49% Republicans 50%]

Goldman Sachs $33,387,252 [Democrats 61% Republicans 37%]

American Assn for Justice $33,143,279 [Democrats 90% Republicans 8%]

*Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $33,056,216 [Democrats 97% Republicans 2%]

*National Education Assn $32,024,610 [Democrat 93% Republicans 6%]

*Laborers Union $30,292,050 [Democrats 92% Republicans 7%]

*Teamsters Union $29,319,982 [Democrats 93% Republicans 6%]

Note: the asterisks were inserted by me to mark union contributions.

Did you notice that exactly 1/2 of the “top 10 heavy hitters” are unions? Is anyone surprised that Democrat power spokesmen Jesse Jackson showed up in Madison, Michael Moore declared war and even President Obama weighed in to help protect their own interest (money and power)?

Maybe Scott Walker and the Republicans have a right to fight for the tax payers (as well as themselves) rather than giving in to the special interest groups.

Published in: on MarchUTCbFri, 11 Mar 2011 10:27:42 +0000000000amFri, 11 Mar 2011 10:27:42 +000011 4, 2008 at 10:27 am  Comments (1)  
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.