NEW "BROKERED CONVENTION" ANALYSIS

By Traci for Huck at www.mikehuckabee.com
02/08/2008 02:50 PM


Path to win through a Brokered Convention:

1) McCain can be prevented from winning 1191 delegates.
According to RealClearPolitics McCain has 720 delegates & still needs 471 to win.
That means he has to get 44% of the remaining delegates to secure 1191.

2) So Huckabee needs to win 57% of the remaining delegates to force this to a Brokered Convention.

3) On Super Tuesday McCain got 42% of the vote in Blue States and only 26% in Red States. Over 60% of McCain’s delegates have come from Blue States. Do we really want our candidate picked by States that we have very little chance of winning in the Fall?

4) Remaining delegates: Red States = 711 [ 70.5% ], Blue States = 297 [ 29.5% ]
RED States Left:
=============
47 Louisiana
39 Kansas
63 Virginia
140 Texas
88 Ohio
39 Mississippi
69 North Carolina
57 Indiana
33 Nebraska
45 Kentucky
32 Idaho
32 New Mexico
27 South Dakota

5) Every time Republicans have gone to a Brokered Convention we have won!
Abraham Lincoln – 3rd Ballot - Won Presidency
Rutherford Hayes – 7th Ballot - Won Presidency
James Garfield - 36th Ballot - Won Presidency
Warning Harding – 10th Ballot – Won Presidency

6) Conservatives Unite! There is still time! Win the Red States and we go to the convention for a discussion about what it means to be a republican.

WAS ROMNEY'S CPAC SPEECH AN ENDORSEMENT OF HUCKABEE CONSERVATISM?

The "Why Mike Campaign 2008" blog has drilled down into Romney's benedictory speech before CPAC and has discovered solid proof that on many important issues, ROMNEY IS A "HUCKABEE CONSERVATIVE!"

This is a MUST READ for Romney-ians who are searching for a new candidate.

Comparing Governor Huckabee's campaign platform with Mitt's CPAC speech clearly demonstrates that on the issues that really matter to SERIOUS, mature conservatives (not hysterical "suicide voters," or ideological perfectionists, or "sit-n-quitters"), ROMNEY said at CPAC EXACTLY THE SAME THINGS THAT HUCKABEE IS STILL SAYING!

Open minded Romney-ians will give this blog a serious look.

CONSERVATIVES: IT’S TIME TO PUT UP OR SHUT UP

The same elite pundits who told you a couple of days ago that Mitt Romney could still win are the same ones who now say John McCain is the “presumptive nominee.”

Don’t you believe it.

They say “Mitt ran the numbers” and determined he couldn’t win.

[Of course Mitt couldn’t win because he lost (and would continue to lose) to Huckabee AND McCain in several of the bed-rock conservative states. The numbers didn’t add up in a THREE WAY RACE]

These elites wistfully pined for a “two man race.”

They said if Romney could only get ALL of the conservative vote, that he could “stop McCain.” They all but tried to run Mike Huckabee “out of town on a rail” as some sort of demonic “vote splitter.”

[As it turns out, Romney was the “vote splitter.” Romney was the one that dashed conservative hopes, toyed with conservative emotions, and wasted money and time. The Romney votes apparently were the ones that were helping John McCain]

Now, conservatives have the “two man race” the elite pundits all clamored for.

But it's Huckabee vs. McCain!

Governor Huckabee is a solid Reagan conservative. His record of executive governance is one that tracks well with how Ronald Reagan led in California. He did the same things that Reagan did. He governed as a RESPONSIBLE, TRADITIONAL CONSERVATIVE.

Certainly, libertarians and quasi-anarchists who don’t care about the quality of our roads or our public schools or our hunting and fishing have attacked Governor Huckabee because he governed as a responsible, budget-balancing Federalist instead of stripping Arkansas government bare. These purist critics have never run much of anything and probably could not be elected to dog catcher (besides having a dog catcher is probably just more “big government.”).

Common-sense conservatives throughout Iowa and the solid Republican South have looked past the empty rhetoric and at the man Mike Huckabee. And his wins in some of the most conservative places in America demonstrate that voters know Huckabee is a Reagan conservative. His record on social conservative issues is bulletproof. His plan for taking America forward is more conservative than any other candidate in this race.

Huckabee is running against a “foot soldier of the Reagan Revolution.” Of course, it doesn’t do much good to be a “foot soldier” if your weapon is turned against your own side.

The Anti-McCain conservatives claim that McCain is a “foot soldier” who too often crosses the battle lines and fights for the other side.

They cite McCain-Feingold, McCain-Lieberman, McCain-Kennedy-Edwards, etc. They point out that McCain SUMMARILY rejected the evidence from the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and defended John Kerry. They claim McCain not only thought about running with Kerry against George W. Bush in 2004, he clandestinely solicited that position!

They charge McCain said that Justice Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr. was “too conservative” because he “wore his conservatism on his sleeve.” They question whether he will make good on his promise to appoint justices in the “mold of Alito and Roberts.” They fret over McCain’s rhetorical slights to brilliant conservative justices Scalia and Thomas. They winced at his praise and admiration for the moderate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. A few predict McCain will appoint more “empty Souters” if only to preserve McCain-Feingold.

Some of the more radicalized elements fret about his hair-trigger temper and his prickly personality. Some gossip about his allegedly checkered family life. Some Romney-ians questioned McCain’s understanding of markets and his commitment to “profit.” Some point out that McCain lacks private sector experience. They dig back into McCain’s past as one of the infamous Keating Five. Some make wild charges against McCain so outrageous that they cannot and will not be repeated here.

In summary, many conservatives rage against McCain with almost the same vigor and passion as they blast Hillary Clinton – or perhaps even more.

What will these conservatives do now?

If they are correct about their numbers and their influence, they know that McCain cannot win the nomination without their acquiescence.

If the "anybody but McCain" (“ABM” )conservatives are serious about what they believe about McCain, they will switch to Huckabee. If they really want to “stop McCain,” they will switch to Huckabee.

Huckabee is a true traditional conservative and still can earn enough delegates to take the fight to the convention floor. At the convention, anything can happen.

Otherwise, the "ABM" conservatives should just be quiet and fall into line for the "presumptive nominee."

Will they “put up or shut up?”

DOES HUCKABEE JUST NEED TO “SPLIT THE DIFFERENCE?”

[NOTE: GET THE LATEST COMMENTS ON HUCKABEE'S RUN HERE (http://speedzzter.blogspot.com)]


With Mitt Romney out, is it possible to stop McCain’s march to the nomination?

Some think so.

The Vote for Huckabee blog poses the following scenario:

“McCain’s campaign release stated there are 963 delegates left. McCain would need 471 of those to equal the magic number of 1191.”

“963-471 = 492. So if Huck can get 493 and leave McCain with 470 (or anything less!), it goes to a brokered convention.”

“So the question is, can the conservatives who hate McCain, line up behind Huckabee and basically force a 51/49 split of the remaining delegates?”

It’s basically a reverse test of the notion floated by the elite GOP pundits when they were excusing Romney’s losses by suggesting that Mitt and Huck were “splitting the conservative vote.”

The race is finally ONE CONSERVATIVE vs. McCain.

The "split the difference" idea is not to say that Huckabee shouldn’t go all out for the win. But merely splitting the difference gives Huckabee enough leverage to make a huge impact.

Will those “Anybody But McCain” conservatives rally around someone who is obviously more conservative than Clinton or Obama and who could knock off McCain at the GOP convention or (miracle upon miracles) even before?

George Neumayr, editor of Catholic World Report and press critic for California Political Review posted an article at the American Spectator website questions the genuineness of “movement conservatives” and their motivations.


"It tells you a lot about the state of the establishment conservative movement that in the end, given a choice between a (basically) red-meat conservative from the South and a recently pro-abortion moderate from the North, it chose the latter. The savaging of Mike Huckabee has been highly revealing, betraying more than just personal distaste."

"HUCKABEE . . . is striking much closer to the bedrock of philosophical conservatism than his critics."

So why has Huckabee been forced to fight against the “headwinds” of talk radio and the pundit class?

Clearly, a significant portion of the anti-Huckabee rhetoric was motivated out of bare-knuckled pragmatism, not ideological purity.

The Eastern conservative elites wanted one of their own to win. When Rudy stumbled and Fred bumbled (although Fred Thompson really wasn’t ever a darling of the elites, just another pragmatic means to an end), hope centered upon Romney. Romney was an alum of a selective Eastern college and knew all of the “right” people from his Bain Capital days. He’s urbane and familiar. He’s safe. He was “one of them.”

Conversely, Huckabee was perceived as merely an unfamiliar, underfunded roadblock to the coronation of the elite conservative vanguard’s choice of McCain antidote.

Logical, pragmatic conservatism suggests that if conservatives really want the best available conservative and still have concerns about John McCain’s orthodoxy and electability, they will immediately switch to Huckabee.

Undoubtedly, Huckabee ranks higher as a “second choice” for many Romney/Thompson voters than does McCain. Add in Huckabee’s enthusiastic base of support and the geographical weighting of the remaining primary schedule, it’s not impossible for Huckabee to contend for the split necessary to keep the “game” alive, if not the outright pre-convention win.

As previously blogged on this site, Huckabee needs all the delegates he can get to maximize his influence upon what happens at the convention, even if he’s not the nominee.

If the remaining contest is not excessively divisive, a protracted Huckabee-McCain battle to the nomination is also a good thing for the GOP.

If McCain is allowed to coast until September, the Democrats will suck up all of the news media attention. Moreover, until the Democrats settle on a nominee, the “fall campaign” Romney mentioned in his give-up speech at CPAC cannot being in earnest. A continuing primary campaign will help energize the GOP base and strengthen the grassroots organization necessary to compete in November. It will also give the party activists “something to do” while waiting for the “main event” in the fall. Thus, forcing McCain to campaign against Huckabee sharpens McCain’s “game” if he were to become the nominee and keeps the GOP in the news.

If the Romney-ians and the Fred Heads in the states which haven’t voted yet fail to switch to Huckabee, can we really take their anti-McCain handwringing and “suicide vote” threats seriously?

Romney’s exit is a long-awaited gift from God and the start of a huge opportunity. But will the conservatives take advantage of it? Or will they sit around an pout because their man didn’t make the “finals?”

1008 REASONS FOR HUCKABEE TO KEEP FIGHTING

Hugh Hewitt has finally seen the light. Hewitt, one of talk radio's most emphatic Romney-ians, now realizes that the Gucci chameleon, “Slick Willard” Mitt Romney cannot win the GOP nomination.

Hallelujah!

All of this stupid, irrational, emotional talk about “suicide votes” and staying home and conservatives voting for liberal Democrats because “Rush said” it’d be better for the country to crater under Clinton/Obama ignores the main objective.

It's simply childish.

Adults know that politics involves the give and take toward getting the best deal possible on a particular day, and then fighting on for a better deal tomorrow. Politics isn’t about achieving the “perfect.” It’s about gaining a series of comparative advantages and leveraging power toward common goals.

Reagan – the venerable saint of modern conservatism – understood this. He was on the national stage from 1964 until 1980 fighting for conservative ideas before he was elected to a position where he could act upon them on a national scale. But Reagan never quit like a spoiled child when he didn’t win.

Hugh Hewitt finally realizes this as well. The GOP better get united . . . fast.

A McCain/Huckabee ticket would be the BEST way to do it. McCain is strong in the West, Northeast and with moderate/independents. And Huckabee is a solid traditional conservative and a great communicator. Outspent probably 10-to-1 Huckabee vanquished Mitt-the-flip Romney in Iowa and the deep South on the strength of mere enthusiasm. Such enthusiasm is in short supply in the GOP ranks these days.

Of course both McCain and Huckabee need to do very well before CPAC this week.

The alternative to GOP unity is unthinkable for TRUE conservatives.

Allowing Clinton or Obama to appoint as many as 4-5 young "living constitution" liberals to "lifetime" appointments on the U.S. Supreme Court and to stock the balance of the federal judiciary with rabid ACLU/NOW activists and hand-picked cronies of trial lawyer John Edwards as a consequence of a pre-school temper tantrum against McCain is analogous to dropping a hydrogen bomb to retaliate against an occasionally “disloyal” friend.

It would take decades to unwind such a disaster.

Helping Hillary or Obama lose the war in Iraq and thereby empowering Iran, encouraging a comeback by radical Islamofascism, and creating chaos in the Middle East merely to teach John McCain a lesson is like burning down your house to kill a cockroach.

SERIOUS THOUGHTFUL CONSERVATIVES can see ANY of the Republican candidates are vastly preferable to Hillary/Obama.

When all the hoopla over racial/sex "identity politics" has subsided, thinking Americans will realize this danger.

Conservatives (including Rush) need to "grow up" and dial back the internecine rhetoric.

Romney -- because of his caustic, scorched-earth approach to this race and his almost messianic appeal to certain sectors of the “suicide voter” right -- needs to step back and stop hammering wedges into the GOP. As long as Romney pretends he can win and feeds uncertainty about McCain’s and Huckabee’s conservative bona fides, Romney remains an agent of chaos and disunity.

It's time for Mitt to Quit.

But what about Governor Huckabee?

Governor Huckabee is not as divisive a figure in the GOP.

He’s not spending millions and millions on attack ads. He’s campaigning for a positive, hopeful agenda. He's resisting the urge to "go negative" (so much so that the Romney-ian "hive" falsely claims Huckabee has some sort of "unfair" "Survivor" alliance with McCain). Some have said, he’s a “happy warrior.” Huckabee staying in the race does not adversely affect GOP unity nearly as much as Romney does.

More importantly, there are 1008 reasons for Huckabee to keep “answering the bell for each new round” of the primaries.

As of the end of Super Duper Tuesday, some news sources calculate that there are 1008delegates to be selected.(Other sources put the number available at 963) McCain needs about half of them to win on the first ballot. Only 99 of the remaining delegates are from winner-take-all states.

Thus, neither Romney nor Huckabee have been mathematically eliminated yet. However a win by either of them would take huge shifts in the GOP electorate. Romney or Huckabee would have to take in the neighborhood of three-fourths of all remaining delegates to win outright. And both would have to win in places where they’ve thus far been uncompetitive. Here’s the list of primary delegates still to come:

9-Feb Louisiana 47
9-Feb Washington 40
9-Feb Kansas 39
12-Feb Virginia 63 Winner Take All
12-Feb Maryland 37
12-Feb D.C. 19 Winner Take All
19-Feb Wisconsin 40
4-Mar Texas 140
4-Mar Ohio 88
4-Mar Rhode Island 20
4-Mar Vermont 17 Winner Take All
10-Mar Mississippi 39
22-Apr Pennsylvania 74
6-May North Carolina 69
6-May Indiana 57
13-May Nebraska 3316-May Hawaii 20
20-May Kentucky 45
20-May Oregon 30
27-May Idaho 32
3-Jun New Mexico 32
3-Jun South Dakota 27

Without winner-take-all, Huckabee can rack up his share of delegates, even if he doesn't win a whole state. But it also means that McCain can hold off challenges by taking pluralities of the vote.

A negotiated convention (formerly known as a “brokered convention”) remains a remote possibility. In that scenario, it would be critical for Huckabee to control as many delegates as he possibly could to leverage the best outcome for true social conservatives.

Even if there isn’t any drama at the GOP convention, its important for purposes of determining the vice presidential nominee, committee assignments, and the contents of the GOP platform for Huckabee to have a large block of delegates. The best insurance of a strong, consistent social conservative platform is for Mike Huckabee to have as many delegates as possible at the GOP convention.

Finally, it’s important to the future of traditional conservatism for Huckabee to appropriately position himself for a second White House bid (and to cripple Romney’s schemes for such a bid). Mike Huckabee has demonstrated himself as a loyal GOP supporter who will work for success in November. But some pundits cynically suggest that Romney is better served by teeing up another run as early as 2012– a scenario that virtually requires him to undermine any GOP success this fall.

While Huckabee remains the best nominee for traditional, consistent conservatives – if that’s not possible-- a strong Huckabee is a great asset and insurance policy for GOP unity and victory in the fall.

ROMNEY, NOT HUCKABEE IS "THE SPOILER"

The Evangelical Outpost Blog makes the following salient rebuttal to the Romney-ian/Elite GOP Talk Radio Spin on who's the spoiler in the GOP race for president:

In the latest USA Today/Gallup poll Huckabee supporters were asked for whom they would vote if the race came down to John McCain or Mitt Romney.

The results showed that McCain wins over Romney as the second choice of Huckabee voters by more than a 2 to 1 margin, 64% to 28%. McCain beats Romney 42% to 24% with Huckabee in the race (Huckabee gets 18% of the vote) and expands that margin to 53% to 30% with Huckabee voters forced to choose between the two candidates.

"A more likely scenario is that Romney's continued presence in the race siphoned off votes and support for Huckabee."

Had sleepy Fred Thompson not slouched and moped around South Carolina and the Gucci Chameleon, "Slick Willard" Mitt Romney not wasted millions on what's become an Apollo 1 meltdown of a campaign, Mike Huckabee would likely be the front runner.

ROMNEY LOST WHERE HE HAD TO WIN & HUCKABEE WINS WHERE HE RUNS

[Our prayers and thoughts go out to the people of Arkansas, Tennessee and across the Southland who are suffering from the tornados of Super Tuesday]

To paraphrase an old favorite song . . . "I hope Rush-n-Mitt will remember . . . A SOUTHERN MAN DON'T NEED THEM AROUND ANYHOW! SWEET HOME ALABAMA"

And Georgia

And Tennessee

And Arkansas

And West Virginia.

Mike Huckabee pulled off what some politicos (and Romney-ians) thought was improbable. He beat John McCain and relegated the gold-plated Mitt Romney Flip-Flop Express to third place in the key states that Republicans MUST WIN to have any shot whatsoever at beating the Democrats in November.

The only places where Mike Huckabee really fought for his TRUE CONSISTENT CONSERVATIVE message and came up short were in Missouri and Oklahoma. And he almost won in those states as well.

John McCain beat Huckabee in Missouri by a razor thin 1% margin. A strong military vote in Oklahoma (from around Tinker A.F.B., Vance A.F.B., Altus A.F.B., McAlester Army Ammunition Plant, and Fort Sill) likely gave a slight edge to McCain over Huckabee.

Romney lost big in both the Show Me State and the Sooner State.

Again, Mike Huckabee did a lot more with a lot less than anyone else in this race. He didn't just exceed expectations. He blew them away!

"Huckabee focused his limited resources almost exclusively on the Southeast, with old-fashioned, retail politicking. He presented himself as the only true social conservative in the race, jabbing at Romney as a flip-flopper as he pulled conservatives disenchanted with McCain into his orbit."

"Conservatives had the opportunity to pick a real conservative in the South," Ed Rollins of the Huckabee campaign said in an interview with the Washington Post. "And they did."

Huckabee won big despite the "headwinds" of the elite GOP conservative pundits and talk radio wilfully ignoring "Slick Willard" Mitt Romney's flip-flops and contortions on bed-rock social conservative issues and throwing "all in" for Mitt to dissuade conservatives from voting for Mike Huckabee.

Clearly, this "jihad" didn't work in the places where the voters got to meet Huckabee up close.

The WaPo went on to note that "Even as McCain was claiming the mantle of front-runner in his victory speech last night, he was compelled to congratulate Huckabee on his sweep of the South. 'Not for the first time, he surprised the rest of us,' McCain said."

In contrast, Robert Novak gave a grim assessment of Romney's obvious failure to perform (despite virtually every advantage) where and when it mattered most.

"Romney needed to win in California, where in the last week he made a substantial contribution from his personal fortune.["In California, Romney spent $10 million on TV and radio this week, while McCain had to make do with a few radio ads and some telephone calls." Mike Huckabee, concentrating his resources on the Southern Strategy didn't actively focus on California, so the Rush/Hannity/Ingraham/Romney-ian et al. canard that Huckabee siphons Romney votes wasn't really in play. ]

Novack concludes that "McCain's victory there and in the bellwether state of Missouri were devastating for Romney."

"So was the comeback by former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. He was given up for dead when his Jan. 3 victory in the Iowa caucuses was followed by no more wins and some poor third- and fourth-place finishes. But Tuesday Huckabee won Southern states that Romney had hoped to corral in his attempted mobilization of conservatives against McCain. Instead, Romney ran third in Dixie."

According to Novak , "Romney must now ask himself: Do I have a path to the nomination? It is hard to find such a path or a reason for staying in the race."

Time magazine highlights the grim reality for the Romney-ians.

"To date, Romney's success has mostly come at the margins, in small-state caucuses like Maine, Nevada and North Dakota, where other campaigns have not competed. The three larger primaries he has won — Michigan, Massachusetts and Utah — were in his native home, his current home and his spiritual home."

"After his vow to fight on [what else could a visibly exhausted and dispirited Gucci Chameleon say to his room full of Massachusetts backers?], Romney's chief spokesman did his best to put a positive spin on the night, pointing to Huckabee's significant weaknesses as a serious rival to McCain. 'We can make an electability argument that Mike Huckabee can't,' said Kevin Madden."

"But Madden was also describing a Romney appeal that has so far failed to materialize. The campaign has gone through repeated rebirths, with new themes and new campaign signs, new ads and new message strategies. Romney has tried to be the candidate of true fiscal, social and national security conservatism. He has tried to be the corporate executive candidate who understands the economy. He has tried to be the candidate of change, who will shake up Washington. On Tuesday night, his rhetoric took on a previously unseen, almost Trotskyite tenor: 'It's time for the politicians to leave Washington and for we, the people, to take over!'"

[Does Mitt Romney really expect to sell himself as not a "politician?" Given his rash of rookie mistakes, poor return on investment, and ham-fisted gaffes on the campaign trail, perhaps that not such a stretch . . . .]

"Each Romney iteration has been backed by significant spending, but none has achieved mass appeal . . . ."

In contrast, Jed Babin points out the strategic significance of Huckabee's wins and Romney's losses.

"Republicans have won the White House when they have solidly seized the southern states. But when the returns came in, Romney placed third in Alabama, Arkansas, Tennessee and Georgia. His wins -- in Utah and Massachusetts primaries, and Alaska and North Dakota caucuses – are too scattered and small to provide a realistic foundation for a nomination. "

"Mike Huckabee’s showing yesterday was stronger than many had imagined. Winning in West Virginia’s caucuses early in the day, Huckabee partnered with McCain to block Romney. Later, in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia and Tennessee, Huckabee proved he could boost a national ticket from the vice presidential slot."

"A McCain-Huckabee ticket now appears a real possibility."

Mitt Romney was a "no sale" in the places where he had to win because real conservatives correctly view him as an imposter.

William Murchison wrote that the Romney-ians and the talk radio bandwagon pushers "presumably . . . see their man as the true-blue Reaganite in the race." "But that makes minimal sense. This is Mitt, who, in Massachusetts, made health-insurance acquisition compulsory without figuring out what to do with people who can't afford it. Nor, a few years ago, from the right's perspective, was Mitt up to snuff on gay rights and abortion. He has recanted on the social questions. Does this indemnify him against accusations of political perfidy?"

In comparing the merits of McCain to Romney, Murchison further concludes that: "Mitt's lack of experience in national and international affairs" is "the same rap Mrs. Clinton is using on Barack Obama. Mitt might be OK in these departments, but to declare without equivocation that he's the better man to represent conservatives strikes me as bizarre."

On Super Duper Tuesday, the voters in the places that Republicans MUST win in November overwhelmingly rejected Mitt Romney. And in the places where Mike Huckabee focused his fire, he strongly exceeded expectations.

To use a biblical analogy, the "handwriting is on the wall" for Romney. If he cannot win in the Reddest of the Red States, He cannot win in November. And if his huge advantages in money and organization couldn't turn around Missouri (3rd place) and California (distant 2nd place), just where can Romney win a CONTESTED state?

[It should be noted that Rush Limbaugh failed to deliver for Romney his current home state of Florida, the state of his flagship station WABC--New York, the state of his birth -- Missouri, or Rush's adopted home state of California. That makes Rush 0-4, which is a dismal primary record. Perhaps Limbaugh would have been better served by remaining neutral and treating Mike Huckabee with fairness]

It's past time for Mitt to really use that allegedly brilliant business mind and call it quits. Romney has probably blown as much as a half a million dollars or more for each delegate he has to the GOP convention. Continuing on would merely be throwing a lot more good money after bad. And for what? To punish a guy who's spent less on his whole campaign than Romney wasted in losing California? A bad investment indeed.

And Huckabee needs to keep fighting on for true consistent conservatism in the places where real, genuine conservatism matter most.

ROMNEY--THE CANDIDATE OF SOUR GRAPES

The paid political hacks behind the scenes at Bain Capital . . . oops, I mean "Citizen Kane 2008" . . . the Gucci Chameleon, "Slick Willard" Mitt Romney are apoplectic about Mike Huckabee's stunning upset in West Virginia.

Forget "Sore Loserman" from 2000! The Romney-ians may be on the verge of setting a new low in the modern era for being poor sports.

The savvy heartland conservatives, however, are rejecting Romney's desperate, emotional "whine" with clear logic and optimism.

For example,

LBB wrote at politico.com:

"Romney is a spoiled little cry baby. 'Hey I bought this caucus! How dare anyone else win it!'"

"The Romney camp's spin is just pathetic at this point. Guess what it's a caucus. If you don't get majority it goes for another round. If a delegate's guy is out they pick the preferred of the top two. Obviously Huckabee was preferred (by McCain and Paul supporters)."

"Maybe if Romney didn't make so many enemies by being an arrogant jerk. The fact that Romney spent so much time and money in WV and couldn't pull a majority should tell you something. He's just upset because his method of buying the uncontested caucuses (Wyoming, Nevada, Maine) finally failed him."

Burt Noyes wrote at www.mikehuckabee.com

"If Mitt wanted to be the "conservative" candidate in this election, he should have tried being a conservative governor like Mike Huckabee was in Arkansas for 10 1/2 years."


Clay Willis of Acworth, Georgia wrote:

"Rush, Hannity and the MSM are doing damage control for Romney in West Virginia. Even if all of McCain's supporters in the first ballot (170) had moved to Huckabee (365), Huckabee's total still is greater in the second ballot (567)."

"What happened is that SOME of McCain's supporters and SOME of Paul's supporters (115 in the first ballot) switched to Huckabee. Romney picked up some of each and ended with 521 votes after coming into the caucus with a large organization and 280 of the delegates committed to Romney. But he couldn't beat Huckabee so he has to blame it on 'collusion' by Huckabee and McCain."

"If there's any collusion going on, it's with Rush and Hannity and the MSM trying to run Huckabee out of the race."

"Why is the news not that the inevitable candidate (McCain) could only muster 15.5% of the votes in West Virginia."

"Mitt should drop out . . . ."

The juicy irony here is that Mitt-the-Flip cannot even be consistent on the whining issue. Earlier he told CBS "a couple of rules in politics . . . One: no whining. And number two: you get them to vote for you . . . That’s known as politics."

What a klutz as a candidate!


Matt's Corner Blog wrote:

"Oh, why don't you take your own advice, Mitt, and stop whining? You said it yourself: the first rule in politics is 'No whining.'"

"You lost! Deal with it! Be a man and suck it up."

QUIT MITT!
QUIT MITT!
QUIT MITT!

GO HUCKABEE!

HUCKABEE WINS WEST VIRGINIA; BEATS ROMNEY

CNN is reporting that Mike Huckabee charged to the win in the West Virginia nominating Convention!

A majority of West Virginian GOP delegates apparently can see past the "two-man race canard" and rejected the Gucci Chameleon's conversion-of-convenience to conservatism.

"Slick Willard" suffers his first loss of Super Tuesday! And Huckabee surfed the Rush/Hannity tsunami to win!

WHY IT'S FUN TO GOUGE RUSH IN THE EYE WITH A HUCKABEE VOTE

Speedzzter and every voter in the Speedzzter family, as well as a good number of Speedzzter's friends have now voted for Mike Huckabee on Super Tuesday.

It sure felt great!

Why?

Because Mike Huckabee is the best, most consistent conservative choice remaining in this election.

And because a vote for Mike Huckabee IS a vote against the Gucci Chameleon, "Slick Willard" Mitt Romney!

A vote for Mike Huckabee is a vote against being ordered around by certain conservative media stars.

A vote for Mike Huckabee is a vote to keep the nomination process open and to fight for true conservative values at the GOP convention and in the GOP platform.

A vote for Mike Huckabee is a vote for encouraging more conservative candidates like Mike to run in other GOP races across the country.

More importantly, a vote for Mike Huckabee is a vote against virtually everything that's wrong in the GOP and a vote for returning the Republican party to true conservative principles.

Let me explain.

A. Mitt Romney is the walking embodiment of why the GOP could lose in November:

Star Parker has pointed out that Mitt Romney's hamfisted misrepresentation about how he "saw" his pappy march with Martin Luther King, Jr. symbolizes the problem the GOP faces with much of the American electorate.

"How ironic that Romney chose to insert this apparent whopper in his 'Faith in America' speech. Perhaps the governor's idea of faith is what Groucho Marx had in mind with his line, 'Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?'"

"This kind of casualness with the truth is what has alienated good citizens across the country from the elites who are running our political machinery."

"But now Republicans have become a detached ruling elite like the Democrats that Reagan ran against. And they have alienated a chunk of the grass roots within their own party, and independents that Reagan had wooed in."

"Republicans can win back the hearts and minds of Americans. But they have to get real and get honest. Unlike the former governor of Massachusetts."

"Slick Willard" is emblematic of every negative stereotype that cuts at the core of the Reagan tradition. Romney is a plastic, privileged, aloof, Eastern, out-of-touch, self-financed flip-flopper with no particular ability to relate to Reagan Democrats, blue-collar Republicans, social conservatives and independents.

Romney has a horrific record of apostasy on bed-rock social conservative issues. He's purportedly a reformed gun controller who pushed through Democrat activist judges and a health plan/tax with a $50 abortion co-pay. Yet through the "magic" of paid media, he's tried to repackage his liberalism and sell himself as a Reaganite, notwithstanding that he reputediated Ronald Reagan when he ran for election against Ted Kennedy.

Romney represents a return to the Rockefeller Republican "daze." The forces trying to ram the Gucci Chameleon down our throats only value social conservatism when its election time or ratings sweeps week. And millions of voters in the heartland can see through this cynical charade.

A vote for Mitt Romney is a vote for Clinton/Obama in November.

B. Unlike his rival campaigns, Mike Huckabee is setting a powerful example of fiscal discipline.

Chuck Norris points out that "Slick Willard's" attempt to buy his way into the White House starkly contrasts with the fiscal responsibility of Mike Huckabee:

"Last Wednesday Romney conveyed that 'his campaign was not trying to purchase television advertisement' on Super Tuesday, when 20-plus states hold simultaneous nominating contests. Then he flip-flopped (again) the very next day, telling reporters, 'I have authorized a seven-figure – I won't give you the exact number – but seven-figure advertising buy for our campaign.'"


"The campaign question is: Does Mitt's personal financing or McCain's personal debt reflect the type of fiscal leadership we want in the White House? One avenue demonstrates that the White House can be bought, and the other mirrors a same-old political approach to getting things done –borrowing."

Norris points out that only Huckabee using a fiscally responsible approach -- only spending what he receives from contributors (who, unlike Mitt Romney, are limited to a $2,300 per-person maximum).

"[Mike Huckabee's] stewardship abilities and experience clearly separates him from the rest of the pack, Republican or Democrat. . . . And with our country being trillions of dollars in debt and our economy sluggish at best, that's also why he's my choice for president. "

C. A vote for Mike Huckabee sends a crystal-clear message that the GOP talk radio elites are growing more and more out-of-touch with social conservatives.

The Values Voter Blog has zeroed in on the manifest disservice that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and some others in the "GOP Media" have done in this primary season.

"But, one thing is different in the GOP Media's choice of victims this time. We really like some of them. In fact, we like some of them better than the pundits. And we can't understand why our media half-brethren are beginning to hate some of the things that they once used to love and love the things that they not long ago hated. A far-left socially liberal Republican is touted as Reagan Reincarnate while the protypical social conservative candidate who wants to eliminate the income tax is portrayed as a Hippie Democrat who happens to read the Bible. Just four years after 2004, when we were told that these were all key reasons to mobilize against John Kerry and for President Bush. Who woulda thunk it?"

"The pundits who have been the most unfair to Republican candidates during this Election season would do away with their self-confident smirks if they only knew how big a slice of their audiences that they're losing or have already lost - perhaps forever."

The failure of the GOP talk elites in this election cycle has materially damaged the credibility of talk radio among many conservatives.

It's time for a new birth of freedom in talk radio. It's time that true conservatives shook the crumbling foundations of the EIB/Fox/Clear Channel empire and demanded thoughtful programs which truly respect AND REPRESENT social conservatives!

The affection of many social conservatives for Rush, for example, has been mostly out of convenience. I focus on Rush because I've been a listener for eighteen years and Rush is generally credited with the emergence of modern talk radio.

Rush is an entertainer to be sure, but at times he's been a strong, invaluable counter-point to the dominant media culture (which is often hostile to all forms of conservatism). Rush has at times been a voice of reason in a tsunami of political correctness.

This has pragmatically caused many conservatives to ignore Rush's faults.

Many of us have winced at Rush's sophomoric attempts at humor, especially when they trended toward un-family friendly topics.

We have shuddered at Rush's massive egotism.

Many of us have excused Rush's problems with tobacco and drugs. We have ignored his intemperate suggestions.

We have looked the other way when Rush's private life has cratered and he's alluded to behaviors which do not track with a responsible social conservative lifestyle.

We have even endured the time-wasting boredom of Rush's accounts of elite golf outings and other gauche name-dropping.

However, given how shamefully and unfairly Rush has treated Mike Huckabee, why should social conservatives continue to make excuses for Rush?

Most social conservatives place a high value on forgiveness, which is often informed by faith. But forgiveness does not mean to continue to aid and abet the same offenses over and over. Continuing to support Rush has, in the minds of some social conservatives, reached the level of aiding and abeting a profound assault on the values and attitudes we sincerely hold as essential.

Rush is not a social conservative.

He does not take the policy concerns of social conservative seriously. He clearly does not respect his socially conservative listeners. He apparently does not practice or exude a lifestyle of evangelical faith and seems not to respect the traditions of faith. He apparently does not share our beliefs and values.

A vote for Mike Huckabee is a strong way to send a message to Rush, Sean, Laura and many others that the GOP elites must respect the concerns of social conservatives and "play fair" if the Reagan coalition is to remain viable.

It felt great to vote for Mike today!

ROMNEY: "NO PRINCIPLES, NO BACKBONE, NO SOUL" & NO FRIED CHICKEN?

WRKO (Boston) radio talk show host Gregg Jackson has brilliantly summarized the difference between Governor Mike Huckabee and the Gucci Chameleon, "Slick Willard" Mitt Romney:

"[W]hen $100 million dollars of GOP campaign propaganda is set aside, Mike Huckabee is the only real across-the-board (social and fiscal)conservative among the three front runners."

"Mitt Romney is not a conservative on any issue, he's not even on the left-right spectrum. He has no beliefs. No principles. No soul. He's a soulless creature who will do and say anything to get elected."

WYLL (Chicago) radio talk show host Sandy Rios has further debunked the Romney-ian/Eastern Elite lies and misrepresentations of Huckabee's record in her salient article "A candidate We Could Get Excited About -- If Only the Pundits Would Let Us."

Time Magazine reports in a story entitled "The 'I Hate Romney' Club" that "Huckabee mocked Romney for ordering lunch at a Kentucky Fried Chicken, then peeling off the fried coating and eating it with a knife and fork. Presented with a golf club, Huckabee said he wouldn't be very good at the game: 'I'd be like Mitt Romney eating fried chicken.'"

"But such jibes mask more substantive complaints that many of the candidates have about Romney. 'What Romney has done,' says a Huckabee adviser, 'he's attacked people for positions he once held. That annoys people. And he uses his own money to do it, which rubs it in.' He's gone after McCain on campaign finance reform (which he once supported), Huckabee on tax increases (Huckabee countered that Romney's raised 'fees' amounted to the same thing), and nearly all the candidates on immigration."

Romney's flip-flops and poor judgment demonstrate that he's unfit to be the conservatives' standard-bearer. Romney's wasteful and generally tone-deaf campaign shows that he is not ready to successfully combat the Democrat machine in the general election.

A vote for Mitt Romney is simply a wasted vote. As Dick Morris properly observes, Romney cannot win.

Thus, thinking conservatives are choosing Mike Huckabee.

Why?

Mike is the last bona fide conservative standing:

ACCOMPLISHMENTS

1. With ten-and-a-half years of experience running state government, Governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas has more relevant executive experience than any candidate in the race – either Republican or Democrat.

2. Recognized and tapped by his peers for leadership, the National Governor’s Association selected Governor Huckabee as it’s Chairman,

3. TIME Magazine honored him as one of the five best Governors in America.

4. Governor Huckabee is a fiscal conservative who cut taxes almost 100 times in the state of Arkansas, including the state’s first broad-based tax cuts, and turned a $200 million deficit into an $850 million surplus.

ISSUES

1. TAXES/ECONOMY –Governor Huckabee supports The FairTax because it will restore the "Made in America" label, making American goods 12-25% more competitive, boosting economic growth, increasing our exports, and securing American jobs. It also prevents criminals or illegal aliens from avoiding taxes, and makes the taxes we all pay 100% transparent.

2. GOVERNMENT SPENDING – Governor Huckabee is committed to reducing government spending. One way he’ll do this is by reducing the cost of welfare. Governor Huckabee will work with states to reduce welfare roles through programs like the one he implemented in Arkansas, which reduced welfare roles by 50%.

3. HEALTH CARE –Governor Huckabee will implement a consumer-based healthcare system that emphasizes preventative medicine and wellness. Because 70% of our $2 trillion dollar healthcare costs is spent treating chronic, preventable diseases, this approach will make healthcare more affordable for everybody while keeping us healthier.

4. FAMILY VALUES –Governor Huckabee supports a federal constitutional amendment to protect the right to life. He Successfully fought for Arknasas’ marriage amendment and strongly supports a similar, federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

5. IMMIGRATION –Governor Huckabee will secure the border (with physical barriers, electronic surveillance, and more border-patrol personnel and detention facilities). He will also end sanctuary cities and increase penalties on, and enforcement against, employers who hire illegal immigrants. Governor Huckabee will make sure the border patrol has adequate funding to end our "catch and release" system so that everyone caught trying to enter illegally, overstaying their visa, or committing a crime will be held until they’re tried, convicted, and deported. Gov. Huckabee has also signed the Numbers USA "No Amnesty" Pledge.

6. WAR ON TERROR AND IRAQ – Governor Huckabee knows it takes a large, well-equipped military to ensure our national defense and to deter conventional military confrontations. He also knows we need large, well-equipped intelligence and Special Forces operations for our national offense – so we can effectively find and eliminate terrorists threats at home or abroad. Governor Huckabee will be a Commander in Chief who knows that IF WE HAVE TO FIGHT A WAR, our President has to fight it the way our GENERALS tell him it can be won, not the way we wants it to be won.

7. ENERGY INDEPENDENCE –Governor Huckabee will implement a program to end the import of foreign oil in the next ten years by increasing domestic oil production in the short term, and then replacing oil-based energy infrastructure with alternative and renewable energies.

8. CLEMENCIES – Arkansas Governors grant clemency, but the parole board grants parole. Wayne DuMond’s parole was granted by the board and NOT Governor Huckabee.

9. TAXES –When Governor Huckabee left office, the tax rates remained exactly the same as when he first came into office. Governor Huckabee returned almost $400 million to Arkansas taxpayers, and he also DOUBLED the standard deduction for individuals and married couples, DOUBLED the childcare tax credit, and eliminated the marriage penalty. He also repealed capital gains taxes for home sales, lowered the capital gains rate by 25%, expanded the homestead exemption, and set up tax-free savings accounts for medical care and college tuition. Gov. Huckabee has also signed the Americans for Tx Reform's pledge not to raise taxes.

10. SECOND AMENDMENT-
• Lifetime member of the NRA, member for over 15 years
• First Governor to have concealed-carry permit
• Removed restrictions on carry permit holders
• Protected gun manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits
• Opposes reauthorization of the Assault Weapon Ban
• Opposes expansion of the unconstitutional "Brady Bill"
• Opposes waiting period for purchase of firearms
• Opposes background checks on private firearms transactions at gun shows
• Will nominate judges who interpret the Constitution a the Founders intended, rather than as a "living document reflecting current political trends or opinions"
• An avid hunter and conservationist, and a member of the Ducks Unlimited, National Wild Turkey Federation and BASS.

Governor Huckabee has also been a rock-solid supporter of the right to life (unlike Mitt Romney).

Governor Huckabee has said "No candidate has a stronger record on the sanctity of life than I do. I have always been actively and aggressively pro-life. I first became politically active when I helped pass Arkansas' Unborn Child Amendment, which requires the state to do whatever it can to protect life."

"As Governor, I used that Amendment to pass pro-life legislation. The many pro-life laws I got through my Democrat legislature are the accomplishments that give me the most pride and personal satisfaction. I banned partial birth abortion, I required parental notification, I required that a woman give informed consent before having an abortion, I required that a woman be told her baby will experience pain and be given the option of anesthesia for her baby, I allowed a woman to have her baby and leave the child safely at a hospital, and I made it a crime for an unborn child to be injured or murdered during an attack on his mother."

"What I accomplished as Governor proves that there is a lot more that a pro-life President can do than wait for a Supreme Court vacancy, and I will do everything I can to promote a pro-life agenda and pass pro-life legislation. If I'm saddled with a Democrat Congress, I'll veto any pro-abortion legislation they pass. I will staff all relevant positions with pro-life appointees. I will use the Bully Pulpit to change hearts and minds, to move this country from a culture of death to a culture of life. I have no desire to throw women in jail, I just want us to stop throwing babies in the garbage."

The Romney camp and some pundits are wrongly claiming that a vote for Mike Huckabee is a "vote for John McCain." That grossly misrepresents the process. [Misrepresentation is apparently a fundamental value in the Romney camp]

Only 8% of the delegates to the GOP convention have been awarded and Governor Huckabee has a competitive share.

Moreover, Michael Medved has pointed out the irrationality of the Romney-ian/Hannity/Rush vote-stealing canard:

"So, has Huckabee now suddenly morphed into a true conservative just to give Romniacs an excuse for the failure of their guy to rally the rightwing base?
Either the elite commentators were wrong when they labeled Huckabee a “liberal populist,” or they are wrong now when they say he’s stealing conservative votes from Romney. The only other alternative is that they view conservative voters as just too stupid to see Huckabee for what he really is. . . .

In other words, it makes no sense to say McCain had moderates to himself while Mitt had to struggle with other conservatives – especially since Rush, Sean, Savage, Laura and countless others relentlessly [MALICIOUSLY AND WRONGLY] labeled Huckabee as a “moderate” or a “liberal,” who would be competing for those votes with Mac and Rudy, rather than drawing conservative votes from Romney."

For those of us who really know Governor Huckabee's strong, consistent conservative record and positions (and the liberal flip-flopping of Mitt Romney), the error of the elites is clear.

Governor Huckabee can still win the nomination if he has the support of enough thougtful consistent conservative voters. Moreover, it's of critical importance for Governor Huckabee to have a large block of firmly-committed delegates at the GOP convention, both to influence the GOP platform on the issues of importance to traditional conservatives, and to determine who is ultimately the GOP nominee (it is possible than no candidate will have enough votes to win prior to the Convention).

Governor Huckabee has advised his supporters that "We just finished a campaign event here in Arkansas. The crowd was great and very enthusiastic. Arkansas will lead the way for us tomorrow as we begin to add to our delegate count. Polls in Missouri, Tennessee, Georgia and Alabama also show this race too close to call. We are in the middle of the fight for the Republican nomination and our hopes are running high."

What we need to do tomorrow is turnout every Huckabee supporter we can.

Go to www.mikehuckabee.com to see how you can help.

And above all, remember to vote against the Gucci Chameleon, "Slick Willard" Mitt Romney on Super Tuesday. Mitt-the-flip is no true conservative. He's a soulless, "say anything" snake in a slick Armani skin.

WHAT "CHANGE" MEANS TO MITT ROMNEY

Rob Bryant (reprinted from www.mikehuckabee.com)
02/04/2008 01:33 PM

Mitt Romney - "The Candidate of Change"

Mitt Romney was Pro-Life, then he CHANGED.

Mitt Romney was Pro-Choice, then he CHANGED

Mitt Romney was in favor of gun control, including bans on assault rifles and handguns, then he CHANGED.

Mitt Romney favored secret timetables for withdrawal from Iraq, then he CHANGED.

Mitt Romney supported Civil Unions and the right for Gays to marry. Now he has CHANGED.

Mitt Romney said he was a life long hunter, but after he was caught in this lie he CHANGED his story.

Mitt Romney said he saw his father march with Martin Luther King, after being caught in this lie, he CHANGED his story.

Mitt Romney said Mike Huckabee is a liberal. Now he has CHANGED his story and is complaining that Huckabee is bleeding off his conservative vote.

Mitt Romney wanted to raise taxes in Massachusetts so he CHANGED their name to fees.

Mitt Romney said he was not a part of the Reagan-Bush thing, then he CHANGED his story to say he would rebuild the house that Reagan built.

Romney is the candidate of change alright, but his change involves his positions on many key issues. We cannot trust this man.