National Review Editors Not Buying what Huck's Selling

In an editorial titled "Right Questions; Wrong Answers" the National Review has crossed Mike Huckabee off their list.

What Republicans need is a new domestic policy to address today’s concerns.

Unfortunately, what Huckabee offers by way of solutions is a mixture of populism and big-government liberalism; the common theme of his policies is that they are half-baked. If an ill-considered slogan can be used to justify a policy, he is for it. He is a protectionist, because we need to have “fair trade.” He wants to put illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship, because we need them “to do jobs that are going unfilled because nobody here wants to do them.” Energy subsidies and farm subsidies must be increased, because they’re a matter of “national security.”

When he was governor of Arkansas, these instincts led Huckabee to move farther and farther in a statist direction. (Education policy offers a nice example of what happens when his statism and his social conservatism conflict: He opposes meaningful school choice.) The Cato Institute gave him a D on fiscal policy, noting that spending had increased at three times the rate of inflation during his governorship. Not surprisingly, Huckabee is the one Republican candidate who flinched when President Bush vetoed the Democrats’ proposed expansion of S-CHIP. He says he is against socialized medicine, but don’t look for him to resist the drift toward it.

On domestic issues Huckabee makes one major departure from welfare-state liberalism, and it is a doozy. He says he is “running to completely eliminate all federal income and payroll taxes,” by implementing a national sales tax: “When the FairTax becomes law, it will be like waving a magic wand releasing us from pain and unfairness.” This proposal would almost certainly make a presidential nominee unelectable. But even if he got elected, it would be impossible to deliver. To bar the door on the income tax we would need to amend the Constitution. Otherwise we would end up with the income tax and Huckabee’s sales tax. We would call it a pipe dream, if Huckabee weren’t so anti-smoking.

Several of the Republican presidential candidates share Huckabee’s views on abortion and same-sex marriage. On domestic-policy issues, however, he stands alone. Thankfully.

"Ouch, Ouch, and OUCH" I hear the Huckabee camp's cries as they take those body blows.

The people of Iowa need to be educated about that Fair Tax argument . . . and the inherent hypocrisy that Huck has signed on to the "No New Taxes" pledge . . . but is promising to break it if he can with this Fair Tax. I think Mikey has some "splanin" to do, eh?

Anti-Romney/Anti-Mormon Push-Polling and Shameful Accusations

Well, it's been an interesting couple of days on the Anti-Romney/Anti-Mormon Push-Polling in Iowa and New Hampshire.

First off, hats off to Justin Hart of My Man Mitt who has been getting some inside info from a Western Wats source and has been on top of the debate (scroll through the posts there for the last couple of days to get all the updates and the "real-time" feel of how the accusations have been flying).

I was shocked this morning by National Review Online's Mark Hemingway who wrote the following in his piece titled "Did Mitt Romney Push Poll Himself?" (real subtle there Mark):

However, there’s a growing chorus of voices speculating Romney push polled himself. “I smell a dirty trick. I suspect a pro-Romney motive to inoculate against future use of the religious issue and to breed sympathy for Romney … a 20-minute call is the work of an amateur. The long call is designed to get ALL the negatives out, to put them off limits for future attacks,” Roger Stone — a master of Republican dirty tricks — told The Politico’s Jonathan Martin. Stone pointed out that Robert F. Kennedy was behind anti-Catholic campaign tricks — calls and literature — to help get the first Catholic president elected. An anonymous website attacking Fred Thompson with ties to the Romney consultants in South Carolina earlier this cycle suggests such earnestness may not be below Romney campaigners.

Asked if it’s reasonable to think a campaign would do such a thing — push poll itself — one political consultant familiar with phone banking and dirty tricks who asked not to be identified told NRO, “I’ve done it,” he said. “But it’s usually the kind of thing that you do in a close state-senate race, not a stunt you pull under the scrutiny a presidential campaign is subjected to.”

. . .

The Romney campaign, ultimately, has the power to clarify any misconceptions. If there is a relationship between the two firms, then Alex Gage and Target Point should immediately clarify the extent and nature of the work that it has contracted out to Western Wats to end speculation and exonerate Romney.

Next, The Directors of RedState (as a group) penned the following piece titled "Overplaying the Bigotry Card:Romney's Chief Strategist Behind Un-American Calls?"

They end their piece which ramped up speculation that Romney's Team was Push-Polling itself with this doozy:

And as for Alex Gage and the Romney associates who are apparently behind these efforts: in a campaign where the faith of your candidate has been respected by the overwhelming majority of voters and activists, you've managed to create out of thin air the kind of bigoted attack that cheapens the process and expects the worst of the American people. Nice strategy, folks. We hope you're happy.

Can you believe that slander?

Well, it turns out that these media savvy writers/bloggers didn't have the sense or professionalism to even contact Gage or the polling firm they implicate before going forward with the story. Gage responded with some classic lines that NRO published with their head editor KLo offering a mea culpa:

To set the record straight: TargetPoint Consulting has absolutely nothing to do with the calls in question. To be even clearer: TargetPoint Consulting has NEVER and will NEVER conduct a push-poll. . . .

It is very disappointing that the person who wrote this piece included the bizarre fabrication that perhaps the Romney campaign push-polled itself. . . .

Neither I nor TargetPoint was contacted before publication of this piece. Not by email. Not by voice mail. If the person representing National Review had bothered to take this most basic journalistic step, we would have told him on the record that TargetPoint Consulting had nothing to do with this and that his theory was entirely erroneous and absent any merit. The truth would have dulled the sensationalism considerably – probably to the point that responsibility would have dictated not publishing it at all.

I am not sure what, if any, motives the author may have, but now that it has been published, this piece has unfairly smeared me, my firm and the Romney campaign.

We can only hope in the future that National Review will be more consistently involved in reporting the news, and not taking off on detours into the fever-swamps of loony conspiracies. If there is any mystery to be uncovered regarding these polls, it will be by real reporting and not irresponsible speculation that tramples the good names of reputable pollsters and polling firms.

Sincerely,

Alex Gage
TargetPoint Consulting
Alexandria, Va.

EDITOR'S NOTE: NRO did not contact TargetPoint and should have. —KJL

Hemingway, though, seems to be digging his heels in the sand:

TargetPoint Consulting — one of the Mitt Romney campaign's primary consultants — is not happy with my story this morning that notes publicly reported connections between their company and a firm that performed push polls against Romney in Iowa and New Hampshire.

I've read TargetPoint's response numerous times and it doesn't invalidate my story or address the specific nature of their relationship with the firm that allegedly made anti-Mormon calls against Romney. I'll report more as I ask more questions.

The RedState Directors said they'd respond to Gage's defense "soon enough" . . . but that was over 12 hours ago (which is an ETERNITY in blogging terms). We're still waiting.

Many of us feel that our candidate isn't getting a fair shake from either the MSM or the conservative pundits/bloggers in general. This kind of behavior of "eating their own young" doesn't inspire confidence and shows how biased some of these apparent "reporters" are.

Sad Sad Sad.

The Dark Side of Huckabee?

Found this article written by an Arkansas native, his views on Huckabee coming from the "inside" of the state lines. It reads a bit sensationalist, but I haven't found anything printed disputing these claims. Read highlights below or click on link for entire original text:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/11/13/huckabee/

The dark side of Mike Huckabee

The national media seems to have a crush on our ex-governor, but here in Arkansas, we know better.

By Max Brantley

Nov. 13, 2007 LITTLE ROCK, Ark. -- The Pony Express has reached us here in the Arkansas backwoods with the latest journals from the big cities. So the country correspondents have taken a break from hand-setting lines of type to read the Beltway boys and girls rave about our former governor, Mike Huckabee.

"Easy to like," wrote Newsweek's Jonathan Alter. "Who Doesn't Heart Huckabee?"
said the headline over Gail Collins' column in the New York Times. And those are
restrained commentators. If you Google the names Ronald Reagan and Mike Huckabee
in tandem, I understand you get better than 600,000 hits.

Come to
Arkansas. You'll have to look hard to find a long-term political analyst who'd
subscribe fully to the national media narrative about the latest man from Hope
-- fresh face, funny, nice.

His administration paid $15,000 to settle a suit filed by Roby Brock, the host of a public TV news show whom Huckabee's people tried to force off the air for his critical commentary.

Huckabee seems to love loot and has a dismissive attitude toward ethics, campaign finance rules and propriety in general. Since that first, failed campaign, the ethical questions have multiplied.

In the 1992 contest with Bumpers, Huckabee used campaign funds to pay himself as his own media consultant. Other payments went to the family babysitter.

In his successful 1994 run for lieutenant governor, he set up a nonprofit curtain known as Action America so he could give speeches for money without having to disclose the names of his benefactors. He failed to report that campaign travel payments were for the use of his own personal plane.

After he became governor in 1996, he raked in tens of thousands of dollars in gifts, including gifts from people he later appointed to prestigious state commissions.

In the governor's office, his grasp never exceeded his reach. Furniture he'd received to doll up his office was carted out with him when he left, after he'd crushed computer hard drives so nobody could ever get a peek behind the curtain of the Huckabee administration.

Until my paper, the Arkansas Times, blew the whistle, he converted a governor's mansion operating account into a personal expense account, claiming public money for a doghouse, dry-cleaning bills, panty hose and meals at Taco Bell. He tried to claim $70,000 in furnishings provided by a wealthy cotton grower for the private part of the residence as his own, until he learned ethics rules prevented it. When a disgruntled former employee disclosed memos revealing all this, the Huckabee camp shut her up by repeatedly suggesting she might be vulnerable to prosecution for theft because she'd shared documents generated by the state's highest official.

He ran the State Police airplane into the ground, many of the miles in pursuit of political ends. Inauguration funds were used to buy clothing for his wife. He once took control of the state Republican Party's campaign account -- then swore the account had been somebody else's responsibility when it ran afoul of federal election laws. He repeated the pattern when he claimed in a newspaper story that his staff controlled the account to stage his second inauguration. When I filed a formal ethics complaint over what appeared to be an improper appropriation of donated money, he told a different story, disavowing responsibility for the money. He thus avoided another punishment from an Ethics Commission, which had sanctioned him on five other occasions. He dodged nine other complaints (though none, despite his counter-complaints, was held to be frivolous). In one case, he was saved by the swing vote of a woman who left the chairmanship of the Ethics Commission days later to take a state job. She listed the governor as a reference on the job application. Finally, unbelievably, Huckabee once sued to overturn the ban on gifts to him.

Thanks to such unhappy people, we've broken numerous stories about Huckabee,
from the first early word of his destruction of state computer hard drives (more
fully reported by the Democrat-Gazette); to the time and place of his
announcement for president; to his sale and purchase of homes; to his infamous
"wedding registry." About the last: Three decades after the Huckabees' wedding,
his wife registered at department stores so their new home, post-governor's
mansion, could be stocked with gifts of linens, toasters and other suitable
furnishings. In early 2007, our reporting also prompted the former first lady to
decline dozens of place settings of governor's mansion china and Irish crystal
that had been purchased with tax-deductible contributions to the Governor's
Mansion Association, nominally set up to improve the mansion, not to buy
going-away presents for former occupants. (Huckabee's governorship ended on Jan.
9, 2007.)

Etc, etc, etc......

New Commercial : Romney on Family Values

Rudy Giuliani Masters the TRUE "Flip-Flop"

We Romney supporters are obviously a little sensitive to the "Flip-Flopper" label that Romney has unfairly acquired. We realize that there's not much to attack Mitt on his current policies or on his personal/professional/political conduct and so opponents have to fall back on the only thing they apparently have on him, the so-called "Flip Flop" label. That he's from Massachusetts like Mr. John "Flip Flop" Kerry seems (to them at least) to add credence to their name calling.

However, let's remember that Kerry got that reputation for going from one side of the issue to the other AND THEN BACK TO HIS ORIGINAL POSITION. In other words, not only did his record show that he had been on both sides of many major issues, but that he'd been on one of those sides MORE THAN ONCE. That was hard to defend on logical or on a "I've grown" basis. Claiming that he was just very "nuanced" didn't sit well either with the American public. It was just unadulterated political opportunism and everyone saw right through it. That was/is the TRUE Flip Flop and that is why Kerry lost. I know Romney's record thoroughly and can't think of an issue where he's done that kind of political issue gymnastics.

Well, after reading a few weeks back about Rudy's TRUE flip flop on illegal immigration (where he talked like a "secure the borders and deport them all" tough guy before becoming NYC mayor where he became Sanctuary Rudy . . . and now he's BACK to talking like a tough guy again) I made a mental note of it. One issue may have just be an aberration, I thought.

But now Rudy's giving us more evidence that he's Master of the "TRUE Flip Flop" . . . this time on the key issue of health care. I've detailed that in another post. Are we starting to see a pattern here?

Sure, it may appear ironic to the skeptic or the uninformed for a Romney supporter to attack any other candidate as a "flip-flopper." However, Romney has only truly "flipped" his POSITION on one major issue (abortion) and only shifted his rhetoric on a few others. But who hasn't? The list of McCain's Flips (McFlips) is quite long. Rudy's got a growing list over at The Mitt Report that I'll paste in below:

-Health Care
-Supporting the Red Sox
-Line Item Veto
-Taxes
-Supporting George Soros and Being A Republican
-Immigration
-Congress' Schiavo action
-Gun support
-Abortion
-Civil unions
-Perjury

So why is Romney the only one they call a "flip flopper" now? It's because they ain't got nothing else and so they have to beat this horse to death. It's already getting old and tired IMO.

Thoughts? Comments?

By his own definition, Rudy was against "socialized medicine" before he was passionately for it, now that he's against it again

First, some context. Recently, Giuliani attacked efforts to expand the children’s health insurance program (SCHIP) calling it “socialized medicine.”

Furthermore, the NYTimes reported yesterday:

In an interview last month on New Hampshire radio, Mr. Giuliani said that expanding the children’s program was a “typical Democratic, Clinton kind of thing” and that enrolling more children “is not just a beginning, it’s a big step in the direction of government-controlled medicine.”

But what did Rudy used to think about such programs?

Some Rudy supporters may claim that such statements mirror his record as mayor of NYC.

He began his tenure in City Hall vowing to curb the role of government in health care. He removed large numbers of people from welfare. He tried, but failed, to sell off New York City’s public hospital system. And he discouraged New Yorkers from enrolling in Medicaid, the government health program for the poor, telling city health officials that the program was a “bad idea.”

. . .

Mr. Jones, president of the Community Service Society, a liberal research and advocacy group in New York, said that in Mr. Giuliani’s first term, in setting out his complaints that the city was paying too much for Medicaid, he wanted the board to state publicly that Medicaid was a “bad idea.”

That's some "red meat" conservatism, eh?

But the problem for Rudy is that he later went on to strongly promote Medicaid enrollment as well as other healthcare enrollment initiatives thus landing a perfect 10.0 on the TRUE "Flip-Flop" meter (you know, the Kerryesque kind of flip flop of being on both sides of same issue repeatedly.) You want evidence?

in the spring of 2000 . . . he suddenly announced that the city would embark on one of the most aggressive efforts in the country to enroll children and adults in public health programs like Medicaid and Child Health Plus, the state insurance program for children.

He named his effort HealthStat, after his aggressive and widely praised crime reporting program, CompStat. He said he would follow the same course on insurance: he would root out the uninsured as he had rooted out criminals

. . .

In 2000, Mr. Giuliani . . . [announced] his effort to enroll as many as one million more city residents in government health programs.

Addressing the City Council and other city officials, Mr. Giuliani, commanding the room like a general marshaling his troops, said: “The first priority in dealing with the universe of people who are not enrolled in health insurance is to enroll as many children as possible. All city agencies are going to be mobilized.”

Pointing to maps of the city neighborhoods with many uninsured residents, he went on to detail an elaborate plan that would involve weekly reports on enrollment progress. “This is something that in a city like ours, if we can do this, becomes a model for the rest of this country . . ."

. . .

Mr. Giuliani’s effort as mayor to triple the number of New Yorkers with health insurance through government programs appears nowhere in his own description of his record on his presidential campaign Web site. And Mr. Giuliani has attacked efforts in Congress to expand the children’s health insurance program that his administration doggedly expanded, calling it “socialized medicine.” During Congress’s recent battle on the issue, Mr. Giuliani aligned himself with President Bush to limit coverage. Mr. Giuliani’s campaign declined to make him available for an interview for this article.

Some are seeing the flip-floppery here:

Mr. Giuliani’s critics say that his changing views and policies on health insurance during his eight years in City Hall are a prime example of the kind of political expediency that has defined him as a mayor and now as a presidential candidate. His current market-based proposals on health care — which would give consumers tax benefits to buy their own insurance and the poor some combination of tax refunds and vouchers — seem to have him campaigning against his own record in some ways, they say.

“It’s not the first issue he’s done a 180 on,” said Fran Reiter, a Democrat who was a deputy mayor under Mr. Giuliani and ran his 1997 re-election campaign. “I think it’s hard to ask people to judge you on your record when you’ve now walked away from what is a very clear record when you were mayor.”

I would just correct Fran Reiter that Rudy hasn't just done a "180" on this issue, he's done a full "360." Can this man be trusted?

New Commercial : Romney vs. Hillary, no comparison

Getting Dirty VERY Early . . . anti-Mormon/anti-Romney push polling in Iowa

Somebody's behind this and it's getting ugly folks.

A firm with previous connections to Rudy is conducting anti-Mormon/anti-Romney/pro-McCain push polling in Iowa.

In an apparent push poll, a research firm has called Iowa Republicans this week praising John McCain and critcizing Mitt Romney and his Mormon faith.

An individual in Manchester, Iowa, contacted me on Wednesday night saying he received a call with information about McCain's military service and anti-spending record.

Then there were "lots of negatives on Romney," said the recepient of the call in an e-mail, including mentions of his "flip-flops," hiring illegal immigrants as landscapers and extensive discussion of Mormonism.

"Statements were on baptizing the dead, the Book of Mormon being on the level of the Bible, and one about equating it to a cult," said the Iowan, deeming them "common criticisms of Mormonism."

"I think they asked twice if being a Mormon would be an issue," this person added.

The person conducting the call said he didn't know who they were polling for, said the source.

Both McCain's and Rudy's camps are in full denial . . . but this one's not passing the "smell test".

Team Romney responded with this:

"Whatever campaign is engaging in this type of awful religious bigotry as a line of political attack, it is repulsive and, to put it bluntly, un-American. There is no excuse for these attacks. Governor Romney is campaigning as an optimist who wants to lead the nation. These attacks are just the opposite. It's ugly and divisive."

There is the chance that this is the work of a 527 or done at the behest of an anti-Mormon organization.

This "my friends" (to borrow McCain's moldy line) is politics at it's worst.

Romney in Iowa next week, including IOWA CITY!

Please Join Governor Mitt Romney for “Ask Mitt Anything” Town Hall Meetings Tuesday, November 20th and Wednesday, November 21st. It is a great opportunity to meet Governor Romney and hear about his vision for America !


Tuesday, November 20th, 2007

11:45 AM Health Care “Ask Mitt Anything” Town Hall Meeting
Des Moines University Student Education Center, 3200 Grand Ave. , Des Moines , Iowa

5:00 PM Jasper County “Ask Mitt Anything” Town Hall Meeting
Newton Country Club, 601 West 12th St. South , Newton , Iowa

Wednesday, November 21st, 2007

8:05 AM Washington County “Ask Mitt Anything” Town Hall Meeting
Coffee Corner, 104 West Main St. , Washington , Iowa

9:45 AM Health Care “Ask Mitt Anything” Town Hall Meeting
Carver College of Medicine at The University of Iowa
MERF Atrium, 375 Newton Rd. , Iowa City , Iowa



Governor Romney looks forward to meeting you and answering your questions.
Please RSVP by calling 888-722-4704 ext 200 or emailing IowaRSVP@MittRomney.com

Rudy Hearts Huckabee . . . and vice versa

The two love each other . . . at least in Iowa, and as long as it will hurt their main competitor, Mitt Romney. Many of us who have been following the message boards have been seeing Rudy supporter pump up Huckabee like crazy (even though he's the antithesis to their candidate). Now even the major news sources are seeing that they have a common goal . . . take down Romney:

Meanwhile, he and Giuliani appear to have an unspoken alliance, teaming up against Romney while simultaneously praising each other. Giuliani has not given great emphasis to early test states like Iowa or New Hampshire, even though he’ll begin airing his first television ad this week in New Hampshire. But Huckabee’s success in Iowa could help Giuliani by deflating Romney’s standing.

“I think Mike’s a wonderful guy. I have great regard for him and I have nothing bad to say about Mike Huckabee,” Giuliani said Wednesday in Council Bluffs, Iowa.

Huckabee offered similar sentiments: “There is an authenticity about Rudy that people find refreshing, and I think the same is true in my campaign.”

What to these guys gain?

Huckabee’s thinking: “Praise Rudy and either 1) get a VP offer, 2) steer clear from his oppo research department 3) get to possibly be the social conservative in the Rudy vs last social conservative standing show down”

Rudy’s thinking: “Praise Mike to help him derail Mitt in Iowa . . . then rip the poor sucker to shreds. Hey, I’d much rather run against Huckabee than Mitt!”

YouTube of Fox News: "Huckabee Caught Lying About His Tax Hikes"

Not a good day for Huckabee:

Text here:

CAMERON: Now that Huckabee is within striking distance, an old video has emerged from before his 100-pound weight loss, when he called for tax increases as Arkansas Governor.

HUCKABEE: The surcharge on the income tax. That’s acceptable.

CAMERON: This morning, he said those tax hikes were in response to a court decision.

HUCKABEE: That was in the context of the Supreme Court order that we had to fund education at a higher level.

CAMERON: In fact, that’s not true. In a Huckabee campaign statement this afternoon, they acknowledged that the tax hikes were to cover a general revenue shortfall in the state budget.

Just like Republicans are more damaged by “scandals” than Democrats because of the “Family Values” label . . . Huckabee is going to be overly damaged for dishonesty since he’s the candidate claiming to be most aligned with and supported by the Christian Right.

More detailed info confirming this dishonesty on this issue comes from Huck's home state (Arkansas Journal). Lot's of facts and details there.

However, there's a BIGGER PICTURE here . . .

What is being overlooked is potentially more damaging to him than dishonesty. It's his blatant fiscal liberalism.

Even if he really was facing a "court-ordered $100 million funding of education" budget gap HIS IMMEDIATE AND KNEE-JERK REACTION WAS TO RAISE TAXES!

How about CUTTING SPENDING MIKE?!

Now a quick game of compare and contrast:

• Huckabee's only solution to a $100 budget deficit: "RAISE TAXES . . . ANY TAXES, PLEASE."
• Romney's solution when faced with a figure THIRTY TIMES THAT ($3 Billion) in the state budget deficit: Balance the budget WITHOUT RAISING ANY TAXES!
  

That's the major difference between Mitt and Mike. One can and has accomplished amazing achievements . . . the other looks for the easy way out of problems.

An Oldie But a Goodie: The Real Romney Is Consistent

I've blogged before (here and here) that Romney was never close to being the liberal that some are claiming. First, though, I'll let the flyer do the talking:


Aside from the well documented, AND WELCOMED, shift on abortion he's been a solid conservative then and now (BTW Romney vetoed the "employer mandate" portion of the MA healthcare plan which was not a "Government Takeover of Health Care" by any stretch of the imagintion) .

It's also notable that Romney supported "Tougher Measures to Stop Illegal Immigration" back in 1994 (supposedly his most "un-conservative" campaign) when Immigration wasn't nearly the hot-button issue that it is today. Something tells me that Romney's got the best record and current position on immigration of anyone in the field of front-runners. This will serve him well.

I can't tell you how many times I've read/heard that Mitt has "flipped on every political issue" or that he used to be a liberal. The fact that he's been consistant on 23 of the 24 (or 96%) issues in this flyer speaks volumes. This past May I posted a blog entry about when McCain's camp was viciously and errantly going after Romney's record. They didn't seem to like facing the facts then . . . and times haven't changed in this regard.

Romney first GOP candidate to open Sioux City office

Read all about the first GOP candidate office in Sioux City office.
http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/11/13/news/top/1fdb577dff5e32638625739100770f68.txt

Romney first GOP candidate to open Sioux City office
By Bret Hayworth
Journal staff writer

SIOUX CITY -- When former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney opens his presidential campaign office today in Sioux City, he will become the first Republican to create a local public office for staffers to work voters for their support.Meanwhile, all six of the top-polling Democratic presidential candidates have had city offices up and running for months. The list includes downtown offices for Chris Dodd, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton, near northside locations for Bill Richardson and Barack Obama and one in the Morningside area for Joe Biden.On Monday, as young staffers were setting up the office, Romney's Iowa campaign manager, Gentry Collins, touted the addition as highlighting the importance of Northwest Iowa to Romney.

Collins noted Romney has campaigned 10 days, involving 30 events, in Northwest Iowa in 2007."The impact that Northwest Iowa has on the nomination contest cannot be overlooked, and we certainly aren't overlooking it," Collins said.He added that "Northwest Iowa represents the base of our party," and there's no place "where the Republican values are more alive and well.""Romney has made such a large investment in Iowa," Woodbury County Republican Party chairman Kevin Alons said.Romney created his main Iowa office in Urbandale in March, with the Sioux City office the second. Another will be set up later this week in Bettendorf, Collins said.

Other GOP candidates with at least one campaign office in Iowa include Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo.In office placement decisions, Collins said there's "a different paradigm on the Democratic side than on the Republican side." He noted Obama has 35 offices in the Hawkeye State; he opened his first one in February."We think that to run a caucus campaign in the Iowa tradition, it has to be a grassroots organization built up of Iowans," said Obama's Iowa spokesman, Tommy Vietor. "We feel like if we have an office in a number of places across the state, that gives Iowans ownership in the campaign. It makes it a grassroots effort of Iowans reaching out to other Iowans. We think that is how you do well in Iowa."Alons said Democrats seem to be putting more effort into winning the Iowa caucuses, since it's a more competitive race.

He said such Republican candidates as John McCain,
Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson see Iowa as "locked up" for Romney, so they're
devoting resources of money, people and, yes, offices to other places "where
they are more in play."

"It would be great if they had headquarters here," Alons said, but as the Jan. 3 caucus date approaches, he doesn't expect other Republican offices to open.The Democratic candidates' offices are in places that have turned over frequently on the market, and Biden's is in a former ice cream shop. Joe Krage, a Realtor with United Real Estate Solutions, said officeseekers want low rent payments, a highly visible location and a short lease, preferably six months. Most of the offices opened midsummer and have leases set to expire in January."I'd say anything more than $1,000 a month is more than they are willing to spend. If you can give them a low price and throw in a couple desks, they jump all over it," Krage said.Bret Hayworth may be reached at (712) 293.4203 or brethayworth@siouxcityjournal.com

Two New Iowa Polls: Romney Leads Solidly, but Huckabee is new FOTM (Flavor of the Month)

Two new Iowa Polls out today:

CBS/NYT GOP Iowa Caucus Poll, conducted Nov. 2nd-12th, 2007 (no previous polling from this firm to compare to)

• Mitt Romney 27%
• Mike Huckabee 21%
• Rudy Giuliani 15%
• Fred Thompson 9%
• John McCain 4%
• Ron Paul 4%
• Tom Tancredo 3%

Huckabee's supporters are airing this one far and wide (can you blame them?) . . . however, this is the highest Huckabee has ever polled in Iowa. He is to Iowa social conservatives what Fred Thompson was to national social conservatives a few months back . . . i.e. "The Flavor of the Month." Huckabee's record is far worse than Fred Thompson's. He's a much better speaker/campaigner than Fred, but his open-borders immigration history and his fiscal liberalism will be thoroughly exposed. It's pretty obvious that he's not quite what his current supporters think he is (sounds like Fred, eh?). Fred had a good line by calling Huckabee a "Pro-life liberal." . . . now for the next poll.

Strategic Vision GOP Iowa Caucus
(Poll from 4 weeks ago in parenthesis for comparison)

• Mitt Romney 30% (27%)
• Mike Huckabee 19% (12%)
• Rudy Giuliani 12% (13%)
• Fred Thompson 11% (10%)
• John McCain 7% (5%)
• Ron Paul 5% (4%)
• Tom Tancredo 2% (2%)
• Duncan Hunter 1% (1%)
• Undecided 13% (22%)

Brownback had 4% in last month's poll and was excluded here because he dropped out. Maybe Huck and McCain got little slices of that small piece of the pie. Also, the undecideds are way down. (Huck and Romney must have picked up some of these).

All told and even including these polls, the Real Clear Politics Iowa Average has Mitt with a 13% lead. This will likely shrink . . . but the sky is not falling.

Huckabee Begged for New Taxes . . . ANY TAXES . . . "And you will have nothing but my profound thanks"

All I can say is "Wow!"

Above is Huckabee (granted quite a few years ago) BEGGING his Democratic dominated legislature to essentially pass ANY tax (sales, income, cigarette, etc . . .). He promises that if they pass any of these taxes "you will have nothing but my profound thanks." Unbelievable.

At the start of the video he said he wanted to get this "on the record" . . . well, he sure got his wish, eh?

Read the reactions and comment on this at "Arkansas Journal: Arkansas Conservative Blog" . . . an increasingly informative site for all things Huckabee.

He's definitely changed his tune now-a-days and has signed onto the Americans for Tax Reform's "No New Taxes" Pledge. But, he's already sort of broken that pledge as he's a key supporter of the "Fair Tax" and has said he'll work to get that passed. Although supporters of that tax claim that it's "revenue neutral", many don't believe it will be, and nearly everyone admits that some middle income and upper income (excluding the ultra rich) Americans will be paying much more in taxes under such a plan. Seems like Mike is trying to have it both ways, eh?

Wan't more info on Mike Huckabee? This post at Red State by a Fred Thompson supporter was very enlightening to me.