Huckabee’s Ad Answers Campaign Fatigue

Has the Boom Gone Bust?

Romney supporter Hugh Hewitt has been quite delighted with recent polling data. Huckabee’s solid leads in Iowa and South Carolina have evaporated with both races now statistical dead heats with Mitt Romney. The South Carolina Rasmussen results are most telling. Huckabee only lost two points, but Romney gained five while Thompson lost six, ultimately indicating that some conservative are getting skittish and coalescing around Romney.

This would further indicate the triangulation game I’ve referred to in the past. History bares repeating, and a clear pattern exists.

In 1996, three men came out of Iowa and New Hampshire strong, with Bob Dole considered the front-runner, Pat Buchanan the primary insurgent, and Lamar Alexander a mainstream conservative. What happened in 1996 is that mainstream conservatives were scared to vote for Alexander for fear it would help Buchanan, who was believed to be a disaster. Alexander was forced out.

In 2000, George W. Bush was the front-runner, John McCain the primary insurgent, and Alan Keyes the religious conservative. In South Carolina, many conservatives who favored Keyes voted for Bush to stop McCain.

Romney’s people have got to be looking at this pattern. Here’s how they hope it plays out. Romney emerges as the frontrunner, Huckabee as the religious conservative, and Giuliani as the moderate. Giuliani and Huckabee between them probably make 70-80% of the party’ upset. Romney can play Huckabee on the economic conservatives, and play Giuliani on the Social Conservatives, and pull off a near perfect primary season.

This is the danger of having an insurgent who scares both sides of the party to death, because this always happens.

Patrick Ruffini also considers Romney now the prohibitive frontrunner for other reasons. However, for Mitt’s scenario to play out, he’s still got to win some primaries, and that’s going to be a challenge with what else we’ve got to talk about.

Huck’s Ad

Ron Paul raising $6.03 million would be thought to be the story of the day on the 17th, but he got overshadowed by a Christmas ad from the cash-strapped Huckabee campaign.

The ad won immediate praise from those getting a first look at it. Wrote Jim Geraghty:

I don’t think it’s any big secret that I’ve got my gripes with Mike Huckbee, but his latest ad, going up tomorrow in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, is brilliant. Absolutely brilliant.

It’s simple – just Huckabee in a red Christmas sweater, saying he’s sure the viewers are “worn out” from political commercials, and so he’s just going to take a moment for “what really matters” – wishing them a Merry Christmas – and mentioning that the holid[a]y is a celebration of the birth of Christ. “Silent Night” plays quietly on the piano in the background.

It’s soft, warm, and pleasant. In fact, no matter how the presidential campaign turns out, I’d watch a Mike Huckabee Christmas Special.

The effect of the ad is pretty clear. One, Huckabee places himself “above it all.” He’s taking the high road and speaking to people in the language they would prefer: “Merry Christmas.” It also has the effect of making any candidate running a negative ad, particularly on Huckabee, look cheap tawdry and scroogish.

After that, the ad became controversial because it was overtly religious, and many pointed to the shelf [window] behind Huckabee, which formed the shape of a cross. Many have suggested this was intentional on Huckabee’s part, but I simply don’t buy it. Byron York describes the ad’s filming as follows:

The result was that a few days later, after returning to Arkansas late at night from an exhausting campaign swing through Iowa, Huckabee found himself in a private home in Little Rock, sitting in front of a camera in a red sweater, wishing everybody a Merry Christmas. The ad was all concept; there was no script. The camera rolled, and Huckabee ad-libbed the message. The first take was two seconds too long. Huckabee did it again, hitting the time right on the money, and the ad — called “What Really Matters” — was done.

So, let’s get this straight. Mike Huckabee goes into a house that’s not his own, and intentionally sets this up. Did the campaign move the Christmas tree to be sure to get the bookshelf in the right light, or did they say, “Hey, Governor, sit here beside the tree.” Or did they look for a residence with a Christmas Tree conveniently set near a bookshelf so they could make it look like a cross. Huckabee was right to joke about this:

“Actually I will confess this, if you play this spot backwards it says ‘Paul is Dead, Paul is Dead, Paul is Dead,’” the presidential candidate joked to reporters in Houston Tuesday. “So the next thing you know, someone will be playing it backwards to find out the subliminal messages that are really there.”…

However, there’s a far more serious objection to the ad. My wife when she watched it didn’t like it from the start. Romney supporter Kathryn Jean Lopez found the ad brilliantly offensive:

Ideally, I want a candidate whose faith informs their world view (they believe in God, they look to the Scripture for guidance and they pray often for strength and wisdom). However, what I don’t want is someone who uses religion as a means to an ends. To me that’s real scary. From his ‘innocent’ question regarding Romney’s religious beliefs to this current ad on television, I think Huck crosses the line. I don’t deny the ad is brilliant. He does something different. Something inviting. (Except to the atheists and agnostics!!) Something that hits mom-and-dad concerns about the secularization of Christmas. Something that completely changes the subject from those critical ads Romney is running on actual policy issues.

The ultimate concern here is treating Christ as a commodity, using Christ for your own gain. I try and be kind to the governor, but many people honestly feel the the best bumper sticker for his car would be, “Jesus is My Best Marketing Ploy.” However, I suspect Iowa voters don’t hold that opinion.

The bottom line is that the ad’s going to make it harder for Romney to gain traction until at least December 27th, one week before the Caucuses.

UPDATE

Ed Morrisey and Erick of Red State agree with me.  John Hawkins thinks its intentional. Mazurland says it all:

Sometimes, especially when you’re not paranoid as hell, bookshelves LOOK LIKE BOOKSHELVES!!!  Freakin’ Amazing, huh?

Indeed.

Endorsement Trouble

Minutemen Founder Jim Gilchrist endorsed Mike Huckabee, but the deal may not stick. Worldnetdaily reports:

In a Dec. 9 Fox News interview, just two days before Gilchrist’s endorsement, Huckabee was questioned by host Chris Wallace about an apparent contradiction between statements last year that he preferred a pathway to citizenship and his current plan. On his campaign website, Huckabee outlines a proposal that would require illegal aliens to repatriate and get on the back of the line, which could mean years for re-entry into the United States.

Huckabee insisted there is no discrepancy, specifying that “the pathway to get back here legally doesn’t take years. It would take days, maybe weeks, and then people could come back in the workforce.”

Asked by WND to respond, Gilchrist backtracked, admitting he may have been mistaken in his initial assumptions about the repatriation provisions of Huckabee’s “Secure America Plan.”

“I’m going to have to follow up on this,” Gilchrist said. “I had not seen before anything in Governor Huckabee’s plan where repatriation and touch-back could involve only days, not years.

“I personally need to talk to Governor Huckabee about this,” he added. “This issue needs to be between Governor Huckabee and me.”

Gilchrist declined to pull his endorsement on the spot, but wants answers from Huckabee. If he doesn’t like the answers, then the deal would be off. A Gilchrist defection would be a huge deal for Huckabee. It also wouldn’t help Gilchrist much if his endorsement was found to be hasty. But Gilchrist is more committed to his issues than his ego, which is why Huckabee is in some trouble.

[UPDATE II

Jim Gilchrist disputes the story: 

But Gilchrist says Corsi's article is not accurate. "I am holding firm. I am endorsing Governor Mike Huckabee for president. I'm not wavering or waffling," he states.

And as for the WorldNetDaily report? "I have to say that Mr. Corsi really made me feel like he was interrogating me like a police investigator or a prosecuting attorney, rather than interviewing me," Gilchrist asserts. "He kept insisting that I was waffling -- and I did not say that; he kept saying that. And apparently he had an agenda."

But Corsi says he sticks by his story. "If Jim can't keep his story straight from one day to the other, ... I'll be happy to play back [for him] the recordings I made of him each day and Jim can listen to himself saying that he was going to reconsider the endorsement of Huckabee,” he says.

Alright, then, if you’ve got the tapes, let’s hear them. Put up or shut up. No nonsense.]

Meanwhile Club for Growth is touting Huckabee’s status as Ohio Governor Ted Strickland (D-OH.)’s favorite Republican candidate:

But he’s the kind of combination of conservative views in some ways, but very, almost liberal views in other ways.

Yeah, that and the Corner also points out that Huckabee hasn’t hired anyone to work Michigan or Florida, which have crucial primary contests coming up. However, on the positive side for Huckabee, despite that, polls have shown him close in both states, which raises the question of how important it is get out the vote.

Misfire

I have to admit, I’m puzzled by Hugh Hewitt’s latest anti-Huckabee post. The big theme on conservative blogs is that Huckabee’s far too liberal and suspect on nearly every issue to unite the party and will drive away economic conservatives. Now, Hewitt points to a Mother Jones piece portraying Huckabee as a big time culture warrior. So, let me get this straight, Huckabee’s problem is that he’s too conservative and too liberal? Might want to pick one tact and stick with it.

Ron Paul Throwing About Fascism

Ron Paul’s reaction to Huckabee’s Christmas ad was astounding. On Fox and Friends, Paul said, “Well, I haven’t thought about it completely, but you know, it reminds me of what Sinclair, uh, Lewis once said, he said ‘when Fascism comes to this country, it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross.”

Paul then said he didn’t know if that was a fair assessment or not, but he made it in the first place. Listening to follow up interview several hours later with Jan Mikkelsen he declares himself utterly frustrated with those who wrap themselves in the flag and support the war and how bothered he was by Christians who backed the war.

The support was hugely offensive because the picture Paul paints of Evangelical Christians is that of warmongers marching blindly to fascistic beats. He sounded like an ACLUer or an Atheist blogger.

Fundamentally, one of Paul’s great flaws is his refusal to recognize the human decency of the people who disagree with him. In a party where your views are in the minority, that’s a must. In the end, Paul, and many of his supporters, paint anyone who favors seeing the war effort through to a conclusion as blood-thirsty sheeple hypnotized by the neocons. That may sell some places, but not in the GOP. Paul dropped about two places on my favored candidates list with this gaffe.

Perhaps, this is the key clause, “Well, I haven’t thought about it completely…” Here’s an idea, trying thinking before speaking.

And for the Coup de Grace, the quote doesn’t appear to actually be from Sinclair Lewis according to USA Today.

Paul on Beck

I went down to the neighborhood McDonalds to watch Ron Paul and Glenn Beck meet for the first time. The 1 Hour Sitdown interview wasn’t spectacular, but may have attracted some folks who weren’t familiar with his campaign.

Two issues came up for Paul. One, Beck is into practicalities. He doesn’t just want to know how you want to do, but how you are going to do it. Paul wasn’t very good on this detail. He’s not really a get-things-done guy. Indeed, he proposes interesting ideas all the time that go nowhere.

This leads to an observation. It seems to me that there are three keys to being a successful President: 1) Good policy ideas, 2) determination (i.e. backbone), and 3) An ability to get the job done and move people your way.

Fundamentally, I think the only President in recent memory to have all three of these going on in a strong way was Ronald Reagan. Most Presidents are weak in one or more areas. In the case of a Gerald Ford or a George H.W. Bush, they may be totally weak in all three.

Paul has some interesting ideas and he has some determination, but he fundamentally in 20 years hasn’t really gotten a whole lot done. I still think he serves a necessary purpose in Congress (we could probably use a couple dozen more like him, but with less strident anti-war views) but he’s not a President.

The second moment that was key is that before a long commercial break, Beck told Paul he would feed him some video he wouldn’t show to us at home. Beck explained that he’d had threats on his life and his family had to be protected by a SWAT team for a time thanks to people identifying themselves as Paul supporters.

The break was about five minutes, and Beck stalled for another 45 seconds to a minute after he got back to give Paul time to view the video and then respond. The video apparently included people stating that Beck was a traitor and traitors should be hung. When Beck asked about it, Paul’s answer was to state his philosophy of non-violence. That was nice, but weak.

Beck’s voice was full of emotion, and this was Beck’s audience. Beck was concerned and angry. And who could blame him? Paul didn’t address Beck on the human level, instead he just went into an answer.

A proper President would say, “Glenn, I’m outraged. You should not have had to go through that. People like this are against everything I stand for. Let me be clear, people like this do not represent me, and if you do this type of thing, I’d rather not have your support.”

Instead, Paul stuck to ideas. However, the key to the Presidential Campaign is that you have to deal with people, and Paul didn’t do that well at all.

Fred, Part Deux

Well, it’s a new Fred Thompson on the campaign trail these days. Gone is the lackluster Fred of the past months. The guy many of us saw as on life support. He’s gotten a second wind (perhaps a first wind would be appropriate given how he started out.) The Campaign picked up the endorsement of Iowa Congressman Steve King (R-IA) second to Tom Tancredo as an immigration hawk in the House, an avowed pro-lifer, and an anti-pork champion. The King endorsement seems to be a ticket to what Fred needs most, a strong third or even a surprise second place showing in Iowa.

I’ve heard quite a bit of positive feedback from conservative bloggers, but haven’t trusted it, mostly because the blogosphere is Fred’s base. He’s the candidate of right wing bloggers (you know, the people who actually read position papers.) I should also note I’ve seen it, both in the last debate and in a recent interview with Hannity and Colmes.

However reporter David Brody is another matter. As a journalist (and I mean that in the nicest possible way), Brody has been fair this election cycle and his report from Waterloo is key:

I write this Tuesday night from Waterloo, Iowa and I just finished attending a Fred Thompson campaign event. Folks, this is a very different Fred Thompson I saw compared to his rollout in September.

The expectations are gone. The slow start is a distant memory. It has been replaced by a much more crisp, energetic, focused stump speech. The crowd seemed more engaged and rowdy and Thompson had the enthusiasm to match.

He comes out at the beginning of the event an starts cracking jokes like this one:

“It was getting so cold in Washington that the politicians have their hands in their own pockets.”

Or this one:

“It’s wonderful to be in Waterloo and I aint here to play the role of Napoleon.”

Then he proclaims he’s the conservative horse in the race and says energetically, “Saddle me up”

Now, it would be at this point in September where he would begin to ramble a little bit and lose focus. Not this time. Fred Thompson is on top of his game. No rambling. He’s focused on substance and determined to prove he’s the logical conservative choice. But he’s doing it all with a smile on his face. He seems very comfortable up there and he’s having fun.

David Yepsen of the Des Moines Register has warned folks not to write him off. Fundamentally, Thompson needs a strong 3rd, ideally above 20%, and definitely above the 14% Alan Keyes received when he finished 3rd in 2000. If he finished 3rd with 11% like he does in some polls, it’ll be trouble, but the position of the Thompson campaign is looking strong.

However, one piece of advice from Thompson supporter Michelle of Reformed Chicks Babbling: drop the horse talk:

Ewww! First Clinton and now Thompson, could you guys come up with better metaphors cause you’re grossing me out:

[Comment from Andrea: Amen, Amen!]

Rudy’s End?

We’ve not heard a whole lot about Rudy Giuliani in recent weeks despite him leading the meaningless national polls. We’ll hear a lot less about him in coming weeks, now that his campaign has pulled out of New Hampshire because the more he worked the state, the lower his poll numbers got. (Hat Tip: Wizbang Politics.)

He’s retreated to Florida, where his once commanding lead has already slipped into single digits. Momentum is set to hit him like an ocean wave. He’ll most likely finish 4th, perhaps even 5th or 6th in Iowa, and then as low as 4th or 5th in New Hampshire. Michigan is a state he one time led, but depending on what happens in New Hamsphire, that will likely go to either McCain or Romney. At that point with national polls slipping, he’ll be in serious trouble and South Carolina will go to one of four candidates, none of which will be him.

The best possible scenario for Rudy is if Huckabee wins Iowa, Romney wins New Hampshire and Michigan, and Fred Thompson wins South Carolina. Under such a scenario, the top anti-Rudy candidates would be in the race and John McCain would likely be out, strengthening his hand in Florida. But, in such a scenario, conservatives are likely to shove one or more of the three alternatives out, and Rudy then loses Florida, and probably loses most places on Super Tuesday other than New York.

Giuliani delievered a big speech this weekend that left Jim Geraghty wondering:

But it felt like a soup with a missing ingredient. And it’s not that Giuliani doesn’t talk about the messier social issues – abortion, gay rights, guns, etc. I feel like the speech was missing that ironclad argument of what he’s got that no other candidate has. Is Giuliani tested, ready, now? Sure. But I think few would argue McCain isn’t, and partisans for Thompson, Romney and Huckabee will contend that their guy is as ready. Does Giuliani get points for hearing the American people saying “get it done?” Yes, that’s nice, but every other one of the candidates would claim to hear the call to action, that’s why they’re running.

What does Giuliani bring to the race? The ability, if nominated, to take a two by four to the Republican base and split it in two. If Huckabee’s rise does anything, it dooms Giuliani’s chances. Over at Red State, many Rudy supporters have been saying it’s time to switch to a candidate that can bring the party together like Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney, because the possibility of Religious Conservatives giving them a big and loud, “Forget you, pal” (what Rudy supporters have been threatening all year) is unthinkable.

Cut It Out

Mitt Romney appeared on Meet the Press this past weekend and according to the Corner:

Host Tim Russert spent the first 12 minutes or so asking questions about religion.

And the questions asked were actually answered. This basically amounts to religious badgering and it does have to stop. I doubt Mr. Russert wants to defend every stance that the Catholic Church has taken in the past 2000 years, and the golden rule should be in order. Again, I say, “Cut it out!” Let’s talk about issues here.

The Crying Man

From CNN:

LONDONDERRY, New Hampshire (CNN) — Republican Mitt Romney got emotional at a New Hampshire campaign stop Monday, a day after the former Massachusetts governor choked up on NBC’s Meet the Press.

Romney was relaying a story — one he tells often on the stump — about watching a soldier return home in a casket at Boston’s Logan airport while he was governor.

“The soldiers that I was with stood at attention and saluted,” Romney told the crowd. “And I put my hand on my heart, and tears begin to well in your eyes, as you can imagine in a circumstance like that. I have five boys of my own. I imagined what it would be like to lose a son in a situation like that,” said the former Massachusetts governor, whose voice quivered noticeably.

“As I looked up there, every single hand was on every heart, and I recognized this is a nation that comes together and respects and reveres those who serve this great nation, and who joins in mourning when one of them is lost,” Romney continued…

When asked about his recent emotional displays, Romney told reporters, “I’m a normal person. I have emotions just like anyone else and I’m not ashamed of that at all.”

Well, he’s not only a normal person, he’s a normal person under stress, probably on the verge of exhaustion, of a faith that believes very strongly in family, and is spending a great deal of time away from his family in the Christmas. Fundamentally, I don’t think the tears hurt.

Thirty-six years ago, tearing up cost Edmund Muskie the Presidency. But Muskie’s tears showed a thin-skinned inability to deal with criticism. Romney’s tears showed a sentimentality. On the Meet the Press, it was a combination of joy at the move of his Church towards integration of its leadership as well as pride in his father’s Civil Rights record, and at the campaign stop, it was based on patriotism, pride in our military, and empathy for the families who lose their kids in war.

These are the type of things Conservatives cry about. When Michael Reagan camed to the local Lincoln Day Association Dinner back in 2004 and talked about his relationship with his Dad, there were few dry eyes in the room.

Obviously, if Romney starts crying every day and at every stop, it’s going to look put on, or worse, that he has no control over his emotions. But, I don’t see any problem with either of the incidents mentioned by CNN.

Good for McCain

It’s late in the Presidential campaign process, and I rarely have much positive to say about Senator McCain, but I do give him credit for this:

WASHINGTON (CNN) — With just weeks to go until New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation presidential primary, John McCain is taking an unscheduled absence from the campaign trail and rushing back to Washington for a Senate vote on Iraq war funding.

The Arizona senator canceled most of Tuesday’s campaign events after learning that three amendments related to the war effort, all attached to government funding legislation, are scheduled for a vote tonight. Two of them, offered by Democrats, aim to end the mission in Iraq. The third, offered by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, would provide $40 billion for the war in Iraq not already included in legislation passed by the House.

By returning to Washington, Senator McCain is putting the national interests and that of our soldiers above his own political interests. I trust the people of New Hampshire will understand.

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Celebrity Smack, The Pink Flamingo, Big Dog’s Weblog, Cao’s Blog, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, and Wolf Pangloss, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.