Don't know how I missed this. December 5th interview on CBS (ah that's why) with Katie Couric. Jill Stanek believes she understood Mitt Romney to say that he was ok with the use of embryonic stem cells for research and that left her with no choice but to scratch him off the Pro-Life list...

As a matter of fairness - because unlike some - this blog is NOT bought and sold... When Mitt is on with me next, I will ask him to clarify. If he said what Stanek represents him to have said - this may be a wedge too great for pro-life conservatives to get past... But unlike some talk show hosts - I will seek to ask him personally...

Low Blow...

Hugh - simply pulling an AP headline in which Huck's comments are taken out of context - even to the degree that you don't know if he was asked the question - or if he is penning an op/ed...

...will possibly come back to bite you.

Be fair Hugh!

To not do so - doesn't make someone else a bigot...

So the man that National Review endorsed for President - has endorsed his chief rival for that same office:

"...We need to make sure that we have a strong person who can take the baton from President Bush, and Governor Huckabee is certainly one of those individuals. He'd make a fine president."

Word to the Huck-Wagon campaign - do a thank you ad/spot for Mitt being a man of integrity and saying so...

Proving that this blog is NOT bought and sold... (I have said from the beginning that I like both Mitt and Huck - but my main focus is "ANYONE BUT RUDY - an idea whose time has come!")

Fair is always fair - and this was the strongest graph from the National Review's endorsement of Mitt Romney:

We believe that Romney is a natural ally of social conservatives. He speaks often about the toll of fatherlessness in this country. He may not have thought deeply about the political dimensions of social issues until, as governor, he was confronted with the cutting edge of social liberalism. No other Republican governor had to deal with both human cloning and court-imposed same-sex marriage. He was on the right side of both issues, and those battles seem to have made him see the stakes of a broad range of public-policy issues more clearly. He will work to put abortion on a path to extinction. Whatever the process by which he got to where he is on marriage, judges, and life, we’re glad he is now on our side — and we trust him to stay there.

Drudge continues what has all the appearances of a well-funded, new technology, campaign influenced - if not financed, front page attack on Huckabee (out of context of course - on buddy Andrew Breitbart's newspager click through), and you'll never guess who is getting a neat SUPERMAN like placement on the same front page...

If Matt's implication is anywhere near true - it will NOT be received sitting down...

The Family Research Council's President Dr. Tony Perkins is not endorsing a candidate in the 2008 GOP Primary race, but he is sounding off on the fundamental unfair double standard some candidate's campaigns and by extension talk show host surrogates have attempted to apply to other candidates:

Over the weekend I had flashbacks of the brutal judicial confirmation hearings that took place between 2003 and 2005 where certain nominees like William Pryor, Janice Rogers Brown, Charles Pickering, and others were filibustered by the Democratic minority because of what Sen. Charles Schumer called their "deeply held personal beliefs." Those "beliefs" were the religious convictions that led them in part to hold a position that abortion was wrong. There was a reverse religious litmus test applied. A subtle message was being sent that a person had to choose between an active, life-impacting faith and public service. It was wrong then and it is wrong now as it is being applied to Mike Huckabee. Let me preface what I am about to say by first recalling what I wrote last week (Dec. 3, 2007) explaining why I had not endorsed a presidential candidate and at present have no plans to do so. I remain undecided and what I say below does not imply a change in those plans; however, I feel compelled to rise to the defense of Mike Huckabee.

The media had been toying with and even promoting Mike Huckabee, thinking he would go nowhere; however, after FRC Action's Values Voter Summit he began a steady rise in the polls. In my opinion it was not because he finished a close second in the straw poll to Mitt Romney, but because he came out for the first time at our event, co-hosted by Focus on the Family Action and others and spoke unabashedly and unequivocally conservative on all the core social issues. He began to compete for territory that had been ceded to Gov. Romney. That message has resonated and he has not only climbed to first place in Iowa, but nationally he is second only to Rudy Giuliani in the most current polls. There is apparently fear now among the elites that his rise could be real and not a creation of the media.

Enter the reverse religious test that is being applied. In various settings over the last few days Huckabee has been confronted with articles from nearly a decade ago containing statements on the morality of issues like HIV-AIDS, homosexuality and even the need for spiritual awakening in America. He was basically asked to recant. I am pleased to say that he did not recant.

This morning, for example, the lead story on Drudge was a 1998 article from the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reporting on a speech that Huckabee gave at the annual meeting of the Southern Baptists calling on the church to wake up following a rash of school shootings. The Drudge headline touted, "Take this nation back for Christ," a subtle but clear warning to secular elites. Columnist Richard Cohen wasn't as subtle last week when he said Huckabee is climbing in the polls because of "his obdurate and narrow-minded religious beliefs."

There is clearly a reverse religious standard being applied to Mike Huckabee, a standard that says there will be no defining religious beliefs. I would hope the other candidates, including the Democrats, would clearly and absolutely denounce this reverse religious test and keep the media from going further down this path. If not, I predict that bible-believing Christians will step over policy differences they have with Mike Huckabee to stand by and support a candidate who is being attacked because he believes, as they do, that their Christian faith should actually impact the way they live. If that happens, the recent meteoric rise of the Huckabee campaign in the polls could look minuscule compared to the tsunami of support that he will get from Christians who are tired of the elites who belittle their beliefs and attempt to rob them of every public reflection of their faith.

What's the difference in someone saying, "Not voting for Mitt because he's a Mormon makes you a bigot" vs. "Voting for Huckabee because of his commitment to Christianity is inappropriate."

In TRUTH - none...

You are just as much a bigot if you tell someone they CAN'T vote for the candidate of their choice - based on your view of their faith - as much as you are if you tell someone NOT to vote for someone else because their faith is different than yours.

In fact here's a radical idea... why don't you host a constructive discussion about the issues facing us - and let the candidates be themselves and give us the most transparent answers they can muster. Perhaps in such transparency - be it their business ethic or their commitment to God - we will see their character - and make our decision to vote for them based on what we see and how they connect to us...

Just a thought...

Listen "LIVE" - 2-4p EST
Listen ON DEMAND anytime!

2pm:
Those who oppose the biblical idea of the death penalty should be condemning the actions of Jeann Assam. New Life's Senior Pastor Brady Boyd called Assam "a real hero" because Murray "had enough ammunition on him to cause a lot of damage." When asked by a reporter if she felt like a hero, Assam said, "I wasn't just going to wait for him to do further damage. I give credit to God," she said. She turned into prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner. Yet those who oppose the biblical idea of the death penalty are not condemning her and they should be. 800.345.WMCA.

3pm:
I find myself increasingly at odds with fellow colleagues in talk radio... Dennis Prager: "Evangelicals have the right to proclaim Mormons as non-Christians, but they hurt themselves and their country if they measure a candidate's theology. They should concern themselves with a man's theology only when choosing a religious leader. When choosing a political leader, theology should not count."  Yet the problem is Evangelicals by nature DO view everything in their life theologically. Jesus is EVERYTHING or He is NOTHING at all. How else do we measure the character of a person we are to vote for? Theology may not be the sole reason to vote or not vote for someone - but it certainly is Un-American to say it can not be considered. And saying so does not make one a bigot! 800.345.WMCA.

3:55pm: The McCULLOUGH PUNCH

Weekdays 2-4pm EST
Listen "LIVE" click here.
 Listen "ON DEMAND" click here.

"sayeth - well at least implieth - POLITICO"

The Huck-Wagon now leads in...

DISCLOSURE: I have not endorsed a candidate for the GOP Primary

Since my post went up on the surge that Huck is getting in not one but in ALL of the eight initial polling states... I'm getting LOT's-O-E-mail like this:

Kevin

Hucks' leading in Georgia too.

You're an untrustworthy but astute political observer, so I probably 
don't even need to point this stuff out to you, but since you're 
hanging on to Mitt I will. Look at Mitt's head-to-head polls against 
the Dems. He gets killed. Hugh will never point this out, but Mitt 
Romney has spent 60 million plus and he can't beat anybody nationally. 
He's not even leading his own state in the primary.

The more the voters see of Huck, the higher his numbers go. I was a 
Mitt supporter until I saw Huckabee back in August. I realized then 
that he was  the one GOP candidate who has a prayer of crossing over 
and picking off indy voters. Regardless of what Mitt's positions are 
this week, his manufactured personality and his born-on-third-base 
life story is not going to bring Indy's to the polls next year.

I don't agree with Huck on everything, but I really want a pro-life 
president who can sell pro-life judges to the Senate. That's why I 
like Mike.

Cameron

From my untrustworthy position... I have to say in all honesty that the more that liberals will try to pile on Huckabee, the more voters like Cameron are going to have their position cemented. It may be the fact that Hugh and others who say, "I could vote for RUDY or MITT" is scaring the wits out of those who would more likely STRONGLY support MITT or HUCK.

ANYONE BUT RUDY - should be the purpose of the primary. Evangelicals are going to be MOST inclined to be supportive of one of their own. They ARE NOT BIGOTS for doing so... And yammering on about how "one shouldn't allow theology to be part of the determination for choosing who they will vote for" is not merely ineffective - but COUNTERPRODUCTIVE.

What evidently neither Dennis nor Hugh understand is that EVANGELICALS - real, true, born-again Christians do nearly EVERYTHING from a Theological frame of reference. THUSLY - they call out Hillary and Obama as being Christian FAKES for not living out what they claim to be is Christian faith and practice.

Where Mitt's people made the mistake was allowing him to emphasize his own issues with specified faith as opposed to how he got out of the chute with like VALUES of people of faith.

The partisan campaign nannies need to stop lecturing Evangelicals and begin asking themselves the question, "why did they leave us to begin with?"

THAT would be a productive response... as opposed to the red-faced, spittle laced, labeling of anyone who dare think for themselves as "not worthy to be trusted."

Showin' a lil love...

Yes I predicted it this morning... and Mr. Hewitt did not disappoint... now using the Democrats talking points!

What things will you never read on Hugh's pages?

From Ruffini's post this morning:

GOP primary voters feel passionately about two things: values and the war. Huckabee has cornered the market on the first. His success is not about ideology, but identity. For his voters, he’s a Christian first, and a conservative second. Attacking him on conventional conservative issues won’t undermine his core support because it has nothing to do with being a conservative.

It is telling that RUFFINI put the two items in the order that he did. VALUES then the war. And THAT is fundamentally why Mitt should have never stepped into the FAITH arena at all. Mitt's message was never about faith - for the core of the party he needs to elect him. It's about the VALUES that they hold. The more I reflect on the Mitt speech from a week ago the more sick I am that he gave it...

And I know that makes me "untrustworthy" and all... but let's face facts - no one is talking about it, few remember it - and in general it DID NOT connect with the American people, much less the core GOP voter.

Has he seen a bump in any poll?

And what has happened to Huckabee in return? Bumps across the board! And now challenging Rudy for National Polling lead. Even off the increased poll standings Huck can and should be raising money, setting up offices... Florida and Michigan are both within his grasp.

I would support either Mitt or Huckabee if they are the nominee.  (I could also support Fred if he'd start campaigning...) But my eye is on the ball... RUDY must NOT receive the nomination...

Rudy as a candidate looks fundamentally little different than Hillary.

The key to GOP success in November 2008 - is STARK contrast, contrast that can clearly be seen in the debates, and one that honestly and genuinely connects with the hearts of the American voters watching...

Sanctuary And The City!

Pandermania... this time the thrice married, twice divorced, philandering GOP version of a Clinton is attempting to argue that he was actually tough on illegals in his own mind and how he would have deported 400,000 aliens... but "practically speaking..."

I mean...

Practically speaking... it'd be a good idea to stay married to your first wife wouldn't it?

Practically speaking... your word doesn't have to mean anything does it?

Practically speaking... it'd be a refreshing idea to not fight the LINE ITEM VETO...

Practically speaking... a child fighting for life would prefer not to be aborted - wouldn't she?

Practically speaking... a man and a woman - in life-long monogamy - DOES provide the best living environment  for what's best for a child?

Practically speaking... it's better to obey the law, and carefully account for city resources and not charge tax-payers for overtime for your adulterous flings right?

PRACTICALLY SPEAKING?

"ANYONE BUT RUDY - an idea whose time has come!"
(...practically speaking...)

"...What each of us is thinking..."

Special thanks to Peter for sending the picture!

"I'm no glass jaw!"

Drudge is front paging the DNC's thoughts on the chances of Mike Huckabee to win the presidency should he be the nominee. The unnamed source claims Huckabee will be a "glass jaw" - easy to break - in the general election.

Here's how the DNC views the percent of difficulty against the individual GOP match-ups: as judged by (the number) of individual press releases the DNC has issued to attack GOP candidates to date:

Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) – 37% (99)
Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R-NY) – 28% (74)
Senator John McCain (R-AZ) – 24% (64)
Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN) – 8% (20)
Governor Mike Huckabee – 2% (4)