It seems that Mike Huckabee’s win in Iowa has struck a negative chord with establishment Republicans. Here is a guy who is way out of the Washington mainstream trounces by nine percentage points a candidate that out spent him 10 to 1.
In the days leading up to Iowa, the affable Huckabee appeared on TV talking head shows lashing out at the “Wall Street to Washington Axis,†the apparent Republican establishment of king-makers that epitomize the phrase, “follow the money.†Today in the New York Times, several Washington insiders are quoted regarding their dismay at the rise of Huckabee, and how it helps John McCain, at least in New Hampshire.
A couple points: one, there continues to be a severe lack of understanding of the evangelical Christian voter and what is important to them as a candidate. Even Rush is in trouble with this. The evangelical isn’t conservative for conservatism sake, if that means that priorities like social justice, basic freedoms (such as the right to life), and fairness are at stake. The tenets of scripture to “act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly before your God†(Micah 6:8) are a higher calling to these ones.
Two: Thursday’s win, as well as what could happen in South Carolina will be a continuation of the insurgency of the religious right caused by twelve years of disappointment and disillusionment. The positive side is that the evangelicals didn’t sit on their hands like what happened last November when the Dems took back the House and Senate; the got involved with gusto. However, I’m afraid that Obama may be right the President if he keeps winning and the GOP picks a nominee that falls flat with their most important yet most misunderstood constituency. There is also this feeling that the Republicans have taken the evangelical block for granted (“where else will they go?â€), which, of course, they do at their peril.
Finally, no matter what the spin, the average Joe looks at the political landscape and concludes that the deck is stacked against them. That’s why the Huckabee-articulated “axis†resonates. Money flows from lower Manhattan, to K Street and the lobby-haven, to Capitol Hill back to Wall Street. Gas is going to $4.00 a gallon this summer while the oil companies profit and wages continue to stagnate. It’s easy for populism, Huckabee-style, to be adopted by Christian families struggling to pay their mortgage, their energy bill, and their tithe to the church. Meanwhile they see, rightly or not, moneyed interests getting a free ride.
That’s why that LaGuardia-Reagan National shuttle flight might not be so cheery these days.


January 5th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Hillary’s third place win was much larger than Huckabee’s first place win.
January 5th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Yea right, whatever you say Sean.
Sometimes we actually deal with truth.
Sometimes the whole truth.
Sometimes, nothing but the truth.
And, sometimes…..no truth whatsoever.
January 6th, 2008 at 7:00 am
The numbers don’t lie….
From iowacaucus.com:
Clinton: 73,666
Huckabee: 40,326
Hillary got A LOT more votes than Huckabee. And she finished third. The truth hurts.
January 6th, 2008 at 9:42 am
Both Iowa and PA have more democratic registrants. They are not comparable states due to Iowa caucus system and the PA insistence that you vote in your registered party only. But the truth holds same.
Pretend PA has 3,000,000 registered Dems and 30,000 registered Repubs. A sole repub candidate takes all 30,000 on their side and comes in first.
But on the Dem side, 3rd place garners 99,000.
The 3rd place candidate for the Dem then has more votes than first place Repub. Happens all the time in PA.
And that ratio of vicory becomes 3:1, not your hoped for 2:1 in Iowa having meaning.
But PA and Iowa can not be compared. We do not scoot around the room and gab for a half hour than play twister in the voting room, like Iowa Dems at caucus.
It is like comparing cowturds to lemons. when you go Iowa to PA, with one exception. Both states have more registered Dems. I wonder why a bigger pie gets bigger slices for number 3? Little Repub pies in those states get smaller slices.
By any measure (including total votes (given the structure in Iowa), Hillary was tanked and admits it, now that it can not be hidden.
(Drudge Report- multiple articles)
But since it is critical for you to note Hillary has these votes, get this; EDWARDS has more that Hillary. And, EDWARDS did not get as many as Obama. That should give you an idea of total votes available on the lopsided side to get…and she did not get what was there and available.
She did not lose (unless you consider 3rd place a loss).
She was expected to roll over everyone everywhere with her fame and money. She failed big time against a novice. David could have aimed a sling shot no better against Goliath than Obama did to Hillary (Edwards has some stones too apparently.
So you continue to say the truth hurts. We don’t know. You won’t say the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Besides, my source for truth is not named Sean.
Even the courts add all the above but insist “so help me GOD”.
But as Bill Clinton told the lower class as he ended welfare (as our manufacturers were given green light to go to Mexico in Bill’s NAFTA for business:
“I feel you pain”.
I do not feel your pain Sean, for I often see you looking at trees and forests and seeing neither, just mud.
Women were Hillarys. They left her in droves.
Hillary had no clue youth existed. They came to Iowa in unprecedented numbers. Hillary’s money bags are already packing to jump ship and go with a winner to change laws in the next year to suit THEM over the people’s will.
The White House furniture is a step closer to not getting stolen and partially returned as in 2001.
Health care got a shot in the arm by getting neutron bomb Hillary’s plan put back 3 baby step in Iowa.
Given the myriad number of issues (a war, economy, culture changes, social issues, loss of manufacturing, terrorists, graft and corruption) coupled with the myriad number of candidates on both sides, the rest of us have to move on tho those issues and areas.
You, Sean, can ponder the flawed logic of total votes received by 2 candidates in 2 differing parties (that VOTE differently and have different numbers for garnishing by the party candidate).
Were you following this election, you would know Hillary’s biggest handicap; if she wins the nomination, she can not carry in November. Even she has publicly grappled that one.
You be a paper stick and dip it in the cotton candy machine at Waldameer as you view the election. The spun sugar will completely cover the stick and your view, just as your spinning tries here.
Finally, I would have preferred to direct all my thoughts and comments hereat Micah 6:8 in the post, but refrained since the post is about the Republican candidate and potential there through evangelicals. Micah 6:8 is bigger than the election.
AND, we could discuss sinning instead of spinning.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
I’m not a Hillary fan. I like Ron Paul. I’m just pointing out the obvious. It has also been said it was the independents and the first timers who carried the day for Obama.
I’m beginning to think you have a crush on me. You seem to be following me around for blog to blog. I’m flattered but maybe you should give Ted haggard a call.
January 6th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Your choice in candidates is protected in the booth.
Throwing the name of Ron Paul out and nothing more makes no sense, given the topic.
Tip: where ever you go, there you are.
If you post on the internet, others just may be there too, including me.
Flatter yourself, but keep me out of it.
As for Ted, you show yourself here, to be the master of the self inflicted wound. I do not expect an apology.
That would require character.
You have taken a discussion on faith, and Republicans in Iowa to Hillary, to falsehood, to gay bashing.
Can you go lower?
January 7th, 2008 at 7:09 am
The blog post was titled, “Bad Time to be a member of the Wall Street-Washington Axis”. According to RFJJ, Huckabee’s recent win in the Iowas caucus proved this. I merely pointed out the fallacy of it being a bad time to be a member of the Axis because even though Huckabee received 40,326 votes, Hillary, the embodiment of a Wall Street Washington insider received 73,666 votes. Iowa has been a Red state in the last two presidential elections. I’m not a fan of Hillary, It would be bad for the country. Bu the reality is her third place loss was substantially greater then Huckabee’s first place win.
January 7th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Oh lover of Ron Paul, Mitt Romney is the reference here. He is being shoved down the collective money-throats as Bush II was done in 2000 and 2004.
There is no Hillary in the topic (cept you). The Repubs are having a tougher time shoving THEIR pre-chosen money man since a populist is wrecking the party.
Spin away, maestro.
Since it is already covered above, I can rewrite it all again, or you can reread.
We all vote for YOU reread.
You have posted your opening question on other blogs almost to the word.
In those venues, it was appropriate. In the Wall Street -Washington Axis of insiders, uh…
Hillary is ONE of THEM too.
This “bad time” referenced here is because an outsider is getting votes unexpectedly. What Radio has failed to point out is that the last time the game went that way, we ended up with our worst Prez, Jimmy Carter.
By the way, this state ment of yours:
“Hillary’s third place win was much larger than Huckabee’s first place win.”
is not the same as this statement of yours:
“Bu the reality is her third place loss was substantially greater then Huckabee’s first place win.”
You are at least going in the right direction; she lost.
This article (unlike the others you have posted the same precise message) is in reference to the Huck a dilemma Republicans get out of Iowa.
Last, Al Gore took Iowa in 2000; without cheating.
He was blue as can be about it. Don’t let the facts get in your way. (Source: Wiki Red States and Blue States)
January 7th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Who was it who said
“Let us avoid a line-by-line rip apart and repost and
“oops, what about this or that”?
Oh right, that was you. Perhaps you should take your own advice.
It was the independent and first time caucus goers who turn out for the Dems. Voters the Republicans could have had if Bush didn’t ruin the GOP’s chances.
January 8th, 2008 at 1:27 am
Yea sure, whatever you say.
You distorted the above comment before…, beyond reconition at the point of origin. I did not take the time to bring you up to spin, for I see your style at that blog to argue over minutia. Magna Carta, queen, Brown, who cares.
The blogger (and others) seem to take delight in explaining the fundamentals of English, words, syntax, and the like in miute detail….just for you.
I choose not to point out the obvious to you. Indeed the above quote went in an entirely new thread direction (missed by you alone) and you searched high and low for any crevice to grab and argue.
Your first claim here at Radio Free was
“I was here first; you follow me”
Archives show my last comment here on tourism, prior to you.
Your next claim descended into the hell of Ted Haggard.
Egg on your face there still—self inflicted.
I think you should continue to be a bull in the china closet; don’t even clean your own mess.
Nor will I.
January 8th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Yea, right… whatever you say.
The lines posted are YOUR lines, from THIS blog and post (not an out of context as you have done in your quote from a faith blog).
These two lines quoted from above simply reflect your confusion.
I asked if you could go lower; you answered.
January 8th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
“A reasoned voice on politics, faith, the media, and Erie, PA regional issues.”
That is the header for this blog. It appears this is a faith blog. You kept on referencing my posts on another blog, now you have a problem when I do the same.
January 9th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Erie Blog Watch has directed folks here to RFJJ. (via link)
In advance, I go off topic and thank Radio Free for a place to respond.
Keep in mind, comments at Erie Blog watch are forbidden. Ask Ralph’s Place.
He tried to respond on a Corry Publishing Post and EBW refuses the comment of defense.
The mission of Erie Blog Watch was to, well, watch Erie Blogs.
That failed due to editorial mishap and failure to moderate as professional sites always do.
Plus, the owner is in over their head.
The mission has shifted ever so slightly this day. Erie Blog Watch now seeks to become a failure, at watching individual Erie Blog Commenters.
It has morphed to an “Erie Blog Commenter Watch” to resusitate the death of a blog.
I have the honor of going first, I guess.
The Anonymous, yet, defunct blogger apparently feels Radio Free Jo Jo has no clue how to moderate comments (the very element that led to the death of Erie Blog Watch; comments are forbidden there. You must communicate YOUR genuine email to a fictitious entity called Erie Blog Watch to post a GUEST BLOG — if they feel like it). No wonder everybody passes.
They can know you; you are forbidden to know them.
There are 2 ironies with this little anonymous called Erie Blog Watch:
1) while steadfastly quitting as a blog, they continue to define what is acceptable and unacceptable on Erie Blogs.
2) a quick review of the greatest praise from Erie Blog Watch on comments received (when they were a real site) finds heaps of praise on one Anonymous in particular, going so far as to say “I could not make this up if I tried….this is the best writing I have encountered in months”…and the like.
It is written anonymous as this place was an anonymous site.
Wouldn’t it be funny if Danny Lucas wrote those comments that drew such eloquent praise from Erie Blog Watch?
After all, those comments are what EBW calls
“my way or the highway”.
EBW then lavishes praise accordingly.
We’ll never know who authored the comments that made EBW gush forth. (but they seem so my way or the highway, and EBW is now,….all but begging for an audience since everyone left).
Do not bother scrolling back to read Erie Blog Watch comments or posts. They were hell bent on destruction from day one, setting the standard of what can be, and what can not be,on Erie Blogs.
For the record, I have had a harasser for many months following from blog to blog disparaging any comment I make anywhere. (Can you say, stalker?)
Only one reputable site worked behind the scenes with me in private emails regarding the person submitting comment. THAT can be verified.
We worked out a way to identify genuine from imitation.
For the record, I have not authored Erie Blog Watch or any other blog. I have commented only.
In the event I created a blog, the LAST source of reference I would pursue to endorse, proclaim, applaud my work…would be Erie Blog Watch. This would be like a book review endorsement by Osama, a sure kiss of death as Erie Blog Watch is known to perform, without request.
Think! This blog takes the time to disparage a commenter. Then, this blog (EBW) makes this statement:”Meanwhile, no sign of Danny’s own blog but we will be pleased to spread the word once it goes online”. Why would you spread the word of a blog written by a person you disparage before? Schizo time at EBW once again.
Many inferred in comments (when they were allowed at EBW) that my name was behind this sordid blog.
I had no affiliation with the creator of Erie Blog Watch.
I have no affiliation with Erie Blog Watch.
I will have no affiliation with Erie Blog Watch.
The entity that calls itself Erie Blog Watch has made a fool of all of Erie, and in the process, made a fool of themselves.
January 13th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
I don’t know. There is something about the sound of a President Huckabee that appeals to me or my sense of humor.