As I wrote yesterday, it seems to me that Governor Mike Huckabee could very well win Iowa. In fact, I’m getting the feeling he will win. A new Iowa poll now shows that the former Governor of Arkansas continues his surge: he’s now leading in the polls. Of the (likely) Republican primary voters in this state, 29% say they plan to vote for Huckabee, against 24% who say they’ll vote for Mitt Romney.
Meanwhile, Senator Barack Obama continues to catch up with Hillary Clinton. He’s now leading in Iowa as well.
And not only that, Huckabee is doing increasingly better in other states as well. He’s currently in second position in Florida according to some polls. He did well during the last YouTube CNN debate in Florida, so I think that he’ll only do better there. Now, look at states like South Carolina, New Hampshire, etc. and you can’t help but notice that Huckabee is becoming a true contender.
Huckabee is going to be the surprise these elections, as may Obama.
Meanwhile, John McCain just received a major endorsement: the New Hampshire Union Leader believes that he is “the man to lead America.” Green Mountain Politics summarizes: “Mitt Romney just threw up.” Quite right.
Chris Bower - quite an expert when it comes to polls - concludes, explains and predicts:
That’s right, I have moved Huckabee into second place, ahead of Giuliani. And no, the seeming absurdity of having the two candidates who are currently 4th and 5th in national polls as the top two contenders for the Republican nomination is not lost on me. The way I see it, now that Huckabee is also rising in both New Hampshire and South Carolina, two states where Giuliani is slipping, I think Huckabee will finish ahead of Giuliani in both New Hampshire and South Carolina even if Huckabee doesn’t win Iowa. It is starting to look like Romney vs. Huckabee for the Republican nomination. In fact, in another week or two, if his across the board rise continues, I might be projecting Huckabee as the frontrunner. Should he win Iowa, it does not strike me as difficult to believe that he could make up even a 15-20 point deficit in New Hampshire, and then go on to win the nomination easily. There is a ton of potential movement left on the Republican side, and relative unknowns who do well in early states will secure it.
Also more at Blue Crab Boulevard.
The New York Times, meanwhile, has an interesting article up about Governor Huckabee’s tax record:
The Club for Growth, a politically influential antitax group, has dubbed Mr. Huckabee Tax Hike Mike and poured money into anti-Huckabee advertisements that were broadcast in early nominating states, with more on the way. Mr. Huckabee “spends money like a drunken sailor,” according to the group’s news releases, and it has sprinkled YouTube and the airways with videos that mock him and his policies.
But the record offers a more complex and nuanced picture. While taxes did rise in the 10 years that Mr. Huckabee was governor, the portrayal of him as a wild-eyed spendthrift is hardly apt. For the most part, Mr. Huckabee’s tax initiatives had wide bipartisan support, with the small number of Republicans in the overwhelmingly Democratic state legislature voting for the tax increases and many maintaining that the state was better for them.
In addition, when Mr. Huckabee left office last January, he had turned a $200 million budget shortfall into an $844 million surplus. Still, as the attacks on his fiscal policies have stepped up, the Huckabee campaign has also cited examples of some 90 taxes that went down under his tenure.
As usual, it’s more complex than his opponents pretend.
Mike Huckabee’s surge is the voice of America saying Washington is not for sale…any more!
[...] Michael Van der Galiën Huckabee is going to be the surprise these elections, as may Obama. [...]
It says a lot for him that he raised himself out of poverty, and didn’t have anything handed to him on a silver platter like the Bush’s, Romneys or Kennedys. It would be great to have a president who wasn’t interested in consolidating wealth among the “haves and the have mores”.
Take a GOOD look at Huckabee and the FairTax - why is the FairTax studies only evaluate incomes up to $200,000? Because the effective tax rate for billionaires under the FairTax is less than 1%. You can buy things of great value all day long without ever buying a new one. Think mansions, land, yachts, valuable coins, stamps, bullion, stocks and bonds - all of which increase his wealth and none of which is taxed. The things that are NEW that the super rich require will be provided them as perquisites by the businesses they control. Think company car, company house, company jet - all of which use our infrastructure and none of which is paid for by the entity using them. Why should Walmart pay for roads and bridges when they can get you to pay for free? This is another attempt by the liberal media to face ANYONE but Dr. Ron Paul. Much as we’d like politics to be positive, it is in fact ruled almost entirely by negatives. For instance, what’s the biggest negative the Republican Party is facing in 2008? Iraq - a staggering 70% of people favor IMMEDIATE withdrawl from Iraq. Who is the only candidate that doesn’t have that negative? Dr. Paul, who advocates using those trillions of dollars to secure our border (perhaps against Saudis who were 20 of the 24 terrorists in 9/11) and rebuild our crumbling infrastructure which is far more worrying than the loss of Social Security. Hm, full employment, withdrawl from Iraq and a huge boost to our economy from rebuilding our infrastructure - what Democrat wants to run against that. Hence the behavior of known liberal biased network CNN, who wants us to nominate either Guiliani or Romney - both of whose negatives are so high the copy practically writes itself!
Right on #4 Louis