« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Huckabee: There Oughtta Be A Law!
On the one hand, Mike Huckabee really is in a bind.
Common Sense Issues is calling millions of voters and telling them that John McCain wants to allow experiments on unborn babies and that Fred Thompson supports partial-birth abortion. He can't do anything to stop it. And in a deft bit of spin, he says the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law is at fault -- so it's John McCain's fault that Huckabee can't stop the group from smearing McCain.
He's criticized the calls, said he "wished they would stop," and now has gone so far as to tell NPR, "I personally wish all of this were outlawed." (He didn't mention that the calls actually are illegal under state law in South Carolina.)
On the other hand, from what the group has disclosed, it's apparent that most, if not all, of its major donors also support Huckabee.
That's certainly no surprise, since virtually all of the group's efforts over the past couple months have been on Huckabee's behalf. After all, they run a website called TrustHuckabee.com.
Though lax disclosure laws mean that the group can keep most or all of their contributions secret, they have disclosed $123,500 in contributions from six unique donors. Of those, four are known to have contributed to Huckabee. One, Arch Bonnenna, told Newsweek that he'd been invited to a Common Sense Issues fundraiser in Dallas just a couple weeks after attending a Dallas Huckabee fundraiser (he wouldn't say who'd invited him, but said he hadn't seen that person at the Huckabee fundraiser).
The two remaining donors, Joe C. Thompson, Jr. and Dottie Thompson, who've given a total of $45,000, appear to have attended that same Common Sense fundraiser, but it's unclear whether they've also contributed to Huckabee. We won't know for sure until the end of this month, when the campaigns update their disclosures. When I called Thompson's office, I was told he was out of town and left a voicemail.
The only other connection drawn between Common Sense and Huckabee's campaign is that his campaign manager Chip Saltsman is an old colleague of Patrick Davis, the executive head of the group. The two worked together at the National Republican Senatorial Committee, where Davis was the political director for the 2003-2004 cycle. Both say there's no collusion.
Comments (12)
Brian wrote on January 18, 2008 1:41 PM:You know they type of leader by the followers.
slime
Teresa wrote on January 18, 2008 2:03 PM:I live in SC and got one of those calls. I have to say it was hardly vicious -- or at least the one that I got. It simply said something about Fred Thompson voting to raise taxes. Let's not exaggerate the role of these calls.
Arlen Williams wrote on January 18, 2008 2:27 PM:If the call does not purport to be a poll, but asks questions and gives targeted information, it is basically good salesmanship and not a "push poll."
BlueInTexas wrote on January 18, 2008 3:07 PM:>it was hardly vicious -- or at least the one that I got. It simply said something about Fred Thompson voting to raise taxes. Let's not exaggerate the role of these calls.
To a Republican voter, those words are DEFINITELY vicious.
BernieO wrote on January 18, 2008 9:08 PM:Ah, the "Christians" are at it again. Nice.
Ray wrote on January 19, 2008 4:20 AM:I hope all people who call the Clintons vicious are paying attention. I have never seen Democrats do anything like this in a presidential campaign. However, it is standard operating procedure for Republicans. Swiftboating techniques are routine, even against members of their own party. It's time we face up to the fact that Republicans are willing to do pretty much anything to win. That includes falsely accusing people of murder. (Just ask the Clintons.)Obama can talk all he wants about reaching out but he will get his arm bitten off by these unscrupulous pols.
Arlen Williams wrote on January 18, 2008 2:27 PM:
If the call does not purport to be a poll, but asks questions and gives targeted information, it is basically good salesmanship and not a "push poll."
Wow, lump all phone calls into one type you never got and then claim they are O.K. based on the unrelated call you did get.
You don't have the ability to reason do you?
Tired Already wrote on January 19, 2008 10:59 AM:Huckabee. Kind of like Bush, only dumber.
footsore wrote on January 19, 2008 12:17 PM:Hey we've known for years that those people eat their own. We need only look at the most glaring example of McCains' being trashed in South Carolina in 2000. Or we could go all the way back to Bush 41; How the repubs ruined that re-election race. They ended up with Bob Dole and Clinton. Those people want things their way. If that doesn't happen they then ruin all chances of victory.
Tom Wood wrote on January 19, 2008 4:24 PM:There is a bright side in that we are now learning of and becoming familiar with this new crop of butt heads. We will be better able to see them coming when it is time for the general election
Forewarned is forearmed.
footsore
Polls showing a late Huckabee surge may be right, but from inside the campaign comes an inadvertent admission this morning that some previously committed voters are backing away from him:
http://www.nashvillepost.com/news/2008/1/19/whitehouse_on_the_road_staying_in_front_of_the_broom_truck
BimBeau wrote on January 19, 2008 6:40 PM:Huckster says:
Michael Ditto wrote on January 20, 2008 2:35 AM:There outta bee aLaw - there is.
I wann'em to stop - they are driving voters my way.
This guy is so stupid he thinks we are fooled.
Well ... In November we will drop his buckette in a bucket of candle wax.
Ignoring all the obvious signs of coordination in this case, there is actually merit to the argument that campaign finance reform contributes to this kind of crap.
What the express advocacy caps have led to is a situation where the only viable candidates are either ultra-rich and can self-finance, or they spend a lot of time dialing for dollars that they should be spending on other, more important things--like governing and voter contact.
When you add in the issue advocacy loopholes (and assuming the candidate is obeying the rules against coordination), you have a situation where the candidate is no longer in control of the message.
And then when you look through the history of FEC fines such as those for the swift boaters (something like $300,000 on over $20 million of illegal expenditures), you see that they are sufficiently low that they are just considered the cost of doing business.
electionaddict wrote on January 23, 2008 1:03 PM:All's fair in politics, eh? Voters need better access to materially accurate and fair information forums, to have a shot in hell at differentiating the candidates. Check out the wiki my group's building at secureamericachallenge.org.