Showing posts with label Mike Huckabee. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mike Huckabee. Show all posts

Monday, January 17, 2011

How to Manufacture An Image of Popularity


The Associated Press last week was all a titter! They cited polls and proclaimed that Barack Obama would trounce the Republican competition were the election held today.
Sounds pretty sad until you read the story.
The polls matched him up against Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, and Mike Huckabee. Two of these people would have trouble getting Republican votes. Romney supported government health care in his state and Mike Huckabee likes nanny state policies to promote fitness. Neither one of them are going to do well in the new Republican Party.
Sarah Palin has the same issues as Newt Gingrich or Hillary Clinton. She is popular, yet polarizing. Great for fundraising, but a lot of baggage, some of which is not her fault. I like Sarah Palin, personally, but she probably does not give us our best shot in 2012.
The pollsters picked these three because they didn't dare put Obama up in a hypothetical race against Bobby Jindal, Rick Perry, or another strong and popular GOP governor. Obama might look good against a campaign has been like Romney, but probably not a rising star like Jindal.

Wednesday, December 29, 2010

Time to Eliminate Mike Huckabee From Presidential Consideratin

Former arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, in my mind, eliminated himself from serious discussion of a presidential nomination. He did so by backing Michelle Obama's nanny statist crusade against obesity. She is trying to attack freedom of choice and freedom of speech. She left us with the chilling line that the issue "just can't be left up to the parents."

Huckabee, a formerly obese man, backed her 100% and criticized Sarah Palin for objecting to Big Government making our food choices for us. He should know as well as anyone that weight is a lifestyle issue. It boils down to how much you eat and how much you exercise. Leftists don't believe in individual choice or responsibility, so they would like to use any other excuse to impose their will upon a nation.

MAD TV once ran a skit parodying those late night infomercials. The ad "offered" a can't fail diet plan of "Eat less, move more." The overweight woman kept asking if it was a trick. Would it cost money? The narrator said that if you eat less and move more, it actually saves you money. Michelle Obama convinced Congress to pass a $4.5 billion law that will target obesity. That costs all of us money in a time when our nation does not have it. Government needs to leave obesity alone. It is not their concern.

Friday, November 6, 2009

Potomac Highlands Conservative interviews Mike Huckabee

I had a short interview with Mike Huckabee last night as he traveled from Harrisburg, PA to Allentown, PA. Here are a few of his thoughts on recent events, his new book and West Virginia.

On the New York 23rd District race, Huckabee confirms he was asked not to endorse any candidate at the Conservative awards dinner. He believes that a 3rd party candidate is not the way to go and would like to see more conservatives get involved in the Republican Party and not work out side it, but he could never support a candidate liberal candidate like Dede Scozzafava.

On the push for a Saturday Health Care Bill vote. He believes that the Saturday vote on health care will cost a lot of Blue Dog Democrats their jobs in the upcoming election. They forget they are working for the people of their district and not Nancy Pelosi.

On his new book, Mike says the new book not a political book and he invited people to visit him on the Simple Christmas Book Tour. The book is an unapologetic book about Christmas and the first Christmas was more Jerry Springer than Oprah. It was an unwed teenage mother in a barn and the lord had humble beginnings. You will laugh and you will cry when you read his personal stories about Christmas.

I asked Governor Huckabee about West Virginian's being registered 2/3rds Democrats, but being conservative and voting for Republicans for President, but supporting Democrats in statewide offices. He said, West Virginia and Arkansas are view similar in people and topography. The people need to ask themselves do the views of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Ried, Chris Dodd and Charlie Rangle reflect their views because West Virginia elected officials are supporting their liberal views and not those of the people of West Virginia. Once the people realize that, then they need to vote accordingly to take the state down the right path.
Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

West Virginia Democrats Hurt Themselves

Back in February on Super Tuesday, Doug McKinney and West Virginia's Republican Party took a lot of criticism for the decision to go ahead with a party convention instead of the customary primary vote. The party was accused of disenfranchising voters even though much of the problems lay in a misunderstanding of how the convention worked. In reality, active Republicans as never before got to join together, listen to the candidates, and choose. Huckabee's win of West Virginia served as the headline of the day. The state met its goals of garnering attention, getting people out to participate who had never been active before, and being a player in the campaigns.

West Virginia Democrats had to wait until May to make their choice. Hillary Clinton still has a chance to win the nomination, mathematically anyway. Obviously counts upon a huge win in West Virginia to rekindle momentum. It is true that superdelegate pledges mean as much as soft verbals in college football recruiting (they can always change their mind.) Also polls show that Clinton has a better chance at winning in November than Obama. Her supporters cling to an ever shrinking margin of hope.

It did not have to be this way. Imagine if Democrats had followed the Republican example and arranged to make their selection much earlier. A lopsided West Virginia win for Clinton certainly would have shown Obama's tenuous hold on rural and union Democrats. Right now if you ranked the preference of West Virginia Democrats, Clinton would come in first, then McCain, and Obama far behind these two. This would have changed the dynamic of the Democratic campaign.

Not that we want Clinton to win the presidency, far from it. However this example reflects the wisdom of state Republicans in moving back the date upon which they chose for the presidency.

Friday, March 7, 2008

Vice Presidential Nominees?

John McCain's first question as nominee is the most difficult. Who will share the ticket?

Geographical logic points to the South to balance McCain's western origins. He needs to shore up a very questioning southern base, especially if Clinton rebounds and gains the Democratic nomination. A southern conservative would be extremely helpful.

Mike Huckabee looks like a good choice on the surface. He campaigns well in the South due to his impoverished childhood and religious beliefs. Huckabee brings to the table a man experienced in domestic issues. However in this race the GOP should shy away from a "two white guy" ticket. George W. Bush produced the most diverse administration in the history of the country. The Republican Party has done a great job in the past ten years developing female and minority leaders. Who could fit the bill?

Elizabeth Dole currently serves as the US Senator from North Carolina. She formerly ran the Red Cross and ran for president in 2000. She brings assets to the table, such as her congenial husband Robert who ran for president in 1996. Robert Dole also suffered serious wounds in combat and was a leader in the Senate for many years. Dole has avoided the limelight for the past eight years. This could help or hurt.

Senator Mel Martinez from Florida has great influence in that state's powerful Cuban community and could help sway moderate and Hispanic voters elsewhere. California could come into play for the GOP in 2008 and Martinez would only help. Martinez has the confidence of the RNC and has worked very hard to help the national party leadership.

Michael Steele from Maryland has electrifying charisma and energy. When he ran in the last election, civil rights groups in his state showed their hypocrisy by pelting him with Oreo cookies. He also showed an ability to connect with conservative Western Marylanders. I remember in 2006 speaking with some rather confused older voters in West Virginia who expressed the hope that "you help Steele beat Byrd." Steele also holds strong conservative credentials. His ability to make such a strong impression on Western Maryland and Eastern West Virginia means that Steele could find receptive audiences elsewher ein the South. However his national exposure has been limited.

McCain also has an asset in Rudolph Giuliani who has his own backing. For many reasons, he would make an unsuitable vice presidential nominee, but might help the ticket as a proposed Secretary of State or Attorney General. George W. Bush benefited from early speculation that the respected Colin Powell would be his chief diplomat.

The vice presidential nomination is one of McCain's most important choices and will go a long way towards determining whether or not he wins come November.

Thursday, February 21, 2008

Perception and Leadership

I was speaking to former Helping Hands director Cheri Alt the other day. She was discussing the issue of how the middle class is perceived to be shrinking. Alt described how the perception of the middle class most people have appears almost unobtainable to many poor. The effort to reach the next level is overwhelming. This has helped to create a strong perception that America is somehow out of whack and needs some kind of serious adjustment.

First, this made me wonder. What is "middle class?"

It used to be that middle class meant that you had a reliable roof over your head, a decent automobile, and the capability to feed your family and pay your bills. After this, you usually had a little left over every month to save for retirement and a vacation. Sure bills caused stress, but more often than not the family did just fine. Until recently, this was not just middle class, but "the American Dream." This middle class still exists in America. The problem lies in what people perceive as "success." We have revised it upward. Now we don't see ourselves as successful unless we can afford all the latest electronics, a house much larger than necessary, new automobiles, and still not worry about bills. The gap between expectations and reality causes anxiety to many. We stress about what we do not have rather than being thankful for the gifts God gave us. I make the same mistake myself very often.

The media does not help. Its views of middle class have been skewed for a long time. Shows like Roseanne, Mama's Family, and Sanford and Son were meant to represent people who in some way were poor. However all had homes and vehicles. Fred Sanford was even a small business owner. Bill Cosby represented middle class, although to many of us in West Virginia, he certainly appeared rich. The Democrats play upon this anxiety when they announce that the United States has a poor economy.

An expectation of rewards without effort, experience, or proof of competency has also helped create the perception that the economy and society itself has problems. The burgeoning sense of entitlement is the sad result of the 1990s liberal experiment with scholastic self-esteem. Children learned that they were all considered excellent regardless of whether they earned it in any way. The same awards went to everyone regardless of whether the individual had actually done something worthwhile. Effort was given the same praise as competency. Students find a rude awakening when they hit college or real life. The shock comes when professors or employers expect actual results, an end rarely demanded before unless the youngster played in athletics or band.

The liberals demand equality of outcome and they offer government as the solution. Achieve too effectively and watch them cut you down to size. If people get left behind it becomes an indication that something is inherently wrong. No other country in history offers opportunity like the United States in the 21st century, if only people will stand up and seize their chances through hard work from the first they they hit adulthood. We just need to remember as individuals that nothing worthwhile comes without struggle and few lessons are remembered better than those learned because of failure. We also need to thank God for the good things in our lives. We may work hard towards certain goals, but American values do not include a guarantee.
*********************************************************************

Isn't it amazing that even though the Left has dominated higher education for at least the past three decades, the Republican Party continues to turn out better candidates for leadership in presidential elections? Perhaps the universities of practical business (Romney), military style character (John McCain), the school of hard knocks (Mike Huckabee), etc. do a better job creating leaders than academia. It could also reflect the fact that conservatives constantly must defend their principles and beliefs against established authorities while in school. This forces conservatives to think about what they believe in and why. The result is a much more reasonable and capable leader, as opposed to a guy who throws out inane causal linkages and expects them to be believed without question.

When listening to liberal Democrats, always question the assumptions they make in their arguments. It is here, at the foundation, that their logic always fails. They rely on ideas such as collective guilt, conservative or private sector greed as a primary motivating factor, conservative lack of insight as a truth, the idea that individuals pursuing their own success are somehow immoral, the concept that global warming is an acknowledged truth. If you accept their assumptions, their logic is fine and their conclusions are valid. It is their assumptions that defy reality. Take for example the economy. Obama insists we need significant change because the economy is poor. The economy is still growing! Furthermore the Fed says it will pick up by fall. Get your time machine and bring someone in from the 1970s or 1930s and ask them if 2% growth with low interest rates and inflation are bad. That looks like heaven to those folks.
*********************************************************************

A hundred years ago, hucksters sold products called patent medicines. These drugs promised to cure what ailed you, but never informed the customer what composed them. Obama's campaign works on a similar premise. It promises to make you feel better while refusing to offer any substance. Turns out these medicines did make people feel better in the short term because they were chock full of morphine. People get convinced to take the medicines even when they are not ill because the salesmen were extremely slick. A little exercise and better diet would have gone a lot farther than patent medicines.

Republicans offer the reasonable path to a better tomorrow because individuals are expected to work towards their own benefit. Obama offers the patent medicine of government solutions without any expectation of individuals. That's not how this country was founded and built into greatness.

Monday, February 11, 2008

What Got Lost In the Convention Furor

A lot has been said and written about the West Virginia presidential nominating convention good, bad, and ugly. Some expressed pleasant surprise, others complete dismay. Thanks ought to go out to the team that made it happen. They received a thankless assignment and achieved their goals. They made money, got the state party some attention, and made the West Virginia GOP a real factor on the most important primary day. Beneath the big picture some sore feelings emerged, but at this point it looks as though reconciliation is likely.

The big question no one asked is why did John McCain do so poorly in West Virginia? Those who did not attend might reason that the more evangelical candidate, Mike Huckabee, had the inside track in a heavily Protestant state. Not true. The power of public speaking played a large role here.

Some performed well. Mitt Romney gave a flawless delivery both at his morning breakfast with supporters and later on the floor. He gave a great speech that few Republicans could possibly disagree. Romney has a strong presence in person and one can understand why his supporters back him with such passion.

Others did not. Ron Paul gave a somewhat rambling address. Just when he made a strong point about values that libertarians and Republicans share, he would haul out an extremist comment or historical errors. Historical errors are forgivable. Romney claimed that John Adams wrote the Constitution when Adams was actually serving abroad. That's fine because Romney did not base his policy plans on those errors. Paul asserted that Congress passed laws forbidding "entangling alliances." That actually came from Washington's Farewell Address and many historians believe that he only meant that for the temporary period in which the US would be vulnerable to foreign intrigues. Paul then blundered by forgetting that the United States Navy, not privateers, defeated the Barbary Pirates. His reference to being a Baptist seemed forced.

McCain's guest speaker, former Louisiana governor Buddy Roemer, looked like a great singer who kept hitting false notes. He seemed congenial and had I been a Louisianan I would have enjoyed his speech. Roemer proclaimed that LSU was the greatest college football team in the nation and implied that he'd rather have been in New Orleans than Charleston. Later he made a small joke about Presbyterians while mentioning the different denominations that helped Hurricane Katrina victims. In doing so he omitted the West Virginia National Guard who played a very important role. A delegate behind me asked if he was trying to get people to vote against McCain.

Mike Huckabee spoke extremely well. Coming from a poor small town background in an impoverished mountain state, he knew how to speak to West Virginia Republicans. Contrary to Democrat claims, many current West Virginia GOPers came from poor and difficult backgrounds. Huckabee joked about Lava soap, a product often used to get dirt or grease off the hands. He claimed that it was not until he was about twenty that he understood that a shower was not supposed to hurt. Huckabee was warm and endearing and swayed many delegates to at least see him as a vice presidential possibility.

In many ways the convention proved a success. For me personally it was a fascinating experience. As a student of the history of politics, this was a rare opportunity to witness how our candidates were chosen before the era of primaries. Hopefully the hard feelings that emerged during the convention will pass quickly so we can get to the business of getting our state behind the next president

Thursday, February 7, 2008

No Convention Deal, come on...

The Romney camp was outflanked by a misuse of the rules. Or I guess we could call it the Washington interpretation of the rules, or just darn good strategy. How I know? Several people asked me for directions to room 105, where McCain supporters journeyed to and then returned from convinced to vote for Huckabee. Granted Huckabee's supporters could have simply convinced the McCain people to reconsider their positions and been overwhelmingly persuasive to 95% of McCain followers in just about an hour. However, I happened to be standing next to a McCain supporter who had refuted efforts at a conversion to Mitt Romney even quoting that his integrity would be open to question if he switched his vote for political reasons, when he was approached by one of McCain's people and told to vote for Huckabee. That settled it, the fix was implemented, and so the vote went. I have left out names, but would be happy to provide them if denials continue.

What bothers me is not the "deal". Rules allowed for such a deal, and a well timed lunch hour gave the needed break to provide organization from each side. Not to mention, that I am not sure that WV votes even matter as far as this race is concerned. What bothers me is the willingness of the Republican Party leadership to entangle themselves in a nationally publicized mess. McCain and Huckabee are denying involvement in the proceedings...executive privilege already? The leadership from the McCain-Huckabee team gets to take credit for the deal when the time is right and McCain gets the nod and can reward their courageous action. The rest of us are left looking just as bad as the democrats we bash for voter fraud and corruption from Charleston to Washington. Let's be honest, do we republicans actually want to distinguish ourselves, or do we want to keep playing the valiant underdog in each campaign? We are a conservative state, but can't get local and state Republicans elected!? I know the arguments of old school democrats that live conservative but vote democrat, but I have lived here for several years and NEVER heard a republican stand up and advocate their platform in a meaningful way.

The Republican Party is not going to out-maneuver the Democrats in WV. It's not in our blood and is contrary to the message that was on the large banner at the convention.


We advocate less government then design a convention that is so laden with political bureaucracy that we were set up from the start. The well timed lunch was announced as a time to trade horses. At the very least the McCain people could have hidden their intent a little better and wait until McCain was out of the race to dump into the Huckabee camp. But that would have left the second vote up to the delegates and that is something we can't have. So a backroom (room 105) deal was made and the convention was settled. Not to mention that some constituents didn't even know that their primary vote had been superseded by a convention until yesterday; leaving most of the spots for the usual suspects, Party loyalists, executive committee members, and a few hand-picked delegates. A slight tinge of disdain was even evident when I discussed the Ron Paul delegates who had, at the last moment, changed their political affiliation to republican and slipped into a delegate position. Consequently, Ron Paul supporters were the only group in the convention with any level of diversity in their ranks.

Republicans win elections by sharing their message, not through clever political maneuvering. In ideological battles, we win. The American spirit resonates truest in an open market with limitations on government. Those limitations allow individuals to prosper in the endeavors of their choosing, whether those are family, faith, financial, service, or other. It may be too late for this election cycle, but next cycle we might have a chance to band together and come up with a plan and an agenda for this state much like Newt Gingrich came up with in the mid-90s. A coherent message could give us the opportunity to bolster the Republican Party to a position where real change can occur in our state.

Wednesday, February 6, 2008

The Plot Thickens . . .

So, our great convention experiment has concluded. If nothing else, it has been an eye-opener. Of course, most of the talk is about "The Deal". I have an unique perspective on The Deal, which I will share in the near future. However, I note--with no small degree of glee--the following, as reported in Lawrence Messina's AP wire report:

‘‘There was no backroom deal. There wasn’t even a frontroom deal. There was no deal,’’ [Huckabee] said.

McCain also denied that there was a deal.

‘‘I didn’t have a conversation with (Huckabee) or any of his people about anything to do with it,’’ McCain said at a news conference in Phoenix. ‘‘It’s a bit insulting to Governor Huckabee, who won that, by alleging such a thing.’’

But Paul supporters claimed Tuesday evening that Huckabee’s campaign bought their support with the promise of three West Virginia delegates.

‘‘That’s not true,’’ said Huckabee spokeswoman Alice Stewart.

John Tate, national political director for Paul, insisted that there was a deal even after learning of Stewart’s denial.

--end quote--

First--I'm sorry, Senator McCain and Governor Huckabee, but there WAS a deal.

Second--Part of that deal was for Ron Paul to be bought with 3 national convention delegates.

Third--Ahhh.....what is that? The sweet smell of poetic justice. More to follow. . . .

Tuesday, February 5, 2008

Final Vote Tally from the WVGOP Convention

Here are the actual votes from the Convention earlier today...

Second Ballot
MIKE HUCKABEE - 567 VOTES (52%) (+192 from first round)
MITT ROMNEY - 521 VOTES (47%) (+57 from first round)
JOHN McCAIN - 12 VOTES (1%) (-164 from first round)
RON PAUL - ELIMINATED (-118 from first round)
First Ballot
MIKE HUCKABEE - 375 (33%)
MITT ROMNEY - 464 (41%)
JOHN McCAIN - 167 (15%)
RON PAUL - 118 (10%)

Huckabee Wins Brokered WV Convention

After first round of voting Romney lead followe by Huckabee, McCain, and Ron Paul finsihing in last place. This removed Ron Paul from the process. The next vote was between Romney, McCain, and Huckabee.

Huckabee's delegates worked to pick up the Ron Paul vote, and brokered a deal with McCain crew to garner their vote. The deal worked, in the the second round of voting Huckabee picked up 52% of the vote clinching 18 of West Virginia 30 delegates.

Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee were both present at the convention and gave speechs to the over 1000 delegates. McCain was the only candidate not in attendence.

Friday, January 11, 2008

Can pundits at least make some effort to appear objective?

During the Fox News coverage of the New Hampshire Primary last Tuesday night, former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, now chairman of GOPAC, made the absurd claim that Mike Huckabee's distant-third place finish (11%) demonstrated his competitiveness, was strong, &tc. . .

What a load of crap.

Getting tripled up on by the 2nd place finisher, Governor Romney (who had 32%), does not demonstrate competitiveness--it demonstrates that Rev. Huckster is a one-hit-wonder, a one-trick-pony, whatever your analogy of choice. He might win in South Carolina, but chalk that up to identity politics--not rational, issues-based reasoning.

I know that GOPAC is Newt Gingrich's creation, and Newt is--by some reports--backing Rev. Huckster, but (and this may be a self-answering question) do pundits have no shame?

As another famous saying goes...."Don't [pee] on my leg and tell me its raining."

Wednesday, January 9, 2008

McCain Wins New Hampshire, Obama Clinton battling

Republican (24% Reporting)

1) McCain 37%
2) Romney 29 %
3) Huckabee 12 %
4) Giuliani 9%
5) Paul 8%
6) Thompson 2%

Democrat (26% Reporting)
1) Clinton 40%
2) Obama 34%
3) Edwards 17%
4) Richards 4%

Friday, January 4, 2008

Republicans on to Wyoming, Democrats to New Hampshire

Saturday Republicans head to the Wyoming Caucus ahead of the New Hampshire Primary.

With 78% Reporting from Iowa

34% Huckabee
25% Romney
14% Thompson
13% McCain

Huckabee's strong win has surprised a lot of people, mainly at the expense of Romney. It is unclear how the virtual tie between Thompson and McCain will play out. 2 surprises; a stronger than expected 5th place finish by Ron Paul, and very low finish by Giuliani with only 4% of the vote.

With 96% Reporting
38% Obama
30% Edwards
29% Clinton
02% Richardson

Juan Williams pointed out that in Iowa, a state with 95% of the population being white, Obama's strong win over both Edwards and Clinton shows that he is a viable national candidate and race will not play a major roll as some expected. This will make Obama a more viable candidate in the eyes of many voters. The 3rd place finish by Clinton could be devastating to her campaign.

Monday, December 17, 2007

I couldn't have said it better myself . . .

Like I've said before, Republican primaries give me heartburn. The present contest is no exception.

An e-mailer to The Corner at National Review Online had this to say about Mike Huckabee. I don't typically copy-and-paste, but I this statement encapsulates my personal view on the situation perfectly. This e-mail is part of a larger conversation about evangelical sensitivity to criticism of Pastor Huckabee.

"I think what a lot of evangelicals may be missing here is that many non-evangelical conservatives are completely baffled, and frustrated, by the amount of support for the non-conservative Bush-channeling Huckabee. When we sit back and look at the amount of frustration and consternation that Bush has caused among conservatives, and then see Huckabee (who represents everything bad about Bush, with few of his positive characteristics) gaining the support of a fourth of our party, we have to ask ourselves why. The most obvious answer seems to be that he is attracting so much support because he is the only evangelical candidate in the race. To many conservatives, well at least to me, this idea that we should betray conservative principles in order to support a candidate with the right religious credentials is more than shocking, it is abhorrent, and the result is an anti-evangelical backlash. I consider myself a social conservative, and share so much common ground with evangelicals that it truly hurts me to see the strain being placed on our relationship. But as long as their power is used to push a statist non-conservative candidate on our party, we will not be seeing eye-to-eye."

Mike Huckabee is the wrong man to lead this country. I hope our party sees that clearly.

Thursday, December 6, 2007

O, O, it's Magic? No.

Oprah Winfrey has thrown her hat into the ring. Sort of.

Winfrey has emerged as a very public supporter of Barrack Obama in the past couple of weeks. Her media empire and friends have geared up to try and place the young whippersnapper into office despite his lack of experience and occasional zaniness. The question is, why?

The question of the United States having a black president is resoundingly when. Certainly it is likely that this is an issue Winfrey cares deeply about and she has decided to place her influence behind Obama. However, is this merely an issue of a black media figure supporting a black politician? Likely not.

Obama as a senator from Illinois has served in a position to help the Chicago based Winfrey if possible. Since Obama presently trails by a considerable margin in the polls, if he somehow emerged as a winner, this bolsters Winfrey's stature considerably. The president would be beholden to Winfrey as a result. Since Winfrey and the shirtless dancing twit are involved it is packaged as fresh and hip. Really it is old fashioned power and media politics.

Winfrey may be able to sway book sales and movie viewership, but her effect on voting is likely not going to be overwhelming. First, she backed a dud. If this was merely a question of "it is time for a black president" then Condoleeza Rice is the most qualified contender. A more seasoned Michael Steele in the future would also be a prime candidate. However it is unlikely that Winfrey could exercise influence over either of these people.

Most likely Winfrey will experience a slight backlash. Celebrities such as Winfrey gain influence because people see some of themselves in the media figure. Perception is shaped by the idea that "she is like me." Politics represents one of the most divisive issues of any democratic state and Winfrey risks alienating part of her audience. Celebrities don't understand that their audience watches them to escape stressful issues such as politics. Winfrey's audience watches her because she is not Olberman or O'Reilly. Some are Republicans and likely quite a few support Hillary Clinton (many of them because they feel "it is time for a woman president"). Once she breaks that boundary, she becomes another political hack.

Obama will get less of a bump from Winfrey than Mike Huckabee has gotten from Chuck Norris. Winfrey's touch in this case will not produce any magic.

Wednesday, September 5, 2007

WV Republican Presidental Convention Participants

The following candidates have signed on to participate in West Virginia's Presidential Convention on February 5th, 2008.

  • Sam Brownback
  • Rudy Giuliani
  • Mike Huckabee
  • Duncan Hunter
  • Alan Keyes
  • John McCain
  • Ron Paul
  • Mitt Romney
  • Fred Thompson
  • Gene Zarwell