Mike Huckabee Blasts United Nations Report Calling Israel an 'Apartheid State' (VIDEO)

Good for him.

Watch, "Fox News contributor sounds off: It's time for the U.S. to quit funding this is nonsense."

Voters on 'Ideological Edges' to Set the Tone for 2016

I don't think the millions of white working-class voters providing (most of) the enormous surge of support for Donald Trump's campaign are on the "ideological edge."

On the other hand, 43 percent of Democrats self-identify in recent polling as "socialists," an ideological stance that's by definition to the far-left of the ideological spectrum.

But if you're a leftist, being in favor of secure borders and free markets makes you on "the fringe," or so we're told at the New York Times.

And it's not "may set the tone." Fringe leftists are definitely setting the tone, and the Trump campaign is frankly a push back against that monstrous ideological tendency.

See, "In Iowa, Voters on the Edges May Set Tone for Primaries":

DES MOINES — Iowa, widely derided for being unlike the rest of the United States, was supposed to be irrelevant this year as the presidential race became nationalized — thanks to widely viewed televised debates and the rise of social media.

But as the Iowa caucuses loom on Monday — the first votes after 1,500 candidate rallies, 60,000 TV ads and a nail-biting tightening of the polls here — the state’s voters are poised to play perhaps their most significant role ever in both parties’ nominating contests. And their embrace of candidates on the ideological fringes has amplified a national grass-roots rebellion against establishment politicians.

Both Democrats and Republicans have seen their presumptive nominees of a year ago — deeply experienced, proven political leaders — brushed aside by Iowans in favor of idol-smashing outsiders.

“There’s a tremendous amount of anti-establishment, anti-Washington sentiment here, and I would not be surprised if an outsider on both sides wins,” said Gov. Terry E. Branstad, a Republican, who has exerted himself in an unheard-of effort to derail one of his own party’s front-runners, Senator Ted Cruz.

Voters on the ideological edges, who dominate both parties in Iowa, have made Senator Bernie Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist, and Donald J. Trump and Mr. Cruz, whose views are anathema to Republican leadership, the standard-bearers of the left and the right.

The embrace of Mr. Sanders and Mr. Trump, visible nationally in huge rallies, has stirred Iowa’s latent Midwest populism, with voters angry about the hollowing out of the middle class, Wall Street greed and the corrupting influence of money in politics. It has created two insurgents who in some ways are opposite sides of the same coin.

The policies of President Obama have added accelerant to the fire, with the far left unhappy he did not go far enough, and the right convinced he radically changed the United States.

“There’s a very disaffected segment of Republican voters and Democratic voters who just want to throw ’em all out,” said David Redlawsk, a political scientist at Rutgers University who wrote a book about the Iowa caucuses. “These particular voters have been told for several cycles, ‘All you have to do is vote for me, and it will be 100 percent different.’ It never is. Sanders and Trump are both benefiting.”

The results of Monday’s caucuses, which will take place in 1,681 precincts across Iowa, ride on such concrete factors as candidates’ get-out-the-vote efforts — but also on intangibles like voters’ perception of who is catching fire at the last minute, and even on the weather. Campaigns were anxiously checking forecasts amid reports of a snowstorm arriving late Monday, but expected that the weather would hold enough to encourage turnout, which could give an edge to the two candidates with large support from first-time voters, Mr. Trump and Mr. Sanders. A victory for Mr. Trump, who has drawn thousands to his rallies here, would devastate Mr. Cruz. The senator has deployed waves of volunteers and sought to visit all 99 counties in Iowa to mobilize evangelical Christians, the core of a conservative coalition that he has built along with Tea Partiers and libertarians...

Even Ted Cruz is not on the "ideological fringe." One of the most interesting things at that GOP debate on Thursday was Megyn Kelly hammering Cruz for his past prodigious support for immigration amnesty. But, again, if you're to the right of center, you're on the "ideological fringe," according to the idiot mandarins of our collectivist press.

Still more, FWIW.

Mike Huckabee Super PAC Campaign Spot Blasts Ted Cruz in Bid for Evangelicals in Iowa (VIDEO)

Just saw this on "The Five" at Fox News.

The ad's out from Pursuing America’s Greatness, and it's good!

Ted Cruz is a phony:

Ouch! Megyn Kelly Hammers Ted Cruz on Past Immigration Policy Hypocrisy – #GOPDebate (VIDEO)

Here's the report at Politico, "Trump-free debate puts Cruz in the hot seat."

At watch, via Fox News. Cruz's gets both defensive and angry:

Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee Speak at Rival Donald Trump Event for Veterans (VIDEO)

It was a brief event, compared to the GOP debate, which just wrapped up a few minutes ago.

I can't watch the debates without Donald Trump. It just feels, well, kinda naked.

Here's Ryan Anderson's New Book on Homosexual Marriage

They got into the debate on homosexual marriage and religious freedom at last night's debate, as well as the ideological fidelity of Chief Justice John Roberts. (On Twitter, some folks pointed out that Ted Cruz was hypocritical.)

In any case, here's Ryan Anderson's book, at Amazon, Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom.

I really disagreed with Mike Huckabee. Folks need to flesh out the distinctions between Kim Davis' obligations as a public servant and elected official vis-à-vis her rights and responsibilities under the First Amendment. It's a complicated question, because while she has rights to freedom of religion, as a public official she could be violating citizens' protections against state sponsorship of religion.

Substance Made a Comeback in Second #GOPDebate

Following-up from earlier, "Donald Trump Goes Quiet When #GOPDebate Turns to Substantive Issues."

At WSJ, "Candidates fielded questions ranging from immigration and national security to the economy":

Very substantive #GOPDebate. #CNNDebate.

— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) September 17, 2015

Attitude met substance on a California debate stage Wednesday night. And if substance didn’t win, it at least made a comeback.

For two months, the Republican presidential race has been dominated by Donald Trump, whose approach has been to boast about his leadership style—“I’m a winner, I’ll negotiate great deals”—while skirting past detailed policy discussions.

The remainder of the field was left fuming, talking about Mr. Trump and seeing media coverage flow his way. What they weren’t doing was talking about their agendas.

That changed in the debate at the Reagan presidential library in California. While many of the questions posed by the CNN moderators began with a recitation of comments Mr. Trump has made, which left him still at the center of the conversation, his competitors managed to launch a conversation that, for the first time in weeks, got beyond the Trump orbit.

Sen. Marco Rubio got limited face time but made the most of it, explaining, for example, why he wouldn’t support President Barack Obama when he proposed limited airstrikes against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s troops: “If the United States military is going to be engaged by a commander-in-chief, it should only be engaged in an endeavor to win. And we’re not going to authorize use of force if you’re not put in a position where they can win.”

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush got his first chance on a debate stage to explain his immigration plan in detail and talk about judicial appointments. Ohio Gov. John Kasich got to explain his record in Ohio, as well as his determination to run an upbeat campaign that will give people “a sense of unity” in which he won’t attack others. Retired surgeon Ben Carson got to explain his health plan. Sen. Ted Cruz got multiple chances to strike a tough tone on Iran.

Indeed, the other candidates seemed to relish the chance to not talk about Mr. Trump. And, after having endured his criticisms of their records, energy, styles and even appearances, to begin striking back. Mr. Bush asked Mr. Trump to apologize to his Mexican-born wife for saying she influenced his thinking on immigration. (Mr. Trump declined.)

Still more.

Donald Trump Goes Quiet When #GOPDebate Turns to Substantive Issues

Funny thing is, this is exactly what my wife was saying during the debate.

At the O.C. Register, "Trump turns quieter once GOP debate turns substantive":

SIMI VALLEY, Calif. – Amid the back-and-forth bickering over Donald Trump, the Republican presidential contest took a substantive and serious turn in Wednesday’s prime-time debate, with candidates wrangling over immigration, gay marriage and foreign affairs.

The policy shift quieted Trump, the brash billionaire who has roiled the GOP field, for long stretches during the debate that stretched past three hours and it appeared to come as a relief to other candidates who have struggled to break through.

Carly Fiorina, the only woman in the GOP field, was one of the main benefactors, launching an emotional plea for defunding Planned Parenthood, touting her experience in business and taking aim at Trump for derogatory comments he made about her appearance. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who came into the debate facing questions about whether he had the grit to take on Trump, also engaged directly with the real estate mogul while still trying to fulfill his promise to run a joyful campaign.

In one exchange that typified the broader battle within the Republican Party, Bush and Trump clashed over the influence of big-money donors who have helped the former governor raise more than $100 million. Trump, who is largely financing his own campaign, said of campaign contributors: “I understand the game, I’ve been on the other side my entire life and they have a lot of control over our politicians.”

At another point, Bush pressed Trump to apologize for comments he has made about Bush’s Mexican-born wife. Trump refused and called Bush “weak on immigration.”

As the contest lasted deep into the night, the candidates were polled on such matters as their choices for a woman to be depicted on the $10 bill and what their Secret Service code names would be if elected president. Bush drew the biggest applause when he picked “Eveready,” then turned to Trump to note it was a “high-energy” name — a nod to Trump’s criticism of Bush as a low-energy candidate. They smiled and slapped hands at that.

Trump’s unexpected rise and surprising durability is seen as a reflection of voters’ frustration with Washington and career politicians. As the son and brother of presidents, Bush more than any other candidate is seen as a representative of the status quo...

More.

Greta Van Susteren: 1) Yes, Mike Huckabee is Running; 2) No, He Wasn't Forced Out at Fox News

Greta was on this morning's 'This Week' powerhouse roundtable at ABC News.

She takes the first question from Martha Raddatz, and it's interesting.

Watch: "Is Mike Huckabee Running for President?"

(I couldn't stay with it too much longer, however. Margaret Hoover's also a panelist, and she's just a disgusting RINO shill, damn.)

Leftists Freak Out Over Mike Huckabee's Totally Accurate Comments on Democrats' View of Women

Here's the background, in a surprisingly neutral headline, at LAT, "Republican Mike Huckabee wades into 'war on women'."

And Dave Weigel basically gets it right, "Mike Huckabee: Democrats Want Women to Think "They Can't Control Their Libido"."

But here's the regressive cookie-cutter clown Brian Beutler, at Salon, "Mike Huckabee offers his expertise on the female sex drive."

Frankly, Huckabee's comments were hardly controversial:



And what do you know, from Noah Rothman, "NBC, CNN Reporters Pounce on Huckabee's ‘Libido’ Comments; Forced to Issue Corrections."

More at Hot Air, "Media, White House erupt at Huckabee for saying something about Democrats and women’s libidos":

Does it really matter what he said? The liberal thought process on this works this way, I think: “Known social conservative + something about women + something about sex and birth control = outrage.” Right? It’s basically Pavlovian. Which is why even many Republicans who sympathize with social conservatism rub their temples at the thought of nominating a loud-and-proud social con as nominee. You don’t want biased, soft-headed media lefties setting the parameters for who you can nominate, but on the other hand, if you know your guy’s going to spend the campaign tapdancing around soundbite landmines — sometimes justifiably, sometimes not — why bother?

This is, as anyone who reads at a third-grade level will tell you, a shot at Democrats for practicing an especially narrow form of identity politics, not at women.

Yep. Also at the Weekly Standard, "Journalists Distort Mike Huckabee Quote."

Mike Huckabee Walks Back Natalie Portman Criticism

Huckabee screwed up.

The Other McCain has the story, "Huckabee: ‘Hey, Maybe I Shouldn’t Have Trash-Talked Luke Skywalker’s Mom’" (at Memeorandum and Politico):

We have no reason to believe that Natalie Portman became pregnant with any intention of “making a statement” or “pushing the envelope.” If Huckabee, the former Baptist minister, wishes to condemn fornication and bastardy, or to talk about the societal impact of our nation’s epidemic of fatherlessness, OK. But why drag the Star Wars star into this argument? Portman was already catching grief from the feminist ax-grinders for having declared motherhood “the most important role of my life.”

Good rule of thumb in politics: Find out what side of the issue feminists are on, and get on the other side. (If feminists ever bothered to denounce Islam’s brutal oppression of women, I might have to consider joining the Taliban. But feminists are too busy whining about “pay equity” to notice that Muslims are still stoning women to death under sharia law and forcing girls into arranged marriages.)

More at the link.

And for the "feminist ax-grinders," check Mary Elizabeth Williams, at Salon, "Is Motherhood Natalie Portman's 'Greatest Role'?"

RomneyCare Could Crash Romney's 2012 Ambitions

I like Mitt Romney personally, but he fires up few people on the right, or at least among the conservatives I've talked to. So I wonder how this is going to play out? At Politico, "Mitt Romney's Massachusetts health care law could flatline his 2012 ambitions" (via Memeorandum and The Fix):

Mitt Romney doesn't really want to talk about “RomneyCare,” the universal health care plan he signed into law as Massachusetts governor.

But the topic is already bubbling up in early primary states — offering a stark warning that his presidential run is likely to be haunted by unfavorable and potentially crippling comparisons between Romney's plan and President Barack Obama's sweeping national health care overhaul

The issue poses such a danger to Romney in the primaries that some Republicans think he’ll need to make a major speech to address the issue, while others are suggesting that third-party anti-Romney groups may unleash waves of negative ads in key states, including Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina — and Florida. Romney himself barely mentioned health care in his speech at the recent CPAC gathering, almost a tacit acknowledgment of the pitfalls it presents.

"For anyone that's following the candidates, it's the No. 1 issue that I hear from conservatives who say, 'I really like Mitt Romney, but…,' and the but is about ObamaCare," said Kevin Smith, a veteran New Hampshire Republican operative who heads the socially conservative Cornerstone Action.

Whenever I mentioned I was going to CPAC, folks asked me who was speaking. And when I said "Mitt Romney," it was almost always like, "Blah, I don't like Romney very much. I like Sarah Palin." I don't dislike Romney myself, and I wouldn't be unhappy if he won the nomination, although Palin's also my first pick. In any case, check The Hill, "Survey: Romney, Huckabee in striking distance of Obama."

Can Palin Win the 2012 GOP Nomination? — A Reassessment

In July 2009 I published "Can Palin Win the 2012 GOP Nomination?" That was 18 months ago. It's amazing how time flies, and with the New Year upon us it might be time to rephrase the question: Will 2011 be the year of Sarah Palin?

That's a pretty good bet, I'd say. For all intents and purposes, the race for the 2012 major party nominations begins today. Top-tier candidate announcements should be forthcoming shortly. Hillary Clinton announced her candidacy for the 2008 Democratic nomination on January 20, 2007. Iowa will hold its presidential caucuses on January 16, 2012 (although the final shape of next year's nomination calendar is still up in the air). By this point the buzz is not so much when candidates will formally announce, but how: Facebook or Twitter? YouTube is so four years ago.

Anyway, Nate Silver has an update to his previous analysis, "Sarah Palin’s Nomination Chances: A Reassessment" (via Memeorandum). Silver focuses on voter enthusiasm, the impact of the 2010 midterms, the competition in the GOP field (and the prospects that some top-tier candidates might wait until 2016), likely media cheerleading for Palin, her advantages as a woman, ideological purity of the GOP primary electorate, likely attempts by the GOP establishment to torpedo Palin's campaign, the historical propensity for the out party to nominate ideological extremists, and Palin's advantages with new media technologies.

My take is that Silver is a bit too infatuated with the role of new technology and blogs, etc., to determine Palin's nomination chances. He spends little time on the factors that I focused on in June 2009. Perhaps most important is fundraising. So far Palin's most formidable competition will likely come from Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee. Newt Gingrich is very likely to announce as well, although I doubt he'll have a serious chance to win the nomination. There's also buzz over Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour and Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, the former who's considered a powerful fundraiser but whose recent gaffe on Jim Crow segregation could hurt him with the establishment media. Others like Mike Pence, Mitchell Daniels, and John Bolton seem too far off the radar, although again fundraising may be a key indicator or competitiveness. According to an analysis out yesterday, "Romney has raised the most money at $7.4 million, according to Federal Election Commission records. Palin is second at $5.4 million and Pawlenty is third at $3.3 million. The others all raised less than $2 million." But USA Today ran an analysis this week that suggests Barbour could be surprisingly competitive: "GOP fundraising avoids campaign limits through PACs ahead of 2012."

Beyond money is poll standings, especially in the early primary and caucus states. Nationally, Sarah Palin trailed both Huckabee and Romney in post 2010 midterm election polls, but not by much. And looking at some of the early states, Palin polls well on favorability in Iowa, although she came in fourth in an August 2010 Iowa straw poll (and thus could face tough sledding in the Hawkeye State). She came in third at 18 percent in 2010 election night exit polls in Iowa (Huckabee and Romney tied at 21 percent each). And that buzz is confirmed by Los Angeles Times reporter Mark Barabak, who recently spent time on the ground in Iowa. In New Hampshire, Romney leads at 39 percent, with Palin at 18 percent and Huckabee at 11 percent.

Nate Silver does add some interesting speculation on the effect of Sarah Palin's reputation as the GOP's top tea party representative. And it matters very little whether Palin's endorsed tea party candidates won last November. What matters is how powerful the tea party ends up being in the early primaries. And that in turn depends on political and economic trends this year. A poor economy boosts the prospects for the GOP in 2012 overall, and it could have an exponential impact at the grassroots. Palin could be the key beneficiary of continued Republican economic angst, and that's especially true if gasoline prices continue the upward price trend we saw at the end of 2010. Drill Baby Drill! could once again become a powerful rally cry for Palin's partisans, and it would give her a penetrating wedge against the Obama administration and a leg up on her opponents in the GOP field.

Thus, I'm pretty bullish on Palin's chance to win the 2012 GOP nomination. In that sense I'm the opposite of Charles Krauthammer, usually one of my favorite analysts. I think he dismissed her chances to quickly during his appearance on yesterday's "Inside Washington" broadcast.

Now the general election's another story and I'd side with Krauthammer on that. Flap has more: "Sarah Palin Faces Gloomy New Poll Numbers – But Does It Matter?":

I think Palin could win a multi-way GOP primary election/caucus against Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee and/or Newt Gingrich. And, win easily and EARLY.

But, can she beat Obama .... ?

BONUS: Will Herman Cain upend all of this expert analysis? See, "'Run, Herman, Run!'," and "More Herman Cain Awesomeness."