Redstate

Romney campaign just sent out a mailer in Iowa contrasting immigration positions. It begins.

But Huckabee's support is pretty die-hard.

They that are with us are more than they that are against us.

Well, it doesn't make sense in itself. I guess it would make sense if you are of the opinion that McCain goes from NH to MI and then into hostile territory (SC, FL) and so would need outright victories in order to whether what look to be dismal finishes in the follow-ups going into Feb. 5th.

Fred, on the other hand, may be more "viable" in those southern states and some others on Feb. 5th, and so a combined Thompson-McCain team (as in McCain drops out and endorses Fred) could take a stab at SC and FL.

Really though, I think that we're in for it this year. Every day seems to bring more reasons to think that we could wind up going into May without anybody locking up the delegate majority. This is not a sprint to IA and NH anymore - hell it may not even be a sprint to Feb. 5th. This may be a marathon with the winner being the guy that financially keep the shop open longest.

Messy messy messy. I smell a real-life manifestation of the last season of The West Wing.

Generally speaking, McCain and Thompson share the same ideology - as is evident by their congenial relationship. Both also represent the mainstream of the GOP. Both present the best possibility of holding the GOP coalition together in the next election. It makes sense for one to drop out and endorse the other. While it's debatable which one should drop out, I would argue that McCain is the stronger candidate and the stronger general election candidate, and therefore, Thompson should drop out and and endorse McCain.

The GOP is in trouble. Three of the top five candidates have severe drawbacks. Huckabee is far too associated with the religious right - which may win him the nomination in a crowded, 5 candidate field, but will doom him in the general election. Romney is too inconsistent and inexperienced, having been MA Governor for only one term. Giuliani may be able to overcome his liberal social positions and his odd family situation, but in a crowded field it is nearly impossible to determine how many social conservatives will vote for him. None of these three has foreign policy experience.

The GOP is seemingly facing an existential election, one in which our appeal to independents will be thoroughly damaged if we nominate one of these three. McCain is the guy - he has to be.

Romney is inexperienced? He has more executive experience than any other candidate on any side of the aisle, and by a long shot. Who do you want balancing your state's budget? A guy like Romney who made a living and made himself famous by taking the reigns of flagging corporations, streamlining them, and making them profitable (and did so over and over again)...or a guy like Huckabee, who instead of going through the budget with a fine toothed comb, just beat the heck out of the taxpayers with tax increases?

Real world experience matters.

"Don't ever be afraid to see what you see." ~Ronald Reagan

Exactly what is the amount of money needed?

Jim Tomasik

I assume you mean what's needed to compete in later states.

Well, since there are so many, and they are fairly large geographically, and there isn't a lot of time even between now and Feb. 5th let alone from IA to Feb. 5th - I would say that you need to be on TV and radio.

Now, that gets pricey. You're competing in NY, NJ, CT, GA, CA - all of which require advertising in some major media markets (NYC, Philly, Atlanta, LA, SF, SD) - none of which can be bought cheap. Right now, Rudy and Romney have the leg up in that they have raised and have on-hand, pretty large sums (and of course Romney can fund himself foir any "shortfalls" getting it done). Huckabee is raising more money than he has been but he's way behind.

At 3rd quarter end - Rudy had about $16.5 million in hand on his FEC report. Romney had over $9 million. Huck had only $651,000. His total fundraising through 9/30 was just north of $2 million. He'd have to increase his total fundraising 4 or 5-fold just to get to the cash on hand Romney has - and that would mean spending none of it.

I'm not sure what the exact number is for ad costs, but $9 million is certainly going to buy a lot more of it than $650k.

I don't think the issue is whether illegals can apply for scholarships. It's whether the state should subsidize their tuition through "in-state" rates.

And if you think that kind of preference is "popular" than you must not pay attention to surveys of Republicans. This is probably about as unpopular as giving illegals drivers' licenses. It is a reward for breaking the law, and immigration is shaping up to be a big issue for a significant segment of the primary electorate.

Huckabee can defend his position, but I don't think it will win him the immigration issue voters. And it just plays more into this "compassionate conservative" thing he's trying to sell - which we bought twice and haven't liked very much.

by the way. The University of Arkansas - in-state tuition and fees per semester is about half the rate for non-residents (just over $5000 to over $10000).

At Arkansas State residents pay $3000 a semester for tuition. Non-residents will pay just shy of $6700.

The difference exists because the state treasury basically subsidizes the universities' budgets based on the number of in-state students. In other states the difference can be even greater (in the New York SUNY system in-state tuition is more than $6000 less per semester than non-resident tuition and such tuition disparities reach to the state-supported parts of Cornell University - so in NY you'd be willing to give an illegal alien an ivy-league education at a discount - all for breaking our laws but being willing to study afterwards).

It should be further noted that the state is already subsidizing out-of-state students, as is. The cost per student to run the university is already higher than the tuition rate paid by out-of-state students.

What infuriated me about Huckabee's debate performance the other night is that he referred to denying scholarships to children of parents here illegally as punishment. Punishment? Since when is receiving a scholarship a right? And since when is treating them as any other kid in this country a form of punishment.

Scholarships are a gift. Not a right, Huckabee.

"Don't ever be afraid to see what you see." ~Ronald Reagan

I did not say his support for state subsidized scholarships for illegals was popular. I said judging from the response to the crowd at the debate that I believe it would not hurt his support from his base, which happens to be compassionate Christians who are more inclined to understand his empathetic reasoning. Keep in mind that this was after he had a chance to explain his reasoning. Also, it is not a reward for breaking the law because the children have not broken the law. Their parents broke the law and perhaps it might be a reward to them, but it is not a reward to a child who has done everything ever asked of them. It is a chance to receive something they earned like the rest of their peers.

It may not lose him any support he currently has, but if you're not watching, his IA support is only about 30% and his national support is lower. He needs to win over new people, and positions like in-state tuition for illegals will eliminate him from consideration with a sizeable chunk of Republicans (including some social conservatives he would otherwise appeal to) who believe that rewarding illegals is unacceptable.

The position Huck holds does not have majority support in the GOP. It doesn't even have majority support in the country as a whole. The drivers' license thing is related (and it doesn't even involve spending money/allowing illegals to access government programs) and it was even hounded off the table in "liberal" New York.

In regards to Huckabee's rise, and that he needs to win over new people- I think everyone agrees that's what needs to done (by any candidate) in order to win the nomination. Saying he's been discounted as 3rd tier and 2nd tier for so long, I think it's incredibly impressive his numbers are rising across the board.

I think that looking at any of the easily accessible graphs depicting overall support for Huckabee over time, compared to the other candidates is impressive as well. Whereas Thompson has slide from mid-20's to where he registered only 10% yesterday, as has Romney, who's high-water mark at 17% has been hit a few time, but is now at 13% Nationwide.

In regard to illegal immigration, I think everyone realizes the Federal Government has failed us time and again on this issue, and that Americans don't trust our Government to be able to get it done. Therefore we need someone who's entirely trustworthy, and has experience with similar infrastructural development to achieve this goal. Huckabee's stated multiple times on his website the first thing that needs to be done is to build a fence, and to rebuild Americans' trust in their Government to handle tough issues like this before anything else needs to be done.

Afterwards, he's specified that he would support going after businesses that employee illegal immigrants.

So did Clinton. And the only reason that he owned up to his campaign's theme (less govt.; lower taxes, etc.) was because of the Republican Revolution. That's most FiCon's problem with him. (That, and the "Club for Greed" thing. That's like spitting on the Eucharist for FiCons.)

I find club for greed an appealing name for an organization. Of course I liked Gordon Gecko more than the other guy in Wall St.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

No, I'm definitely watching and keeping up with the debates and daily politics. I think what you're missing is that Huckabee is not walking away from the empathy he showed to the helpless children who excelled and took advantage of the opportunity given to them. Also, I understand where the country is when it comes to the immigration debate. But I have not seen a poll that asks a few simple questions. Should we punish the children for crimes of the parent? Should we educate the children from kindergarten through their senior year if there is not any comprehensive immigration reform? Should we educate the children of illegals all the way through their senior year in high school and then ban them from applying for in state college tuition? I seriously believe there is more anger towards our own government than there is towards a helpless and hard working illegal child. I think he gains more from this than he loses. At least he showed some conviction and heart when he explained his position during the debate. This resonates and inspires a lot more than silly bickering between Rudy and Mitt, and this is the main reason he’s picking up votes.

Do you actually believe that children of illegal aliens have a right to subsidized education? Actually, do you seriously believe that they have a right to an education at all at taxpayer's expense?

No one has the right to be generous with someone else's money. Man, if you call that conservatism, I'd rather be a liberal.

No, I do not believe they have a right to subsidized education or health care. The problem I have is paying for their education for 12 years and then not making an exception for a highly qualified student we already have a vested interest in. In my mind it would be like throwing away thousands of dollars the federal and state government already spent on a student. In the end I think he is right when says they will end up being tax takers instead of tax payers. You’re going to pay on the front end or the back end, and giving up when you’ve already invested thousands of dollars makes no financial sense. Again, this is something he supported because the federal government has done nothing to fix the problem. All he’s doing is saying we might as well capitalize on an investment we’ve already made in the child. Would you sell off an investment that shows all the signs of a grand payback? Again, we can have a discussion on whether the government she spend one cent of their pre college education, but that is not what this is about.

>>The problem I have is paying for their education for 12 years and then not making an exception for a highly qualified student we already have a vested interest in.<<

There are multiple college loan programs available in this country. Thousands upon thousands of American students are utilizing them annually. If these kids did well in school, it's because they're talented and they have drive. Knowing you have loans accumulating is but one further motivation to do better.

I'm not impressed with the reasoning above. I'm a student who is currently accumulating the debt of $20,000 annual tuition rates, all paid off in loans. My education is an investment. It's one I plan on capitalizing on. I request no special privileges from the state, and I will pay off my own debts.

Huckabee talks about knowing how hard it was to get by and how he was a hard worker. Well, it's obvious he didn't go break any laws by stealing the money he needed for college. Likewise, I don't think those who came into our nation by breaking our laws should be benefitting. They should have to break their backs just like any other student who wants to come to this country for an education or any other student from out-of-state.

Let's say you have a scholarship that has a 3.7 GPA cutoff. Why should you reward children of illegals with this scholarship instead of dropping the standard to 3.67 and awarding that scholarship to those who obey our laws? Huckabee talks about punishing the children of illegal immigrants, but what his little scheme does it take money away from some other nearly equally meritorious kid who was obeying our laws and giving it to someone who broke our laws.

This is unacceptable.

"Don't ever be afraid to see what you see." ~Ronald Reagan

If a kid wants it bad enough he/she will work their way through school like thousands have done before.

Anyone who believes that ANY group of people deserves special treatment are more liberal than they are conservative.

Including Mike Huckabee.

------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.