Joe Carter on Campaigns
Filed under: 2008 elections, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul — Michael van der Galien, Editor-in-Chief on January 3, 2008 @ 2:05 pm CET
Evangelical blogger Joe Carter worked for Governor Mike Huckabee and published a fascinating post about his work - all from a pro-Huckabee perspective of course. I encourage you to read it in its entirety, here are some excerpts and my thoughts on them:
Firstly, Carter’s view on Romney. We can now be fairly sure that the target of Monday’s smear campaign is Mitt Romney. UPDATE: Carter answered my e-mail, saying that the thing he’s referring to is not the same thing as what’ll happen Monday. Joe writes: “Mitt Romney will never be President — I won’t be surprised if Mitt Romney wins the Iowa Caucus. I will be surprised, however, if he’s still in the race when the South Carolina primary comes around. Even if the impending scandal that has been rumored for weeks doesn’t derail his campaign (I can’t say what it is but you should hear about it before Jan. 8), his inherent dishonesty will eventually do him in.”
In other words, it will be an attack against Romney and the Huckabee campaign knows all about it. I’ve asked several people whether they can tell me a bit about it, we’ll see whether I’ll hear back from them.
UPDATE: Carter answered my e-mail. It’s not the same thing. Seemingly, we’ll see two attacks - if both are right - within the next couple of days. And quite big ones at that.
Seemingly the scandal promises to be big. Very big. If Carter believes that it’ll force Romney to withdraw from the race before South Carolina and perhaps even after winning in Iowa today, it has to be one of the biggest scandals imaginable. Although I didn’t want to write about it at first, I have to admit that curiosity is now taking over.
What’s more, though, is that it’s fascinating to see that even Huckabee staffers refer to Romney as “dishonest.” Changing one’s views isn’t dishonest (if one believes in it). Criticizing Huckabee for not having a very conservative record on all issues isn’t dishonest either (it’s the truth). Why they, then, would call Romney “dishonest” is beyond me.
It’s also interesting to see how he thinks about Giuliani: “Is he still in the race? Why? Mayor Bloomberg has a better chance of being the next President.”
In other words, social conservative Republicans truly believe that Giuliani can’t win the nomination. I have my doubts about it as well, but I wouldn’t express myself as Carter does.
He also says something interesting about Congressman Ron Paul and his supporters (in a clear sign that he doesn’t understand them at all): “The Ron Paul Phenomenon is Not About Ron Paul — It will take a more astute political mind than I possess to comprehend this Ron Paul phenomenon. All I know is that it has less to do with the candidate than about people’s desire for something different. When Rod Dreher, Andrew Sullivan, Vox Day, John Derbyshire, and the 9/11 Truthers all agree on a candidate its safe to say that they aren’t all seeing the same thing.”
As Vox Popoli points out, Carter fails to understand that Paul supporters are different from most supporters of other candidates: as I wrote in another post, to most people it’s about people. With Paul, however, it seems to be - to a degree - more about a program. About ideas. That’s quite European, which means that I have no problem whatsoever to understand this side of the so-called R3volution.
Well, there’s more, much more, go read it there, this post is long enough as it is.
UPDATE: I’m still trying to find out what we’re talking about here. I’ve got more information but I’m looking for confirmations before going public.
UPDATE II: Joe e-mailed Allahpundit at Hot Air:
Let me add a few points of clarification:
1. I don’t know anything about Monday press conference other than the PR email I got on it. I have no idea whether it is about Romney or some other candidate.
2. None of what I know was acquired through my connections to the campaign. The stuff I found out (whether its true or not) came through my sources as a blogger.
3. I don’t know if the Huckabee campaign knows about this stuff or not (though, I doubt they do).
Personally I find it difficult to believe that a former staffer knows about it, but others within the campaign don’t, but perhaps that’s just my cynical nature. However, it’s a bit early to criticize any one candidate or campaign at this point in time for attacking the other. We don’t know yet what the controversies may entail, who are targeted (well, about one person we do if Joe’s right), and by whom.
Also, sometimes a controversy isn’t created by others but caused by oneself, as may very well be the case here.
As it is, still trying to find out more about it.
1 Lynx
January 3, 2008 @ 2:39 pm CETInteresting post. I have no doubt he means a lot of what he says, though it seems a tad too convenient to find that the candidate you hate the most just happens to be the one that most threatens YOUR candidate. I do find suprising that he would be more upset at conservative media than at liberal media.
On this:
If you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you. I have no doubt that things happen on accident in campaigns. I also have no doubt that the ad isn’t one of them.
Of course it wouldn’t matter if it were an accident, since Huckabee has made clear with a million other little signs that he’s the Christian Candidate ™.
2 Jimmie
January 3, 2008 @ 2:56 pm CETYeah, I like Carter’s writing, but his post seems extremely naive at points and clueless at others. It’s obvious that he’s a Huckabee man, though he seems to wants to flirt in his post with the same passive-aggressive behavior his boss exhibits in spades.
Maybe it’s something in the Huckabee bottled water they serve.
3 Michael van der Galien
January 3, 2008 @ 3:03 pm CETI agree completely. He says that those who think that it was done on purpose are "idiots." Well, I’m an idiot then.
I read your post on Huckabee and linked to it.
4 Spree
January 3, 2008 @ 6:16 pm CETGood piece and I have to admit to being very curious as to what on earth he thinks is so bad it will force Romney to quit.
5 “Impending Scandal” Involving Romney? Different? : The American Pundit
January 3, 2008 @ 6:24 pm CET[…] Allah updates with a link to the PoliGazette. UPDATE: Carter answered my e-mail, saying that the thing he’s referring to is not the same thing […]
6 Hot Air » Blog Archive » Hmmm: Huck’s former research director hints at Romney scandal set to break soon; Update: Two scandals?
January 3, 2008 @ 6:28 pm CET[…] to Joe Carter, the former research director, and was told that the Romney scandal he has in mind is unrelated to the Monday press conference. Which means two scandals, potentially. And Huck’s team knows […]
7 Michelle Malkin » Rumor watch: GOP mudslinging in the works?
January 3, 2008 @ 6:50 pm CET[…] conference set for Monday at the National Press Club. Former Huckabee staffer Joe Carter tells PoliGazette there are two attacks ahead. Michael van der Galien writes: “Seemingly the scandal promises to […]
8 Can You Smell What The Huckster is Shoveling? : The Sundries Shack
January 3, 2008 @ 7:28 pm CET[…] hark! What is this? Michael van der Galien has found that it’s not just one story coming out of Sanctimony Central, it’s two! They may be […]
9 Jimmie
January 3, 2008 @ 7:55 pm CETEarly, perhaps, but the rumblings seem to be coming out of the House that Huck built. I don’t see any other campaign’s people getting all shifty-eyed and beckoning us into dark alleys to tell us the latest dirt.
Let’s not forget that Huckabee has on staff one of the dirtiest political operatives I’ve ever seen in Ed Rollins. The guy is every bit as nasty as James Carville without the charming "golly gosh" personality he can turn on when he wants to. And Rollins has been very publicly angry at Romney.
10 Wake up America-
January 3, 2008 @ 8:03 pm CETIt Is Caucus Day in Iowa: ROUNDUP of News and Rumo…
As the title says, it is caucus day in Iowa and news, polls, rumors and predictions are flying fast and furious a mile a minute and I am going to try to roundup some of it here for you….
11 Terrie
January 3, 2008 @ 8:24 pm CETIf there is a Romney scandal, might it be related to the calls made in Iowa and New Hampshire that ostensibly demeaned Romney’s faith? Isn’t it about time for that investigation to be wrapped up?
I am totally out of the loop here, except as a blog-hopper but, if those calls were traced back to a campaign — especially Romney’s — wouldn’t that be damaging?
12 Michael van der Galien
January 3, 2008 @ 8:27 pm CETThat could be it indeed.
As said, I’m still working on this issue. When I’m confident about the info I’ve got, I post it. If I’m not, well, I’m not going to publish something that may not be accurate.
Unlike the MSM, we actually have rules here
13 Michael van der Galien
January 3, 2008 @ 8:32 pm CETAnd yes, that would be damaging, especially if laws were broken.
14 Terrie
January 3, 2008 @ 8:35 pm CETAnd what about the threatening letters to Iowa pastors who support Huckabee?
15 AMERICAN NONSENSE » It Is Caucus Day in Iowa: ROUNDUP of News and Rumor and Polls
January 3, 2008 @ 8:37 pm CET[…] van der Galien from the PoliGazette, has another interesting tidbit about Mitt Romney and a possible nasty little surprise and here is […]
16 Michael van der Galien
January 3, 2008 @ 8:39 pm CETAnd what about the threatening letters to Iowa pastors who support Huckabee? It’s about NH.
17 Terrie
January 3, 2008 @ 8:48 pm CETAnd the New Hampshire Attorney General’s office is investigating since the calls violate their laws.
What a mess.
18 Michael van der Galien
January 3, 2008 @ 8:52 pm CETYes, and they’re finishing their investigation soon rumor has it.
You can say that alright.
19 mikeVA
January 3, 2008 @ 9:09 pm CETBack in June/July, Joe Carter along with Gary Glenn pushed a story about Marriott.
Mitt Romney left the board of Marriott in 2001. A year later, in 2002, one of these American Family type groups went after a–Marriott franchise in Cincinnati–because it offered adult movies. The franchise, which had property in multiple states, removed the the movies a month or so later. Since then, the AFA or something or other has been on the case of some franchises of Marriott that offer adult entertainment.
Notice Romney was not even on the board at the time of the complaints and notice that these Wildmon/Glenn 501c made no mention of Romney’s board participation at conferences in roughly 2005. Now that they support rivals they dumped the story on the AP earlier this year.
Scandalous huh? At this point in the race, I have a hard imagining some race altering scandal, especially if Joe Carter thinks that providing financial consultation to a corporate board constitutes a "scandal".
What surprises is Carter’s lack of enthusiasm for Huckabee. To me, he has an edge to win Iowa. I think that Joe is bipolar or something. First, he was a Fred head. Then he was telling us that Fred was lazy, and he decided to support Huckabee. Now, Carter left Huckabee and Huck will lose Iowa.
20 mikeVA
January 3, 2008 @ 9:23 pm CETThe investigation into those calls will not end a campaign.
First, they were misreported as a push poll. And none of the campaigns were actually responsible. The calls sounded like amateur research. Second, actual push polls and advertisements from 527s have hit multiple states. Edwards and Huckabee said please stop. And normal carried on with their normal lives.
Sure, the Concord Monitor might anti-endorse the non-Democratic Leadership Council candidates.
21 C Stanley
January 3, 2008 @ 9:29 pm CETI think what’s being implied is that one of the campaigns may actually have been responsible. That’s the point of the investigation, to find out. Michael’s right to not leak something that hasn’t been verified, but we’ll all see when the report comes out.
22 JenJen
January 3, 2008 @ 11:18 pm CETWow… is THIS the scandal the LA Times has supposedly been sitting on? You know, the one that involved a current Presidential candidate? The one that the entire media is whispering about, but just won’t let us rubes know about it?
Is it possible the scandal is about Romney?? The one Ron Rosenbaum wrote about back in October (many assumed it was about Edwards, but he actually was willing to rule out Edwards entirely):
http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/ronrosenbaum/2007/10/29/shocking_inside_dc_scandal_rum.php
23 Interested
January 3, 2008 @ 11:33 pm CETI’d think it would be a stretch to think that the LA Times would sit on a scandal involving the Republicans - unless they intended to release it just prior to the general election.
24 JenJen
January 4, 2008 @ 12:08 am CET<blockquote> I’d think it would be a stretch to think that the LA Times would sit on a scandal involving the Republicans - unless they intended to release it just prior to the general election.</blockquote>
Excellent point, Interested. But… the scandal hasn’t been revealed yet, and only Joe Carter is saying it would come out by January 8th. It’s intriguing that Carter seems to think the scandal is so huge it would drive him out of the race… and in that sense, doesn’t the scandal almost have to be sexual?
25 Interested
January 4, 2008 @ 12:17 am CETSexual?
Maybe, but I’d think it’d have to be either gay, involved children or an interracial affair to drive him out of the race. Once we elected Bill Clinton we re-affirmed that affairs are not a disqualifying factor.
26 Lynx
January 4, 2008 @ 12:24 am CETFor a sitting president, no. But these are candidates, many of whom are close in the polls, any scandal could ruin their chances. Also, a sexual revelation (which from what I’ve read is probably not the issue) would hurt different candidates differently. For instance it almost certainly wouldn’t hurt Giuliani much, it’s not like we need more proof he’s a cheating womanizer. On the other hand, Huckabee is a baptist preacher and appealing to the Christian Right, being found to cheat on his wife with anyone, male or female, would hurt him. For Edwards it would be the utter kiss of death, few people would vote for a man who cheats on his wife when she’s sick with cancer.
However, I don’t think the allegations will be sexual. I also highly doubt that they will be true, whatever they are and whoever they are directed to. By the way, almost the totality of speculation is that the smear will be directed at a Republican. Any particular reason for this?
27 Interested
January 4, 2008 @ 12:32 am CETWith Clinton it was sitting & during his first run for the Presidency. Lewinsky was just more of the same for him.
probably because people have become used to the fact that it’s been different rules for different parties.
28 JenJen
January 4, 2008 @ 1:17 am CET[blockquote]For Edwards it would be the utter kiss of death, few people would vote for a man who cheats on his wife when she’s sick with cancer.[/blockquote]
Unless they’re in Newt Gingrich’s district.
But, Clinton was indeed impeached. I mean, every attempt was certainly made to make sure his conduct was a disqualifying factor, wasn’t it?
29 JenJen
January 4, 2008 @ 1:19 am CETBlockquote tips, anyone?
30 Interested
January 4, 2008 @ 1:25 am CETTwo ways
the
31 Interested
January 4, 2008 @ 1:26 am CETlol ok it didn’t like that
anyway less than sign then blockquote then greater than sign (your first attempt) works if your in HTML mode.
32 JenJen
January 4, 2008 @ 1:27 am CETWhat’s this, then? It sounds to me like this book could be about a Democratic presidential candidate, but since it’s coming out on Monday (Jan 7th) and Joe Carter says we’d hear about the scandal by Tuesday (Jan 8th)… well, could these two things be related?
Revelation (Charge) To Be Made Against New Hampshire Primary Candidate Monday?
33 JenJen
January 4, 2008 @ 1:34 am CETThank you, Interested!!
34 JenJen
January 4, 2008 @ 1:46 am CETAaaah, hadn’t read the update. Just seems to me that the timing is the thing putting the book presser and Joe Carter’s claims together, though.
Then again, Rollins talked smack all day today and Carter’s likely doing the same. It’s really quite pathetic.
35 It Is Caucus Day in Iowa: ROUNDUP of News and Rumor with All Day Updates and Polls | AMERICAN NONSENSE
January 6, 2008 @ 12:09 am CET[…] van der Galien from the PoliGazette, has another interesting tidbit about Mitt Romney and a possible nasty little surprise and here is […]
36 AMERICAN NONSENSE » It Is Caucus Day in Iowa: ROUNDUP of News and Rumor with All Day Updates and Polls
January 8, 2008 @ 12:28 am CET[…] van der Galien from the PoliGazette, has another interesting tidbit about Mitt Romney and a possible nasty little surprise and here is […]