Just weeks ago Mike Huckabee was soaring high after his Iowa victory which brought national attention and a stream of contributions and endorsements. But lately, the former small town Baptist preacher is struggling to keep Team Huckabee afloat after a string of losses left his campaign in tatters and in desperate need of funds as Super Tuesday looms ahead.
The two-term Arkansas governor called his staff his “scrappy little army” this week after funds shortage forced the campaign to announce it was unable to pay salary. Most of the staff chose to remain without pay, but some left.
Ed Rollins, Huckabee’s top adviser, gave up his salary along with other staffs to allow the campaign to buy television advertising and pay travel expenses, Rollins told The Associated Press.
“The reason we cut some cost is because we’ve always operated in the black, we don’t borrow money, unlike some of the other candidates who can write a big fat personal check and pay for everything – I can’t,” Huckabee said while at an anti-abortion rally in Atlanta earlier this week, according to CNN.
“So what we recognized was that our primary goal right now is to get nimble, to get quick, to get where we can get from place to place as quickly as possible,” he said about his new strategy.
He added, “I think a lot of folks would like to see the next president treat the taxpayers’ money as frugally as we’re treating campaign money.”
Besides cutting salaries, the Huckabee campaign has also grounded chartered planes reserved to help members of the press cover his movement. Although media companies pay for their own flight, empty seats have cost the campaign money.
But Huckabee’s lack of resources is starting to hurt him as he competes in financially demanding states such as Florida, New York, California, Illinois and New Jersey – all of which will vote within the next two weeks.
In the big states, candidates need to run TV ads that cost millions a week to run an effective campaign.
David Johnson, a former executive director of the Florida Republican Party, told The Tampa Tribune that Florida is a “very difficult state to play in” if a candidate does not have plenty of cash.
“This is a media state, and retail campaigning can only get you so far,” Johnson noted.
Similarly, it costs about $3 million a week to run ads in New York and about $4 million a week in California, ABC News reported.
The Huckabee campaign said it will run TV ads on Florida’s national cable news channel, but will not buy air time on the states broadcast stations because of the higher cost.
Instead, Huckabee says he plans to focus on less expensive Southern States such as Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee and his home state of Arkansas. In addition to being less expensive, these so-called Bible belt states also are expected to be highly receptive to his social conservative message.
Responding to concerns about his campaign’s future, Huckabee said, “Nobody thought we would even be in the game,” he noted. “People are talking about us in every national poll at either number one or number two. I’d call that a pretty good momentum for us.
“Our scrappy little army’s doing pretty well out there on the battlefield,” he added.
The Republican race proves to be still divided, although it has settled down to three main candidates: John McCain who won New Hampshire and South Carolina; Mitt Romney, victor in Michigan, Nevada and Wyoming; and Huckabee who claimed first place in Iowa.
The former preacher turned politician remains optimistic about the race. "I'm in much better shape than some of the candidates who've spent tens of millions of dollars, and they're way behind us," Huckabee said this week. "I'd much rather be where I am with the amount of resources we've had than where some of these guys are with the kind of resources they've spent."
Comments
saveamericanow, Thanks for the post.
Judicial Watch Announces List of Washington’s “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians” for 2007
1. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY)
2. Rep. John Conyers (D-MI)
3. Senator Larry Craig (R-ID)
4. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA)
5. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R-NY)
6. Governor Mike Huckabee (R-AR)
7. I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby
8. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL)
9. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
10. Senator Harry Reid (D-NV)
I guess that makes McCain the most viable candidate, considering Mitt should have been number one on the list of most distinnguished flip-floppers.
http://massresistance.org/romney/
What Church is Mr. Hucksterbee a pastor of? why did he make the the Judicial Watch top 10 most Corrupt politicians list for 2007. http://judicialwatch.org/judicial-watch-announces-list-washington-s-ten-most-wanted-corrupt-politicians-2007 <--( cut and paste this link and wake up others now! ) Did he really only spend 2 days in the seminary he said, he graduated from?? How much money did he allocate to planned parenthood for abortions when hw was Govenor of Arkansas??? You need to know the Answers , You need to seek the Truth; Wake up , WWW.SAVEAMERICANOW.COM & WWW.PRAYFORPAUL.COM & WWW.RONPAUL2008.COM God Bless You all ! In the name of Yeshua, Christ our Lord !
Values Voter Comparison of the 2008 Presidential Candidates
http://f2a.org/coast2coast/ValuesVoter08Comparison.pdf
Governor Huckabee has show how a true fiscal conservative can get the most bang for a buck. More importantly, he's the only genuinely authentic social conservative with a record signing an Unborn Child Protection Act and signing a traditional Marriage Amendment as governor. Huckabee doesn't just talk like a social conservative, he's one of us. So Christian, will you let the greedy Wall Street club buy this election or will you put your money where your faith is and send Huck a few bucks: www.mikehuckabee.com
::begin quote::
Now, Dannypoo, look, if you will at what you wrote, and see it as a scientist would. Do you see what I mean? You presuppose what the "cause" was BEFORE you even begin to examine data! A scientist would start with a working hypothesis, and experiment trying to prove it wrong. You start with a conclusion, and ignore data that conflicts with it. Is that what passes for rational inquiry in your mind?
::end quote::
Right, I understand what you are saying. And if we are wise we always attempt to come to scientific data without a pre-supposition. But naturally some form of supposition becomes prevelant whether a person is an atheist or a christian.
Some Christians become Atheists after examing the data, some Atheists become Christians after examining the data (yes it happens). It's data that eventually has to be interpreted one way or another.
DannyPoo: "Groups like "Reasons to Believe" (Reasons.org) will send out blast e-mails on recent discoveries from reputable scientific journals and explain why the Christian worldview aligns better with the new information than any other group."
Does reasons.org ever discover anything? No, of course not. They wait for real scientists to advance human progress, then reasons.org spreads lies about it.
Scientists work hard to make the world a better place. Creationists just get in the way.
Dannypoo:
I am familiar with Dr. Ross, just not with that web site. Strange you would send me to a site that 90% of the posters here would consider as "rubbish" due to Ross's interpretation of Genesis.
One of the inherent problems non-believers face in communicating on sites such as this is the incredibly broad spectrum of Christian belief one encounters. Young-earth creationism, old-earth creationism, several flavors of ID, partial evolution (Catholic church) and the list goes on.
'Till I find out differently, I assume a belief of literal young-earth creationism, on the part of Christian posters, even though I know that will insult the intelligence of some, as it is usually what one finds here. The "case" for young-earth creationism is absurd, of course, but that doesn't seem to bother them.
"I am always further curious as to "how" God did it"
Now, Dannypoo, look, if you will at what you wrote, and see it as a scientist would. Do you see what I mean? You presuppose what the "cause" was BEFORE you even begin to examine data! A scientist would start with a working hypothesis, and experiment trying to prove it wrong. You start with a conclusion, and ignore data that conflicts with it. Is that what passes for rational inquiry in your mind?
I will check out reasons.org, I never heard of it.
::begin quote::
Huckabee is a liberal, the road to hell is paved with liberals.
::end quote::
Now, I am assuming that you believe in Hell (and I am also assuming you mean the hell of the Bible). If so, would you explain to me how any position held by Governor Huckabee leads to damnation? Theologically of course.
::begin quote::
Yes, the cell is complicated, but is that any reason to give up all research and say "God did it?" Of course not!
Oh, I know, science is painting religion into tighter and tighter corners every day, leaving less and less for the "god of the gaps" to do, but so be it. Your kicking and screaming will make no difference whatsoever in the long run, 'cause although you might screw up education here, and even block some research, you can't do it for long, and there's always the rest of the world.
::end quote::
I agree with you that we should not just throw our hands up in the air and say "God did it", however I think it's slightly unfair to say that this is what the average Christian would do. Certainly some will, but far from being a majority. For me personally as a Christian I am always further curious as to "how" God did it (I realize you reject this idea, I am just saying how I approach it) and this is what compells me to learn more about the world we live in and delve deeper.
Also, I do not fully agree that science is pushing Christianity/faith into a corner. Groups like "Reasons to Believe" (Reasons.org) will send out blast e-mails on recent discoveries from reputable scientific journals and explain why the Christian worldview aligns better with the new information than any other group. Now it's certainly possible to disagree with the interpretation of the data, and that's fine (although before you do so I would encourage you to check them out before becoming critical of the group), but nevertheless this group and many others like this certainly don't feel like they are being painted into a corner.
Dagny, you miss the point. If you understood even the basics of evolution, you would not have posted what you did, so I'm not even going to bother correcting you, you wouldn't pay any attention anyway. I will say this, though, ALL life on this planet is connected, as everything living sprung from the first bit of living matter.
Yes, the cell is complicated, but is that any reason to give up all research and say "God did it?" Of course not!
Oh, I know, science is painting religion into tighter and tighter corners every day, leaving less and less for the "god of the gaps" to do, but so be it. Your kicking and screaming will make no difference whatsoever in the long run, 'cause although you might screw up education here, and even block some research, you can't do it for long, and there's always the rest of the world.
Just continue sticking your head in the sand, it will all be over soon.
"Those who invalidate reason ought seriously to consider whether they argue against reason with or without reason; if with reason, they establish the principle that they are laboring to dethrone: but if they argue without reason (which, in order to be consistent with themselves they must do), they are out of reach of rational conviction, nor do they deserve a rational argument."
--Ethan Allen, leader of the Green Mountain Boys.
Just curious: Why are there so many atheistic evolutionists hanging out at Christian Post?
HampsteadPete: if you want to equate yourself with a banana (I thought we "evolved" from apes, and apes eat bananas... so hard to "keep up") far be it for me to argue with you. You might have a lot in common with a banana, who's to say? Personally, I've never had a very good conversation with a banana, I'm just saying... On a more serious note though, have you ever studied a banana? I mean the science of a banana tree and its fruit? You should. Trees are incredibly complex and amazing! The "simple" cell - ever studied that? Wow - nothing "simple" about it. One question, from a "typically arrogant Christian" (that's your term, and I must say that it makes YOU sound a tad "arrogant") to the cousin of a banana: how does the "theory of evolution" answer to symbiotic relationships? Relationships where one's existence RELIES on the other's?? There are MANY of these relationships for you to look at, find some, and let me know, ok?
May the love of the Lord Jesus Christ overcome my sarcasm and reach your heart with His love and truth.
Don't take the opinion of others. Check out Gov. Huckabee's record for yourself at http://www.mikehuckabee.com
HampsteadPete,
I'd be carefull with you evolutionary dialog, as they will likely censor you as they are confronted with the evidence. I and ebcdic were.
www.christianpost.com/article/20080123/30947_Why_Darwinism_is_So_Dangerous.htm
"An informed look at nature clearly shows design and, hence, a Designer"
Informed look? Hardly! Far from indicating the presence of a designer, an "informed" look at nature finds that for starters, 99% of all species that have existed on this planet in the last 4.5 billion years are extinct, meaning their design, or whatever, proved inadequate to survive.
An informed look at nature indicates that we share 25% of our dna with a banana, for crying out loud, and increasingly more and more as you follow evolution up the tree. An informed look at nature indicates that we and other creatures have evolved to survive in the environment that exists, not that the environment was created to be somehow perfect for us.
Avoidance of sin has nothing to do with scientific acceptance of evolution, and to say so indicates nothing but typical Christian arrogance.
BTW Einstein was certainly no "believer" in God. He believed in the set of physical laws that govern the universe, and absolutely did not believe in the supernatural at all.