Republicans are nearly evenly split on whether Mike Huckabee should continue his bid for U.S. president or if he should drop out, given that frontrunner John McCain is being called the shoo-in for the party’s nomination.
-
(Photo: AP Images / Jerry Larson)Republican presidential hopeful, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee pauses as he speaks to a crowd of supporters, Thursday, Feb. 28, 2008, in Waco, Texas.
Nearly half of Republicans, 49 percent, believe Huckabee should continue his campaign against McCain in upcoming primaries, compared to 46 percent of his party that said he should drop out, according to a USA Today/Gallup Poll. Five percent said they have no opinion on whether underdog Huckabee should continue to pursue the White House or give up his campaign.
The Gallup Poll noted there is “no strong majority sentiment” among Republicans that he should leave the race.
Huckabee’s biggest backer is the conservative wing of the Republican Party. Fifty-four percent of the GOP’s right wing want Huckabee to continue his campaign, compared to 42 percent of conservatives who want him to drop out.
Oppositely, the majority, 57 percent, of moderate Republicans want Huckabee to drop out compared to 38 percent of this group who said he should stay in the race.
The division between conservative and moderate Republicans on Huckabee is not surprising given that exit polls have shown moderates strongly backing McCain while the party’s conservatives rally behind Huckabee.
But interestingly, the poll highlighted that McCain has the majority of support among both conservatives and moderate Republicans. Fifty-nine percent of conservative Republicans support McCain, compared to 27 percent who back Huckabee. The number soared to 70 percent support for McCain among moderate Republicans, compared to 13 percent for Huckabee.
What this poll result suggests is that McCain, if selected the GOP nominee, might not be in as much trouble with the conservative wing of his party as many have speculated.
In addition to conservatives, McCain also did fairly well among weekly churchgoers in his party. The Arizona senator was backed by 57 percent of weekly churchgoers compared to Huckabee’s 31 percent. Among Republicans who seldom or never go to church, McCain’s lead widened to 69 percent to Huckabee’s 12 percent.
Nevertheless, weekly churchgoers are Huckabee’s strongest supporters.
Huckabee has repeatedly vowed to not quit the race until someone has collected the 1,191 delegates needed to secure the nomination. Currently, McCain has 1,033 delegates and Huckabee has 247 delegates, according to CNN.
Overall, Gallup Poll Daily election tracking data shows about a quarter of Republicans nationwide continuing to support Huckabee. Meanwhile, McCain has the support of about six in 10 Republicans nationwide.
The survey was based on telephone interviews with 829 Republicans and Republican leaning independents, aged 18 and older, conducted Feb. 21-24, 2008.
Comments
ep1433 "Citsonga - Please tell me what exactly you disagree with in my earlier post.
I usually get on this site after a day of work and tired, so sometimes i am not clear on what I say. What I meant was I dont think what you described is what Obama believes- "no one who works should be poor", if he did say that, It might have been rhetoric, but he would not take the US in the direction of a socialist state where we are all "economically equal" I do agree basically with what you stated. Sorry for that confusion..
citsonga - Please tell me what exactly you disagree with in my earlier post. My only point was that people will valuable skills aren't poor, and Obama wants people with non-valuable or low-value skills to not be poor as well. Tell me what I got wrong or what you disagree with.
In a general sense, I suppose I wish no one was poor. And as a Christian I believe 1.) Christ is the great equalizer, and 2.) wealth is only of this earth, and 3.) true wealth is not measure in dollars anyway. But I also don't want a government to be interceding and trying to force a market to pay all skills a high-wage. First, it is economically impossible, and second is is undesireable. It is undesireable because such policies cause people to not gain skills and knowledge our country needs. If I could make 50K delivering newspapers I might quit my job in finance and just do something like that. But the world needs accountants (thats why you don't know any poor accountants) and soon we'd have a shortage of similar valued skills and a surplus of low-valued skills.
This is all just basic economics. Either Obama lacks that simple knowledge (scary) or is lying that he thinks he can change reality (bad) or he truly wants to subvert a history of economic free-markets in favor of socialism (very, very bad).
Huckabee just dropped out. The end.
ep1433, I can see why you wouldn't vote for Obama. I dont necessarily agree with much of your post, but I do understand where you are coming from. I too dont agree with everything Obama has said, but there is much about him that I like. For starters, he is none of the other viable candidates. I myself am a fiscal conservative, but I do believe the working poor,as are all Americans , entitled to health care. I think that is where Obama is coming from to a large degree. I wouldn't call him a socialist, but he is liberal in many ways. I have many liberal views myself.
Some ME & Iraq history for ML (continued):
Its OK by the US for a country to be autocratic when they are an ally of the US such as the Shah of Iran or Saddam Hussein or the corrupt autocratic royal family of Saudi Arabia. However, when allied dictators such as Saddam then oppose the interests of the US, they then become our enemy. Recall the photos of donald rumsfeld chumming up with saddam in the 1980 as saddam was gassing the Iranians and Kurds- it was not big problem because he was a friend of the US. The US sold him weapons systems, he sold the US oil- he was a business partner of the US, just as the Saudi Royla family is now and the Shah of Iran was. Americans generally dont want to know this side of American foreign policy. Learn about US abuses in the ME for decades, and one will learn why 9-11 occured.
Some ME & Iraq history for ML:
Interviews and polls taken of the way Iraqi's felt about their country before and after the invasion seem to indicate that the average Iraqi felt more secure and better off economically than today. The Iraqi people did not ask to be "liberated" by the US. There is in fact a tremendous level of resentment by most Iraqi's towards the US because of the invasion which they did not want or ask for. The average person in Iraq, and indeed the average citizen of the Middle East , understand why the US attempts to impose its will in the ME. Its simple, its mainly about OIL. How would americans take to an invasion of the US by a foreign army - not very well I'm sure. Contrary to what bush, cheney and the neocons tell the largely ignorant american public (ignorant from the standpoint of little to no knowledge of the ME and its history as it relates to the imperial ambitions of Western countries to secure oil interests) the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with liberating the Iraqi's from the grip of sadddam. Its all about US control and influence in the ME. 9-11 occurred because of decades abuses by the US in the ME. Its really too bad the US forgot lessons learned from Vietnam. In both the case of Vietnam and Iraq, american ignorance and arrogance led to the deaths and injury of millions of innocent Vietnamese and Iraqi's. By the way, Iraq and Saddam were not involved with 9-11.
The thing that really adds insult to injury in Iraq is the fact that the US had no post invasion strategy. bush and his band of fools completely ignored the warnings ME experts offered in regard to having a post invasion strategy to provide security. They did not have a strategy to protect the people nor the countries infrastructure. Amazingly, and quite telling, the only real security provided after the fall of Baghdad, was military protection of the oil ministry. In the mean time, hospitals, schools, clinics, museums, government buildings, universities, libraries, power plants, water and sewage plants- all looted.
bush, cheney and other high ranking neocons are responsible for the destruction of Iraq and its people. Much of the world consider bush and cheney war criminals and should be brought to the Hague.
McCain can't legally run I'd like to know why he's in the race?
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/31019
citsonga - I'll grant you that Obama is intelligent and articulate. It isn't his abilities that worry me. It is his positions I have a serious problem with, as should any free-market conservative. He says "no one who works should be poor". Huh? really? See, in the world I live in, no one who works at a valued skill IS poor. I've never met a poor doctor. I've never met a poor college professor. Gain a valuable skill and you'll never be poor. If you are poor, you're skills apparently aren't valued by the market. It's that simple. But for Obama to try and subvert reality shows us his true colors - he's a socialist.
Huckabee still lacks the delgates of Romney. Mitt could rejoin after a few weeks off and be ahead of Huck. That's pathetic. Huck jumped the shark long ago. Conservative need to get behing McCain or live through four years of Obama's bizarro-world policies, where reality is suspended in favor of lollipops and rainbows.
Run Mike Run! See Mike Run! Help Mike Run! Send Money so Mike can Run!
Vote Mike Huckabee 2008!
Ronald Reagan ran an underdog campaign in 1976. He campaigned up to the convention, despite many of the establishment Republicans asking him to quit. Reagan did not win in 1976, but neither did he fail. He gave one of the greatest speeches ever at the convention and four years later received the GOP nomination and was elected President of the US in a landslide against the liberal Carter. Mike Huckabee is the future of the Republican Party. Go Huck go!
www.mikehuckabee.com
Please call all your friends in Texas and Ohio today and urge them to vote for Huckabee today!
As the democrats in my home state of NC say, vote early and vote often! LOL!
Bush is attacked politically for attacking Iraq. Sadaam chemically killed 400,000 of the people living within his own borders, and Bush stopped him from killing hundreds of thousands more.
Many have seen the real and undeniable photos of the mass graves. Sadaam was like Hitler. So were members of Sadaam's family. So Bush had the guts to stop a mass murderer, and the world hates him. So what? Bush is ready to stand before God. Bush is against abortion. McCain supports Bush and the military. So does Huckabee. To me, either McCain or Huckabee would be better than any Democrat (Hillary or Obama) and both McCain and Huckabee are pro-life. So let them both stay in and we will see who gets the most votes.
It's ironic that those who are so adamantly advocating "save the embryo" and "the fetus" in America have no qualms about permitting a war of death and destruction on the peoples of Iraq
It's ironic that those who are so adamantly advocating "peace" and not "war" in Iraq would have no qualms about permitting "war" in the womb against the unborn via abortions.
Any ruling that was made on the part of Barry Goldwater referring to his being born in a U.S. territory before it became a state is irrelevant to the case of John McCain being born in the Canal Zone which was never a U.S. territory.
A natural born Citizen is one who is born on U.S. soil. To be able to be Presdident of the United States, among other things, you must be a natural born Citizen. Since Senator John McCain is not a natural born Citizen (he was born outside the U.S.) it is by law that he was naturalized as a citizen at birth because of parentage. He was not a natural born Citizen based on the nature of where he was born.
Some may not agree with the Constitution of the United States, but it is what it is. It's the supreme law of the land.
U.S. Constitution.net
U.S. Constitution - Article II, Section 1
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
If you don't like it, then change it through an amendment. But don't make it something that it isn't. That is a trick, not worthy of any American who stands by the constitution.
The Supreme Court needs to judge. That is why the Supreme Courts exists. Unfortunately, it is not likely to reach the court until one who is not a natural born Citizen gets elected to the presidency. This would be a crisis. The vice president would probably have to take over.
Here is a link to a much more detailed analysis.
If Senator Claire McCaskill's hastily scrawled "fix" actually goes through congress, it is a law that would need to be judged by the Supreme Court of the United States. Unless it is an amendment to the constitution, then McCaskill (and congress) would be undermining the supreme law of the land that is the U.S. Constitution.
In presenting this constitutional matter, the purpose is to bring attention to the need for a remedy that is legal. This may also mean that the remedy would not be in place in time for Senator John McCain to be elligible to hold the office of President.
http://idacres.com/politics/mccain/natural_born_Citizen.html
The treaty to establish the Canal Zone clearly does not establish a U.S. territory. For any who would pursue that further, consider the definition of territory.
Territory: In the United States, a portion of the country not included within the limits of any State, and not yet admitted as a State into the Union, but organized with a separate legislature, under a Territorial governor and other officers appointed by the President and Senate of the United States.
Territory: a part of the United States not included within any state but organized with a separate legislature
Territory: A subdivision of the United States that is not a state and is administered by an appointed or elected governor and elected legislature.
The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition
http://idacres.com/politics/mccain/natural_born_Citizen.html
http://idacres.com/politics/mccain/natural_born_Citizen.html
In presenting this constitutional matter, the purpose is to bring attention to the need for a remedy that is legal. This may also mean that the remedy would not be in place in time for Senator John McCain to be elligible to hold the office of President.
Not everyone who is born an American citizen is a natural born Citizen. To be a natural born Citizen one must be born on U.S. soil. Senator John McCain was not born on U.S. soil. This disqualifies him from holding the office of the president. He can run, he just can't take the office.
Some claim that the Canal Zone was a United States territory, leading them to the conclusion that McCain was born on U.S. soil. The evidence disputes that assertion. When the treaty was signed that gave the U.S. control of the Canal Zone, the territory was retained by the Republic of Panama.
www.yale.edu
Convention for the Construction of a Ship Canal (Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty), November 18, 1903
Concluded November 18, 1903; ratification advised by the Senate February 23, 1904; ratified by President February 25,1904; ratifications exchanged February 26, 1904; proclaimed February 26, 1904. (U.S. Stats., vol. 33.)
The United States of America and the Republic of Panama being desirous to insure the construction of a ship canal across the Isthmus of Panama to connect the Atlantic and Pacific oecans, and the Congress of the United States of America having passed an act approved June 28, 1902, in furtherance of that object, by which the President of the United States is authorized to acquire within a reasonable time the control of the necessary territory of the Republic of Colombia, and the sovereignty of such territory being actually vested in the Republic of Panama, the high contracting parties have resolved for that purpose to conclude a convention and have accordingly appointed as their plenipotentiaries,
ARTICLE III
The Republic of Panama grants to the United States all the rights, power and authority within the zone mentioned and described in Article II of this agreement and within the limits of all auxiliary lands and waters mentioned and described in said Article II which the United States would possess and exercise if it were the sovereign of the territory within which said lands and waters are located to the entire exclusion of the exercise by the Republic of Panama of any such sovereign rights, power or authority.
ARTICLE V
The Republic of Panama grants to the United States in perpetuity a monopoly for the construction, maintenance and operation of any system of communication by means of canal or railroad across its territory between the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific ocean.