CNN/Opinion Research Corp. has a new poll out that should make Mike Huckabee (and really, most of the other Republican candidates) nervous. The poll has several noteworthy conclusions, but should come with a few caveats.

The poll put Republicans Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, John McCain, and Rudy Giuliani up against Democrats Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards. It was the first time Huckabee has been considered in this type of poll.

Of Republicans, Huckabee, Romney, and Giuliani lose; McCain wins in two of the matchups.

In head-to-head matchups -- the first to include Huckabee -- the former Arkansas governor loses to Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York by 10 percentage points (54 percent to 44 percent), to Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois by 15 points (55 percent to 40 percent) and to former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina by 25 points (60 percent to 35 percent).

[...]

The poll also shows that Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona would do best against leading Democrats. He beats Clinton by 2 percentage points (50 percent to 48 percent), ties Obama (48 percent to 48 percent) and loses to Edwards by a smaller margin (8 points) than the other Republican candidates do.

The surprising finding on the Democratic side is that Edwards does better than Clinton or Obama against the top four Republicans and he's the only one to beat all four of them.

But McCain and Edwards shouldn't get too happy about it. Without more information (it was withheld from CNN's "Complete Poll Results" (PDF)) we cannot tell whether Democrats were overrepresented. Also, the poll is of "registered voters" rather than "likely voters."

On the other hand, the poll is generally in line with Real Clear Politics' tracking of multiple head-to-head polls, in which the Republicans are almost always losing.

The winner in this poll? John McCain, who can continue to say that he's the only electable candidate that will beat Clinton.

The real loser in this poll? Fred Thompson, who wasn't even included.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 10:22 AM | Comments (59)
Post contains 345 words, total size 2 kb.

They're getting raves, and apparently they took all of this seriously: they've been rehearsing for six months.

If there's one good thing about getting old, it's that eventually you'll be given the chance to relive your childhood. Except now you have credit cards.

Posted by: Ace at 10:10 AM | Comments (26)
Post contains 45 words, total size 1 kb.

He actually retreated in his bid to grant this guy clemency due to overwhelmingly negative public reaction. So this guy wasn't actually released -- but only because Huckabee was challenged so vehemently by, well, everyone in the frigging state.

First, his reason for granting clemencies:

“I would not deny that my sense of the reality of redemption is a factor,” the former Baptist pastor said in a radio interview with KUAR in Little Rock. “And I don’t know that I can apologize for that because I would hate to think of the kind of human I would be if I thought people were beyond forgiveness and beyond reformation and beyond some sense of improvement.”

The governor has been criticized publicly by prosecutors in Pulaski and Saline counties for his release of violent criminals.

Pulaski County Prosecuting Attorney Larry Jegley last week asked the governor to stop issuing clemencies until the Legislature can consider possible changes in the constitution, which gives the governor that power.

Jegley said he would like to see the constitutional provision changed to require the governor to explain his reasons for granting a clemency.

The legislature wanted to change the constitution as regards clemency due largely to Huckabee's fire sale on Redemption.

On to the case of Glen Green. The parole board had found Green's request for parole to be without merit. Apparently the Huckster disagreed.

Until Tuesday, Huckabee didn’t even demand that these killers admit their guilt before asking for clemency. The Rev. Johnny Jackson, who had arranged the aborted clemency deal for Glen Green with his friend the governor, describes Green as a humble Christian man – apparently one of Huckabee’s criteria for clemency.

But the state requires that a killer express remorse for his actions, which Green refuses to do, calling the murder “an accident.” The Rev. Jackson says he accepts Green’s “account of the incident."

Redemption without admission of sin? Well, I won't argue theology with a minister.

Now, to cap it off: What crime did this "humble Christian man" commit?

Green, a 22-year-old sergeant, kidnapped Helen Lynette Spencer on Little Rock Air Force Base, where he beat and kicked her as he tried to rape her in a secluded area. She broke loose and ran toward the barracksÂ’ parking lot, where he caught up with her and beat her with a pair of nunchucks.

He then stuffed her into the trunk of his car and left her there while he cleaned up. Several hours later, he drove down Graham Road, past Loop Road and stopped near a bridge in Lonoke County. Green told investigators he put her body in the front seat and raped her because her body was still warm.

He dragged Spencer out of his vehicle and put her in front of the car and ran over her several times, going back and forth. He then collected himself long enough to dump her body in Twin Prairie Bayou.

An accident?

A "humble Christian man"? Well, as they say, he has much to be humble about, doesn't he?

Here are a couple more actual Huckabee clemencies:

Huckabee two weeks ago issued proclamations granting clemency for Denver Witham, who is serving life in prison for a 1974 murder in Saline County, and for John H. Claiborne, who is serving 375 years in prison for a 1994 kidnapping and armed robbery conviction in Pulaski County. Both men are still in state custody and are waiting parole hearings before the state Post Prison Transfer Board. A board spokeswoman said those hearings probably would be in August.

Jegley said last week that he decided to write Huckabee after talking to the son of the victims who were kidnapped and robbed by Claiborne.

The son said his mother is still alive and is "scared to death" that Claiborne may be released soon, Jegley said.

Based on information from the secretary of state's office, Jegley said Huckabee has granted 669 clemencies since he became governor in 1996. The previous three governors, Bill Clinton, Frank White and Jim Guy Tucker, granted a total of 507 clemencies during their 18 years in office, he said.

Huckabee said he may have granted more clemencies, but he said the prison population is now three times greater than when Clinton was governor. He also said people can't get jobs without pardons because background checks prevent them from doing so.

Well, when you put it that way.

I am soooo psyched this walking disaster is going to be our nominee.

Thanks Iowa!

Via Hot Air.

Posted by: Ace at 10:02 AM | Comments (29)
Post contains 764 words, total size 5 kb.

So I'm surfing around Hugh Hewitt's blog this morning, and I stumble over an entry Hewitt made regarding his interview with Lawrence "Not of Arabia" O'Donnell.

The interview concerned itself with O'Donnell's recent meltdown on the McLaughlin group, in which he pretty much hurled every invective under the sun at the Mormon religion, it's followers, and Hugh's sweetheart, Mitt Romney. Hot Air has the meltdown posted here.

Here is the section Hewitt posted which is sadly revealing of much that is wrong with the mainstream media.

HH: Would you say the same things about Mohammed as you just said about Joseph Smith?

LOÂ’D: Oh, well, IÂ’m afraid of what theÂ…thatÂ’s where IÂ’m really afraid. I would like to criticize Islam much more than I do publicly, but IÂ’m afraid for my life if I do.

HH: Well, thatÂ’s candid.

LOÂ’D: Mormons are the nicest people in the world. TheyÂ’re not going to everÂ…

HH: So you can be bigoted towards Mormons, because theyÂ’ll just send you a strudel.

LOÂ’D: TheyÂ’ll never take a shot at me. Those other people, IÂ’m not going to say a word about them.

HH: TheyÂ’ll send you a strudel. The Mormons will bake you a cake and be nice to you.

LOÂ’D: I agree.

HH: Lawrence OÂ’Donnell, I appreciate your candor.

Way to stand up for your beliefs, Larry! What a magnificent example of modern liberal thought you are! Why a more assertive defense of "speaking truth to power" I've never seen!!!111!!!11!1eleventy!

You freaking hypocrite.

You know, liberals really are the prototypical schoolyard bully. They are perfectly willing to badger and berate all those they perceive as easy victims. In fact, just think of their demands for your milkmoney as a form of taxation.

But the minute they face the threat (real or imagined) that they are going to get their clock cleaned, all their First Amendment Courage disappears in a yellow ink stained puddle down their leg.

And the ironic part is this: who the hell is Larry O'Donnell anyway? He could probably make as many cutting remarks about Islam as he wanted and no one would care. Hell, Malkin has the stones to sell Teddy Bears named "Mohammed" on her website. And I'd be willing to bet more people could name her than Larry "Not of Arabia" O'Donnell.

O'Donnell appears, by his own words, to be nothing more than a hateful, mob rule, bigot.

And, since I was on Hewitt's site, I can say that O'Donnell is an objectively hateful, mob rule, bigot.

If you disagree with me you don't count.

Posted by: Jack M. at 09:47 AM | Comments (28)
Post contains 440 words, total size 3 kb.

Mitt Romney has unveiled a new ad in Iowa taking on Hukabee over immigration. It’s being called the first negative ad of the Iowa campaign, though it’s pretty gentle by any standard. I mean how many truly negative ads start out by at least nominally complimenting their target in an effort to appear like the target before giving them the shiv?

Going negative in Iowa can be dangerous. Back in ’04 Dick Gephardt and Howard ‘The Screamer’ Dean were leading when they went nuclear on each other allowing John Kerry to sweep in and win.

Does this mean Mitt’s internal polling is telling him last week’s speech didn’t move the needle much? And does that mean Hugh Hewitt needs to be put on a suicide watch?

Of greater interest for some (and you know who you are), are Fred! and his bus tour poised to be the ’08 Republican version of John Kerry, at least when it comes to Iowa success?

Posted by: DrewM. at 07:32 AM | Comments (11)
Post contains 169 words, total size 1 kb.

Mitt Romney has unveiled a new ad in Iowa taking on Hukabee over immigration. ItÂ’s being called the first negative ad of the Iowa campaign, though itÂ’s pretty gentle by any standard. I mean how many truly negative ads start out by at least nominally complimenting their target in an effort to appear like the target before giving them the shiv?

Going negative in Iowa can be dangerous. Back in ’04 Dick Gephardt and Howard ‘The Screamer’ Dean were leading when they went nuclear on each other allowing John Kerry to sweep in and win.

Does this mean MittÂ’s internal polling is telling him last weekÂ’s speech didnÂ’t move the needle much? And does that mean Hugh Hewitt needs to be put on a suicide watch?

Of greater interest for some (and you know who you are), are Fred! and his bus tour poised to be the Â’08 Republican version of John Kerry, at least when it comes to Iowa success?

Posted by: DrewM at 07:32 AM | Comments (11)
Post contains 177 words, total size 1 kb.

A team of skeptical scientists led by UK climate researcher Lord Christopher Monckton went to Bali with a sharply different message for conference attendees.

“Climate change is a non problem. The right answer to a non problem is to have the courage to do nothing,” Monckton told participants.

“The UN conference is a complete waste of our time and your money and we should no longer pay the slightest attention to the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,)” Monckton added.

He was not welcomed warmly (see what I did there?). “UN organizers refused my credentials and appeared desperate that I should not come to this conference. They have also made several attempts to interfere with our public meetings,” Monckton explained.

Australian scientist Dr. David Evans, author of a November 28 2007 paper “Carbon Emissions Don’t Cause Global Warming”, warned of a difficult time for science.

“We have a split here. Official science driven by politics, money and power, goes in one direction. Unofficial science, which is more determined by what is actually happening with the [climate] data, has now started to move off in a different direction” away from fears of a man-made climate crisis, Evans explained.

“The two are splitting. This is always a dangerous time for science and a dangerous time for politics. Historically science always wins these battles but there can be a lot of causalities and a lot of time in between,” he concluded.

Settled science.

Dems Lie About Bush "Pressure" To Change "Science" On GW/Hurricane Link... At Hot Air. [Ace]

Posted by: Dave In Texas at 07:25 AM | Comments (142)
Post contains 269 words, total size 2 kb.

I do not think it means what you think it means.

DALLAS (Reuters) - Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee said on Monday that his surging popularity was drawing attacks from opponents and money from supporters as a new poll showed him in a virtual tie nationally with former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

The folksy former Arkansas governor has vaulted from single-digit figures just a few short weeks ago to the lead spot in opinion polls in the crucial state of Iowa.

Here's an example of the horrible, horrible attacks that Huckabee is enduring. Oh, the humanity! Oh wait...that's only one public figure contrasting his record with another public figure.

Where's the attack?

As far as I'm concerned, a public figure's record is fair game for comparison and criticism. I really wish candidates (all of them, not just Huckabee) would stop whining about being "attacked" when other candidates have the audacity to point out matters of fact. When most of us look for a job, our record is taken into account. It shouldn't be any different for those running for the biggest job in the country.

In short: buck up, you whiners. America doesn't elect crybabies.

Posted by: Slublog at 07:13 AM | Comments (13)
Post contains 218 words, total size 2 kb.

It turns out that in addition to being an American Hero, Jose Rodriguez the CIA official who authorized the destruction of interrogation video tapes, is not a fool. He received prior permission from lawyers in the CIAÂ’s Clandestine Operations Branch to do it (warning, itÂ’s a NYT link)

The former official spoke on condition of anonymity because there is a continuing Justice Department inquiry into the matter. He said he was sympathetic to Jose A. Rodriguez Jr., the former chief of the clandestine branch, who has been described by intelligence officials as having authorized the destruction of the tapes. The former official said he was concerned that Mr. Rodriguez was being unfairly singled out for blame in the destruction of the tapes.

The former official said Mr. Rodriguez decided in November 2005 that he had sufficient authority to destroy the interrogation videos, based on the written authorization given to him from lawyers within the branch, then known as the Directorate of Operations.

Obviously, lawyers can be wrong and this decision was the subject of debate for years between the White House (who opposed the action) and the agency but we are no longer talking about some rogue officer acting on his own initiative or a premeditated effort to obstruct justice.

Naturally, this wonÂ’t slow down the Democrats in Congress in their rush to label this a Bush cover up. The fact (at least according to the Times) that the White House opposed the destruction of the tapes is simply an incontinent inconvenient truth they will ignore.

h/t The Corner

Posted by: DrewM. at 07:11 AM | Comments (12)
Post contains 273 words, total size 2 kb.

Remember that study about a half year back demonstrating that FoxNews didn't cover Iraq as much as the other TV outlets when news was bad? CNN et al. made a rather big deal about that. Their argument seemed to be that good or bad, the War had to be covered, and only partisanship and bias could explain a drop in coverage.

Well, covering the war "good or bad" includes, I see, covering it when it is going rather good.

So how come CNN and the nets aren't interested anymore?

Last time 'round we were told Fox's diminished coverage was proof that they were in the tank for the GOP.

So what does the diminished coverage by ABCNBCCBSCNNMSNBC demonstrate, praytell?

Thanks to CJ.

Posted by: Ace at 05:19 PM | Comments (23)
Post contains 146 words, total size 1 kb.