Huckaboom to announce a big endorsement today

By Stephen Fountain, Editor

Filed Under Race for White House 2008 on Dec 14 

Apparently Mike Huckabee is going to announce a big endorsement today. From Fox News’ Cam Cameron:

In Florida on Sunday following the univision debate I interviewed the governor. Afterward he and his staffers heavily advertised a big news making endorsement Friday in NH.

It’s a national figure. They were very excited. They have been telling reporters ever since so its likely to leak…interesting way and time to raise expectations.

Any guesses on who the big endorsement might be?

Update: From Wikipedia:

Ed Rollins (born March 19, 1943) is a Republican campaign consultant and advisor who has worked on a number of high profile political campaigns in the United States. He was named the campaign chairman for the Mike Huckabee campaign in December, 2007.[1]

Edward Rollins was born in Boston, Massachusetts. There, he was raised in a Democratic household. His family later moved to Vallejo, California, because his father had found work there as an electrician at the city’s Mare Island Naval Base. Rollins briefly studied at Washington University in St. Louis before he attended California State University, Chico, where he served as Student Body President his senior year. He also fought as boxer while an undergraduate. Rollins later served in a number of Republican staff positions in the California State Assembly.

Rollins is best known for his work as National Campaign Director to Ronald Reagan in the 1984 presidential election in which Reagan won 49 states. Before joining the campaign Rollins served as Assistant to the President for Political Affairs and Director of the Office of Political Affairs from 1981-83. Rollins was hired in 1981 to serve as Deputy Assistant to the President for Political Affairs under Lyn Nofziger, rising to the role of Assistant when Nofzinger resigned in November of 1981.

Update: And CNN:

A veteran Republican strategist considered by many the architect of Ronald Reagan’s 1984 landslide election victory is set to take the helm of Mike Huckabee’s surging presidential bid, CNN has learned.

Ed Rollins — the longtime GOP strategist who worked in the Reagan White House, ran former Sen. Jack Kemp’s 1988 White House run, and played a key role in Ross Perot’s 1992 presidential bid — will be formally named Huckabee’s national campaign chairman later Friday at an event in New Hampshire.

Rollins told CNN’s John King that over the last several months he has become “more and more impressed by the day” with Huckabee. Asked if he thought Huckabee — who currently holds leads in key early voting states in several recent polls — has the chance to win the nomination over more well-known and better funded candidates, Rollins said “the skill factor is certainly there.”

  • Share/Bookmark

Comments

19 Comments

  1. Jerry on 14.12.2007 at 10:44 (Reply)

    I think the endorsement will come from Dr. James Dobson.

  2. Lazlo on 14.12.2007 at 10:46 (Reply)

    This could be a very good response to the recent criticism.

    While others criticize him, Huck might get endorsed by someone that people really respect…thus Huck appears to out-class the others.

    Now if this endorsement is by some lukewarm person (Boortz), Huck could look like he is dodging his record.

  3. Hardy75 on 14.12.2007 at 10:47 (Reply)

    The Apostle Paul?

  4. Toby on 14.12.2007 at 10:50 (Reply)

    Huck will claim the endorsement of none other than Republican Jesus ™

  5. Lazlo on 14.12.2007 at 10:59 (Reply)

    Observation:

    The two ’surprise’ candidates (Paul and Huckabee) are those that say they want to end the income tax.

  6. Lazlo on 14.12.2007 at 11:10 (Reply)

    “Republican Jesus”

  7. Jason Wright, Editor on 14.12.2007 at 11:31 (Reply)

    Are you implying Huck’s surge is all due to his desire to want to end the income tax?

  8. TL on 14.12.2007 at 11:55 (Reply)

    Wow,

    Now Edward Rollins will lead the GOP to a landslide election loss.

    Is Huck the new George McGovern of the GOP?

  9. Lazlo on 14.12.2007 at 13:23 (Reply)

    Edward Rollins may be a big name in politics, but not the populous.

    Henry Rollins is much more appropriate for Huckabee…”CUZ, I’M A LIAR!”

    “Are you implying Huck’s surge is all due to his desire to want to end the income tax?”

    Not ‘all’ of it. But he didn’t start saying ‘no IRS’ in debates until recently (Paul said it from the beginning)…and recently Huckabee started climbing.

    Too bad, the people don’t check voting records. If they did, they’d know Huckabee is a big-time tax-raiser…he’s been known as taxhikeMike for a long time.

    I like the Fairtax better than the income tax, but I wouldn’t want Huckabee over the income tax, the Fairtax, or any tax. I don’t give a damn about what he says in debates or how well he says it; he’s proven himself (via his record and character) to be untrustworthy.

    Ditto for Romney, Giuliani, Thompson, etc. They overspend and overtax, then say they are against overspending and overtaxing. When are enough people going to wake up?

  10. joe gores on 14.12.2007 at 13:46 (Reply)

    santa claus

  11. Toby on 14.12.2007 at 13:58 (Reply)

    okay, so it wasn’t Republican Jesus(tm)… just his adviser.

  12. Troy La Mana on 14.12.2007 at 15:34 (Reply)

    Did you think Rove would go to the Paul campaign?

  13. AndDru1 on 14.12.2007 at 16:55 (Reply)

    This is great news, no more questions about mormonism, no more wave of attacks without a response (at least I hope so).

    Jason: Did you have to wake the beast? He/She was actually coming around on Huckabee (not that Huck was anywhere near touching Paul status)

    BJD: Huck’s talked about ending the IRS since the beginning, a vote for Huck is a vote for the Fair Tax, and Ron Paul’s a good guy.

    Toby: Only one Jesus, and it ain’t Reagan.

  14. RobA on 14.12.2007 at 17:25 (Reply)

    Lazlo. . . . every single comment comes back to Paul. I actually like Paul and many of his issues. I don’t agree with him on everything, I don’t agree with ANY candidate on everything. But I am a pragmatist. I would gladly accept any GOP candidate (including Paul) over Hillary, Edwards, or Obama.

    I simply don’t think Paul has a chance to win in the conventional system. Does that mean he stiffs the GOP and runs as 3rd party? He won’t win that way either. But you know who will? The Dem nominee.

    Republicans are too fractured right now. None of these candidates are the ‘dream’ candidate. There is no throwback to Reagan, no matter how many time they use the man’s name.

    I hear about Romney’s flip flopping, Huck’s tax raising, and Rudy’s liberal social issues. As much as you dislike those particular positions from those candidates – would you rather see a Dem get in there? Huck raised taxes in Arkansas, so he can’t possibly mean what he says on the FairTax? That’s ridiculous. Who is more likely to lower taxes or hopefully revamp the tax system – Huck or Hillary? Who’s more likely to defend our country – Rudy or Hillary? Who’s more likely to promote a stronger economy – Mitt or Hillary?

    I am sick of all the bickering. I can’t wait for Feb 5. Rudy, Mitt, Huck – and yes, even Paul – - would all have my vote over the Dem nominee.

  15. Troy La Mana on 14.12.2007 at 18:32 (Reply)

    “I actually like Paul and many of his issues. I don’t agree with him on everything, I don’t agree with ANY candidate on everything. But I am a pragmatist.”

    See, here is the biggest problem I see in elections. People are stuck in the herd mentality vote instead of voting for who they feel is the best candidate. The media perpetuates that group-think and you end up with a candidate that is the lesser of two evils.

  16. Fabs on 14.12.2007 at 19:57 (Reply)

    In this election, it seems it comes down to the lesser of many evils since it seems people are having a harder time really picking who they feel is the best candidate.

    And since Hillary is the biggest evil . . . amen to RobA!!!

  17. Lazlo on 15.12.2007 at 08:23 (Reply)

    “As much as you dislike those particular positions from those candidates – would you rather see a Dem get in there?”

    What’s the difference, based on record, between neo-con liberal Pubs and liberal Democrats?

    Which doesn’t overspend?

    Which doesn’t overtax?

    Which doesn’t engages in unconstitutional acts?

    Which isn’t serious about controlling the border?

    Which isn’t serious about closing/fixing harmful government agencies?

    Which isn’t too cowardly to address the Federal Reserve?

    Which isn’t willing to admit the war on drugs is a social engineering farce?

    And so much more. Mass conspiracy? You bet your @ss.

    I am sure all of us are well-intentioned, but there is another entirely different race going on right now. Don’t assume I buy into the mentality spewed by Rush, Hannity, and so on. Sure they did a great job exposing the Democrats, but both liberal and neo-con shows did a great job exposing the neo-cons.

    This is a retro-conservative (the founding principles) against liberalism (both Democrat and neo-con). So yeah, I try to steer the conversations into something more significant than what the MSM tells us to discuss. I’m talking real change vs bull change: no income tax vs temp income tax cut.

    BTW: several of us push their favorite candidates.

    And you are right. If Paul doesn’t become the Pub Primary winner, a liberal Democrat takes the Presidency…but that is the same as if a liberal neo-con takes the Presidency.

    And don’t say ‘then you aren’t really a Republican’ because only until recently did the Republican party go liberal. It used to be conservative, it used work to pull US troops out of intervening wars, it used to fight to keep the US abiding by the founding principles.

    Take a look at Romney, Huck, and Giuliani’s RECORD…all very liberal just last decade. Sure they talk the conservative talk on stage, passed a couple conservative pieces of legislature recently, but their RECORD shows they are liberals in Republican clothing.

    So help us purge these imposters from our great party.

  18. Lazlo on 15.12.2007 at 08:36 (Reply)

    I’ll take Mad Money’s Cramer’s endorsement over Ed Rollins.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nq7Li1MOF2Y

  19. RobA on 15.12.2007 at 23:07 (Reply)

    Lazlo. . . . what’s the difference between Hillary/Obama and one of the ‘non-Paul’ GOP candidates? If you have to ask that, then I’m afraid we have very little in common.

    Honestly, I’m not 100% confident or thrilled about any of the GOP candidates. But I strongly dislike the Dem candidates. Where does that leave a voter like me? If Paul doesn’t win the nomination, am I going to cry in my beer and not vote for Mitt, Rudy, or Huck?? Life is full of compromises. Politics is no exception.

    To answer some of your questions. . .
    Which doesn’t overspend?
    They both suck. But will Dems spend less? No chance.

    Which doesn’t overtax?
    Surely you can’t possibly think Dems will tax less.

    Which doesn’t engages in unconstitutional acts?
    I’m not an expert on the Constitution, so I’ll take a pass on this. I’m sure they both suck though.

    Which isn’t serious about controlling the border?
    Both parties are pandering to the hispanic vote and are too afraid to do anything about this. I still say the Dems will do less on the border. A Republican with some mojo might get a fence built. Dems will give out universal healthcare and college scholarships to them.

    Which isn’t serious about closing/fixing harmful government agencies?
    Dems will expand the size of gov and make it more bloated than it already is.

    Which isn’t too cowardly to address the Federal Reserve?
    I would love to see Romney or perhaps Rudy get a crack at this. Both would be far better on economics than the Dems.

    Which isn’t willing to admit the war on drugs is a social engineering farce?
    Wasn’t this a Nancy Reagan issue from the 80’s? Not even close to being one of my radar of issues I care about.

    And so much more. Mass conspiracy? You bet your @ss.
    Do we really need more conspiracy talk on the web?

    Look, I do like your guy Paul. I watched the clip of him on Cramer (whom I watch frequently). I GET IT. The Fed sucks, big government sucks, politicians are a bunch of lying thugs, etc. It’s not that your arguments for your guy are wrong. It’s just the logic of thinking HIllary is the same as Rudy, or Obama is the same as Romney, etc. is fundamentally flawed. They are not even close. We don’t have a rock star, slam dunk candidate that satisfies everyone. That’s why the race has been so fluid. But there would be an enormous difference between a Hillary/obama/Edwards administration vs. a Rudy/Mitt/Huck administration.

    Go ahead and vote your conscience in the primary. If Paul wins, he’s got my vote. I just highly doubt that will happen and I am prepared to vote for my dog before I’d allow Hillary to take the white house.

    And by the way, that was not an ‘endorsement’ by Cramer. I watch the guy regularly and he’s also had Romney and Rudy on his show. He maintains his show is politics neutral (but he does refer to the Dems as the ‘Bolsheviks). He hates the Fed and that’s where Cramer and Paul agree.

Leave a comment

  • The Wire

    • Sign up for The Wire