Huckabee and Push Polling
Jeff Taylor reports for Reason that South Carolina’s Attorney General may prosecute a company that does some serious push-polling for Governor Mike Huckabee. Instead of having a real person on the line, the listener simply has to listen to a recorded message. Sadly for Huckabee and his crew, “state law bans such automated calls.”
The target of the calls, which are conducted by Common Sense Issues, which then hired ccAdvertising: Fred Thompson. Paul Kiel adds that if the company does what it says it will do (conduct some 1 million phone calls in three days), it’ll have carried out some 7 million phone calls in total (it’s very actively helping Huckabee).
Obviously, there’s more to it than that: Taylor explains that the group is a 501(c)(4)-group. These groups are not allowed to directly or indirectly participate or intervene “in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office.”
O, for your information: this is the same company that attacked Mitt Romney in Iowa and Reason says that there’s virtually no saying where Common Sense Issues ends and Huckabee’s campaign begins.
Here’s a recording of the phone call, h/t Wizbang
Just for giggles, also go here: “Do you support President Bush?” “Yes.” Call ends. “Do you support President Bush?” “No.” “Mike Huckabee… etc.”
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
Now that’s a ridiculous smear. Huckabee has come out at least two or three times, publicly saying that his campaign doesn’t condone this and has asked the group to stop doing the push polling. How can Reason then reasonably argue that the group is working at the behest of the official campaign?
They haven’t stopped – I got a call yesterday – just had to laugh
Unfortunately, Christine, the Huckabee campaign has established a record for doing bad things that at the same time they disavow and condemn in public. Remember Huckabee’s asking a "torpedo question" about what Mormons supposedly believe and then turning around with a "personal apology" after the damage is already irrevocably done? Remember Huckabee showing an attack ad in Iowa to the press under the pretense of pointing out that he was too principled to show attack ads?
As a result of such dishonest and deceptive two-faced behavior throughout the campaign thus far, I do not find it at all impossible that the Huckabee campaign would simultaneously condemn push-polling while wink-and-nod supporting it through surrogates.
The funny thing is that I don’t have strong moral objections to attack ads or push polling. I think the free speech argument is a good one. Candidates should be free to say whatever they think is appropriate about their opponents. But I do condemn them when they try to hide their involvement or lie about being the ones speaking. The Huckabee campaign in increasingly showing remarkable similarity with the Clintons’ brand of bare-knuckles, deceptive political game-playing. Maybe it is an Arkansas thing?
Jason: I can understand your point, but there’s still a big difference between saying that there’s room for doubt and saying that there’s no distinction between this group and Huckabee’s campaign. The first implies that you don’t know if you can believe Huckabee’s denial of direct association, and the other implies that you know that there is a direct association (and not only is there no evidence of that, but the evidence points in the other direction- they’re a group which has done similar things for other candidates, so at minimum it doesn’t look like this was set up as a front group.)
As I always say, during a campaign your “friends” can hurt you more than your enemies.
Huckabee’ campaign may have nothing at all to do with this. But it’s certainly being done on his behalf.
Plausible deniability. After Ed Rollins’ comment the other day about Fred quiting and the other one about knocking Romney’s teeth out, I would not put it past him to make this happen.
it’s one thing to denounce such calls. it’s another to take action to stop them. shuckabee could very easily, very publicly, demand that the calls stop. all he has to do is contact the head of the group and formally request they stop making the calls. he can do it in front of a camera and reporters.
don’t expect anything like that. this is like the whole Rush Limbaugh flap, where he never actually said he disagreed with the "anonymous staffer" but only said he didn’t know who said it so he really couldn’t address the issue.
BS.
The issue was all over the media. All he had to do was spend 5 minutes reviewing it to make a complete denouncement. He could have EASILY called in live to the Limbaugh show and set the record straight.
Did he?
nope.
shuckster is a fraud. he is the embodiment of all that is Arkansas politics.
Here is a T shirt for you:
NOT another Clinton
NOT another Bush
NOT another Governor from Arkansas
Just "say no" to shuckabee
Stanley: Suppose you are right and Huckabee doesn’t have any direct involvement with the push polling, he still has a glaring problem. If Mike Huckabee can?t keep his own support system under control, how can we as a nation expect him to lead our nation? I find it highly suspect that he isn’t involved, I mean he basically push polled with a Times interview. He said "don’t Mormons believe Jesus and the Devil are brothers?" He’s a manipulative, deceitful, calculative man (I find many campaign similarities between Clinton and himself). Count how many times he has had to apologize to various groups lately. It is great to admit that you make mistakes, but when you make mistakes as a president, people get killed. What is he going to do then? Apologize?!? The United States deserves better.
Andrew: First, my position isn’t that he definitely isn’t involved with the "Common Sense Issues" group, but that there’s no evidence that he is. Obviously when a group is campaigning for someone, you have to wonder whether or not they’re doing it with direct ties to the candidate or if they’re independent but they are doing what they think needs to be done to advance the candidate. It could very well be either one with Huckabee, but Michael has presented the story as though there’s no doubt that he is calling the shots here, and that’s not accurate. The group has been around a while and has a history of push polling for other candidates they support, so one thing we can definitely say for sure is that they aren’t just a front group to do dirty work for his campaign- they have their own agenda.
As to how he can’t control them- I honestly don’t know how any candidate can control independent groups, do you?
No, I’ve presented it as if most people think that he knows what’s going on and silently condoning it.
That’s different Christine.
And yes, he is "a manipulative, deceitful, calculative man" Andrew. I agree.
To a degree it’s all part of American politics, but that doesn’t mean these people shouldn’t be called out.
Well, shall I look for the instances when you call out Hillary Clinton based on what other people think she knows and silently condones?
It’s about equal standards, for one, and second, not stating as fact what is really opinion. In some cases you are writing that this is what X person thinks, in other cases it’s your own words like:
"Look at what the other does" doesn’t work with me Christine.
Again, I think he silently condones it, as just everyone else who, umh, isn’t… emotionally tied to Huckabee’s candidacy.
I greatly respect you Christine, but on the issue of Huckaflopper we greatly disagree (I didn’t see you comment on his latest flip-flop by the way – nothng to dispute?)
Micheal, as I’m sure you well know, there’s a difference between using "they do it too" as an excuse and stating that if you are going to hold one person accountable, you ought to apply the same standards to others. If you refuse to do that, it’s your choice, but it’s your bias that’s showing, not mine (because I never said it was OK if Huckabee really is doing this because others do it too, now, did I?)
As I recall, when people criticize Hillary the same way you do Huckabee, you’ve said that they just have an irrational hatred for her.
And no, Michael, you aren’t showing that you greatly respect me, you’re being condescending. I’m sure you’re also well aware that I’m not 100% supportive of Huckabee, I just think you’re going way overboard in the way you’re covering him. And my lack of 100% support for him is why I didn’t comment (yet) on the flip flopping issue (though you’ll recall I already did comment on one of your other posts about that.) I think he’s handling some of his difficult positions very poorly right now, and I’m becoming less supportive of him because of it. It’s because of issues though, not campaign/character issues blown way out of proportion.
Stanley: Are you saying that Common Sense Issues would tell Mike Huckabee to shove his disapproval of their push polling you know where? I don’t think so, if someone not respectful a candidate’s wishes why would they pour resources into getting them elected? What is the motive? As far as the flip flop issue is concerned. I believe that people blow it way out of proportion. Probably by people that do not understand the political realities of our system. If politicians don’t compromise on issues, things won’t get done. I’m definitely not a proponent of pork barrel legislation, which is also derived from compromising, but by finding it unacceptable for them to change their positions is to tell our politicians that it is unacceptable to actually think about issues. Sometimes arrogance can be a virtue, but I find in most cases it serves as a vice.
Andrew, the director of CSI did say that, not in so many words, but he spefically said that they were going to keep doing what they were doing no matter what Huckabee asked of them. To me, it looks a bit more like they’re a group who backs his policies and wants him elected but they think they know better than he does how to achieve that.
so…your saying that Huckabee is unable of getting himself elected? And what policies? Maybe his line-item veto? O wait….that is unconstitutional….
Andrew: I’m not saying half the things that you say I’m saying. If you want to say them yourself, go ahead, but I’ll stick to saying what I think and you say what you think, OK?
Stanley: Fine by me, personally I think it is very odd for a candidate to believe in a policy that was ruled unconstitutional during the Clinton administration. Maybe its because he is not familiar with federal law…it just baffles me why he would take a position on a non issue. And this position… “as a percentage of national income, we spend only half as much on food as people in other developed countries. Subsidies help keep our food costs low by keeping production levels high.” This is complete nonsense, how does he think the subsidies are paid for? By taxation, so consumers are actually paying more for subsidized products than they realize…..and isn’t Huckabee supposed to be against taxes? Sounds to me like he is endorsing it. Just ridiculous.
The line item veto policy itself wasn’t (and couldn’t be) ruled unconstitutional; a particular bill was ruled so. And I’m not sure how all of the candidates stand, but I think most or many of the GOP candidates support the idea of line item veto. I know Romney criticized Giuliani pretty harshly for having been the one who brought the suit back in the 90’s. And then Giuliani’s response was that he doesn’t oppose it in theory but believes that there’d need to be a constitutional amendment before it could be kosher. And Bush tried to get a watered down version through Congress in 06- so it’s not as though Huckabee’s out on a limb with this. Voters like it because they see that Congress doesn’t have the will to cut spending. I don’t think it’s the right solution myself, but I’m not going to base my vote on whether or not a candidate supports this.