Republican presidential wannabee Mike Huckabee has played his experience as a Southern Baptist minister and president of the Arkansas Baptist State Convention into second place in Iowa polls.

Huckabee has moved from about 8 percent last summer, to 24 percent in a recent Washington Post-ABC News survey.

The Los Angeles Times reports Huckabee being backed by 44 percent of evangelical Protestants, who make up four in 10 Republican caucus goers. But the Times points out there are doubts about Huckabee:

Some conservatives are leery of his views on taxes, pointing to his Arkansas record.

The Club for Growth, which advocates limited government and lower taxes, points out that as governor he increased taxes on sales, gasoline, cigarettes and nursing homes. He says he had little choice because of court-ordered spending increases or rising federal entitlement spending for programs “over which you don’t have executive control.”

That’s an issue which was hammered home by conservative columnist By Robert Novak in an article titled, “The False Conservative:”

Read on.

Democrats thought they were smart to pick a Senate Minority (now Majority) leader who had just been re-elected in 2004 to avoid another Daschle problem (a partisan leader in a state that isn’t favorable to their party). But unless Reid steps down from being the Chief Senate Partisan, he is unlikely to be able to climb up the steep hill he has created for himself in right-of-center Nevada.

The Las Vegas Review Journal has an editorial today that points out how increasingly unpopular Sen. Reid is in his home state. Two polls have found his disapproval rate to be at 49 and 51%. His approval rate was pegged at 39 and 32. In the Review Journal poll, Reid is less popular than the President in Nevada.

Sen. Reid’s reputation as an obstructionist and partisan are not serving him well. And Republicans have several probably challengers. 2010 is not a Republican favorable Senate lineup (2012 is), but NV may be a toss-up before a Republican even declares.

Does anyone know if Oprah woke up today with a horse head in her bed? It’s been 24 hours and it’s already getting ugly.

Patrick Healy of the New York Times, no doubt first forced to watch the Vagina Monologues to get in touch with his inner female before writing this, has fired the first shot at The Oprah on behalf of The Clintons.

Message: women are still alive who didn’t have the right to vote. You must stick with the woman so that these old women can finally see one of their own in the White House.

I told her that my grandmother was the first person in town to vote, and my mother was the second, said Mrs. Smith, who was born three months before the 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920. And I told her I was born before women could vote, and I want to live long enough to see a woman in the White House.

Since then Mrs. Smiths story has become a grace note in Mrs. Clintons stump speech. At the same time, the many other elderly women who turn out for Clinton campaign events have become welcome set pieces, visibly demonstrating the candidates effort to highlight her sex and her overtures to female voters, whom the campaign is counting on to propel her to the Democratic presidential nomination.

I wish I could insert barf noises into this post.

Read on . . .

A new round of Israeli-Arab peace talks is under way. Whether something enduring will come of it seems rather unlikely, though even some normally skeptical observers have expressed guarded hope.

There is one curiosity here worth expounding: Thanks to Jimmy Carter, youll probably need both your hands to count the number of times the charge of APARTHEID will be hurled against Israel, sometimes with the esteemed former president actually cited, during interviews of Arab PR men. Apartheid system, apartheid regime, apartheid state, apartheid government, possibly even the infelicitous phrase apartheid occupation over and over and over: these guys are suckers repetition of striking phrases. And while weve heard the apartheid accusation before, it is Carters recent book has vastly increased its currency.

Read on.

Here’s where I see this race today: it’s still Rudy v. Romney with Rudy starting to exert a key advantage Ramesh Ponnuru wrote about a while back: Rudy has most of the rightwing pundits on his side. When Romney talks about crime, George Will and Deroy Murdock can take him on. Romney, however, seems to have more grassroots passion.

But, I think we might just see a turn in the cycle ahead. Romney and Huckabee are battling it out in Iowa while Romney and Rudy are battling it out in New Hampshire and everywhere else. That provides opportunities to Fred in Iowa and McCain in New Hampshire.

I think we’re already seeing that shape up. Fred has reached that interesting point where none of the other campaigns take him seriously, yet he’s starting to make inroads in Iowa against Huckabee, who can’t afford to spend too much time fighting off Fred when he’s trying to unseat Romney.

In New Hampshire, McCain, long ago written off, is seizing the Rudy v. Romney battle to make some inroads with independents, most of whom will still vote Democrat in 2008, and restore some ground lost with Republicans who just might get tired of the Rudy v. Romney fight, see e.g. Gephardt v. Dean in 2004 in Iowa.

There’s not much insight in this post, admittedly, but I think it’s worth pointing out again that this race is still wide open. If Fred and John play their cards right, they just might restore serious viability to their campaigns. And then, on the bright side, we just might have to spend several more months hearing Fred talk about federalism and John talk about “Warshington.”

Of course, at what point do Fred and John hurt each other?

Bumped back up top by Erick because I missed this last week due to the holiday and damn if it isn’t the most awesome political ad ever made. And if I didn’t say that, Chuck Norris would kill me.

From Hotline ($):

GOPers
Ex-Netscape CEO Jim Barksdale
Businessman Dave Dennis
Ag. Undersec./ex-Cochran CoS Mark Keenum
Ex-Tupelo Mayor/ex-TVA chair Glenn McCullough
State Sen. Walter Michel
Rep. Chip Pickering (03)
Treas. Tate Reeves
‘07 LG candidate/state Sen. Charlie Ross
Outgoing LG Amy Tuck
Rep. Roger Wicker (01)

Dems
‘07 GOV nominee/’96 MS-03 nominee/atty John Arthur Eaves
Ex-Ag. Sec./ex-Rep. Mike Espy
‘06 nominee/state Rep. Erik Fleming
AG Jim Hood
Ex-Jackson Mayor Harvey Johnson
Ex-Gov. Ray Mabus
Ex-AG Mike Moore
Ex-Gov. Ronnie Musgrove
Ex-Rep. Ronnie Shows
Rep. Gene Taylor (04)

So far, reports say that GOV Barbour (R) is not selecting Rep. Pickering (R) for the appointment. Rep. Wicker (R) seems to be preparing to run for the seat. Rs who have nixed any thoughts of running include GOV Barbour and LG-elect Bryant.

Outgoing LG Amy Tuck (R) would seem to have a direct line to the Governor’s ear since they worked together in his first term. Tuck is a party convert, becoming a Republican in 2002 after being a Democratic LG from 1999-2002. She was re-elected as an R in 2003 with 61% of the vote. She broke with the Ds because of her views on abortion, gay rights, and other issues. She would be one of very few pro-life women in the Senate (with IIRC Sen. Dole being the only current one).

Most of the MSM pundits see this as a safe Republican seat despite the expectation that ex-AG Mike Moore (D) and/or ex-GOV Musgrove (D) will get into the race.

Feel free to research the shortlist, pick your favorite and argue in the comments. It probably won’t affect the Governor’s decision, but you’re a junkie and you know it.

[UPDATE] More on Tuck since the comments seem to focus on her. The NRLC loves her.

Lt. Gov. Tuck has used the power of this office repeatedly to advance pro-life laws and obtained advice from National Right to Life officials. During her eight years in office, over 20 pieces of pro-life legislation have been enacted, 6 in 2004 alone….

With the [2000] national election between pro-abortion Democrat Al Gore and pro-life Republican George W. Bush, Tuck could no longer consider herself a Democrat. Primarily because of the abortion issue, I could not honestly call myself a Democrat anymore, she said.

Couple final points I wanted to make sure to mention.

Rudy v. McCain style difference - Sen. McCain has emphatically clung to the idea that a campaign should be about policy differences between the candidates. His criticisms of Sen. Clinton focus on her “disastrous” Iraq policy, her health care plan, and other policy differences. Mayor Giuliani has a much more abrasive and combative view of politics, much closer to the Clinton model. Mr. and Mrs. Clinton both see almost no difference between politics and personal life. Hillary’s “vast right wing conspiracy” comment is one of many examples of this All Of Life Is Politics principle. Rudy and Hillary would likely have another campaign full of negative ads, partisanship, and a willingness to “fight.” This obviously appeals to partisans on both sides. McCain goes out of his way to appeal to the independents who despise that part of politics. His enduring appeal to independents (which is greater than the more “moderate” Rudy) is based on his style which focuses on respect for those who he disagrees with and a desire to get things done rather than to create a permanent partisan majority. In a general election, McCain’s inclusiveness and anti-partisanship will be in stark contrast to Hillary’s very partisan persona and thought process. Most political junkies vote on policy, but this difference in style will matter in a general election.

Overall Experience - This was a phenomenal opportunity to see real, live retail politics in the most important election in the world: for The President of the United States of America. I have realized how difficult it is to capture what the campaign trail is like for those of you who (like me) have never been on it. If you want to get another perspective on what life on the campaign trail is like, drop by the McCain Blogettes run by the Senator’s daughter (Meghan) and her friends. They are very nice young women and their photos and experiences on the road are good depictions of the high paced campaign life.

Thanks - This ride-along would not have happened if it wasn’t for the logistical help of Pat Hynes and Brooke Buchanan on the McCain campaign. I also received the very valuable advice of other citizen journalists including from our very own Ben and Soren on what to expect and what to bring with me. Furthermore, the McCain Blogettes were generous with their time and thoughts and I enjoyed talking to them about their experiences. Finally, the campaign treated me as any other journalist and that respect can mean a lot to newbie.

Below the Fold are links to all of the other stories in this series.

So we have this story concerning Abu Dhabi’s decision to invest in Citigroup in the wake of the latter’s loss of half of its market value thanks to losses in the subprime mortgage sector. This is welcome news, as it constitutes a vote of confidence in Citigroup despite all the turmoil that is going through. And New York’s senior Senator notes as much:

ADIA “will bolster Citigroup’s capital and competitiveness,” U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer said in a statement. . . .

Notice the ellipses? They denote that something comes after that excerpted phrase. Let’s look at what that something might be:

. . . The New York Democrat was among the lawmakers who criticized the Bush administration’s decision last year to approve DP World Ltd.’s $6.8 billion acquisition of London-based Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co., a deal that gave the Dubai state-owned port company control of six U.S. terminals.

Schumer was among those who said Dubai ownership would jeopardize U.S. national security, arguing that two terrorists involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks were from the U.A.E.

Ah, yes. That.

Dare I think that Senator Schumer’s change of heart has much to do with the fact that Citigroup, as a Wall Street mainstay, constitutes something of an institutional constituent for him? Xenophobia has a way of coming to a dead-bang halt when politicians need to keep votes and support from institutions that require foreign investment, eh?

Just in case you haven’t had enough of Hugo Chavez:

Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez summoned home his ambassador to Colombia, escalating a conflict that threatens to damage trade and diplomatic relations between the neighboring countries.

Ambassador Pavel Rondon was recalled for consultations about “recent events,” according to a statement on the foreign ministry’s Web site. The statement gave no additional details.

Chavez turned on President Alvaro Uribe Nov. 25, calling him a “liar” after the Colombian leader rescinded permission for Chavez to negotiate with Colombia’s biggest guerrilla group in a bid to free 45 hostages. Since then, the two leaders have traded insults, with Uribe accusing Chavez of attempting to spread an “expansionist” socialist agenda across the continent.

“The attacks are very personal and will be very hard to come back from,” said Adam Isacson, director of the Colombia program at the Center for International Policy in Washington. “This will require international intervention to get them to sit down and work this out.”

Colombian stocks have dropped since the presidents traded barbs, with shares of exporters hardest hit. Venezuela and Colombia are both each other’s second-biggest trading partners.

Textile exporter Cia. Colombiana de Tejidos SA, based in Medellin, headed for its steepest two-day fall in 18 months amid concern over its business in Venezuela. Colombia’s benchmark stock index fell for a second day, declining 0.6 percent to 11,211.77 at 1:11 p.m. New York time.

“An end to relations will have a severe impact on both economies, most probably worse for Colombia,” Rupert Stebbings, head of international sales in Bogota at Interbolsa SA, Colombia’s biggest brokerage, wrote in a note to investors.

And all because Chavez had his precious pride insulted. Is this the new definition of “statesmanship”?