Huckabee’s new fundraising goal
Mike Huckabee’s has a new fundraising goal of 1,000,000 dollars by February 12 at midnight. With his recent successes this past Tuesday, I feel this goal shouldn’t be too hard to meet.
Now, a lot of you feel that Mike Huckabee isn’t a fiscal conservative but I feel that really isn’t the case. When you look at how much money each campaign has raised, Huckabee has raised the least with a total of roughly 9 million dollars (as of the end of December). This amount is only a tenth of what Romney has raised and about a fifth of what McCain has raised. Now, in my eyes, for a candidate to run such a successful campaign on such limited amounts of cash shows that he if very careful with his money. So why wouldn’t we believe that this trait will transfer over when he is in office? All governments have to spend our tax dollars so wouldn’t you want a president who is used to doing more for less? Do you see those qualities in Romney or McCain?
Now I am not saying that raising money is bad and that candidates shouldn’t be out there trying to raise as much money as they can. I am just trying to point out the fact that Huckabee has done extremely well even though he has had a lot less resources at his disposal.
This idea of financial responsibility also reminds me of the parable in Luke about the shrewd manager and in particular Luke 16:10-12 where Jesus states:
10 “Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much. 11 So if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches? 12 And if you have not been trustworthy with someone else’s property, who will give you property of your own?”
Now doesn’t that just remind you of Mike Huckabee? Well, I’m sure not all of you would agree but I at least feel this verse applies.
And just for kicks, here is the fundraising data for Obama and Hillary. Take note that as of the end of December, Mitt Romney had actually outspent Hillary and Obama. I found that a little interesting.
I think there is a problem with media coverage of events which is purposefully tilted to where the media wants. A typical example is the issue of raising funds between Clinton and Obama. Your website shows that Clinton have so far outraised Obama but you guys still go ahead stating Obama outraised Clinton. I think this is just an attempt to give Obama a bump. The press i think should be neutral and unbiased, but so far this is not so.
Also when Clinton tried attacking Obama, the media screemed and blew it out of proportion just to provide a safe haven for Obama. I mean this guy is running for the highest job and we need to know him really. And mind you if he wins the nomination he will freak out under the republican grilling.