Obama, Huckabee on top in Iowa poll
There are polls, and then there are polls. Here's one that matters.
A new Des Moines Register survey of likely Democratic caucus-goers gives Barack Obama a narrow edge over rival Hillary Clinton, with John Edwards holding steady just below them. Obama is at 28 percent, compared with Clinton at 25 percent and Edwards at 23 percent. Obama's lead over Clinton is within the margin of error.
On the Republican side, Mike Huckabee, who has skyrocketed in recent Iowa polls, has overtaken Mitt Romney and now leads 29 percent to 24 percent. Rudy Giuliani is in third at 13 percent. Both parties' races in Iowa, which holds caucuses in a month, remain fluid, the poll suggests. And in Iowa time, a month is an eternity. Still, both current front-runners can find good omens in the results.
Obama leads Clinton among women 31 percent to 26 percent, the Register reports, a stark change from October, when 34 percent of women caucus-goers said they would vote for Clinton, and 21 percent preferred Obama. Women account for about 60 percent of likely caucus-goers, the poll indicates.
Huckabee leads Romney, 38 to 22 percent, among those who call themselves born-again Christians, who make up half of likely caucus-goers. Romney drew more support than Huckabee from that group in October.



Mike Huckabee - MY candidate for cleaning the "air" in Washington; being the "bridge" between the aisles in Congress; and the "ears and mouth" of ALL the PEOPLE here in middle America!
Mike Huckabee ROCKS!!!
When the candidates boast of tax reductions, they should give details on who is receiving tax cuts. One cannot sing about tax reductions, if cuts benefited the richest. Similarly, criticizing for tax increase, one should offer details on which taxes and on what group got increase in taxes.
Huck's FairTax - A fringe idea, NOT
Dr. Laurence Kotlikoff (9/26/2006): "Yes I think [the U.S. is bankrupt] because if you look at our long term fiscal obligations and compare them with our tax receipts that are projected to come in, you end up finding the difference in present value is equal to $63 trillion. This is according to an update of a U.S Treasury study. So it is not an academic study but rather a government study.
"To come with $63 trillion in present value, you would have to have an immediate and permanent roughly 70 percent hike in federal corporate and personal income taxes. Alternatively you could immediately double the payroll tax. So we are talking about gargantuan adjustments here, huge problems that we are facing, and a lot of this has to do with the fact that the society is aging. We are currently facing 33 million people over 65. But when the Boomers retire there will be about 77 million people over 65. And we are currently handing out per old person roughly $30,000 on average in Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid benefits. But when the Boomers retire we are going to be paying them a lot higher level of benefits because these benefit levels continue to grow much more rapidly than wages per worker. So think about 77 million Baby Boomers getting roughly $40,000 per head, and you see the magnitude of the problem. We are talking trillions of dollars. $44,000 times 77 million is a very big number. It is in the trillions, A couple trillion dollars a year in obligations. So I do not think it is an exaggeration to say the country is bankrupt."
Kotlikoff sees passing Huck's FairTax as an answer to economic meltdown. Why? Check it out for yourself: http;//snipr.com/meltdowninprogress
Take a GOOD look at Huckabee and the FairTax - why is the FairTax studies only evaluate incomes up to $200,000? Because the effective tax rate for billionaires under the FairTax is less than 1%. You can buy things of great value all day long without ever buying a new one. Think mansions, land, yachts, valuable coins, stamps, bullion, stocks and bonds - all of which increase his wealth and none of which is taxed. The things that are NEW that the super rich require will be provided them as perquisites by the businesses they control. Think company car, company house, company jet - all of which use our infrastructure and none of which is paid for by the entity using them. Why should Walmart pay for roads and bridges when they can get you to pay for free? This is another attempt by the liberal media to face ANYONE but Dr. Ron Paul. Much as we'd like politics to be positive, it is in fact ruled almost entirely by negatives. For instance, what's the biggest negative the Republican Party is facing in 2008? Iraq - a staggering 70% of people favor IMMEDIATE withdrawl from Iraq. Who is the only candidate that doesn't have that negative? Dr. Paul, who advocates using those trillions of dollars to secure our border (perhaps against Saudis who were 20 of the 24 terrorists in 9/11) and rebuild our crumbling infrastructure which is far more worrying than the loss of Social Security. Hm, full employment, withdrawl from Iraq and a huge boost to our economy from rebuilding our infrastructure - what Democrat wants to run against that. Hence the behavior of known liberal biased network CNN, who wants us to nominate either Guiliani or Romney - both of whose negatives are so high the copy practically writes itself!
Send your comments to masspolitics@globe.com
browse this blog
by categoryINside Boston.com