The GOP Conundrum: SoCons like Huckabee, but he's more a threat to the coalition than Rudy
By Erick Posted in 2008 | FRC Action | huckabee | Rudy Giuliani — Comments (116) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
As I head back to Georgia after several days in Washington, I've got a few more thoughts on the FRC Action Washington Briefing.
First, John McCain is on his last leg after this. John McCain has been more of a pro-life, pro-family politician than any of the other guys running, save Huckabee. And he lost to Rudy Giuliani in the straw poll. McCain is respected by these people, but they have rejected his candidacy. If McCain can't get the values voters and he can't get the business voters, he really doesn't have much left.
Second, I'm told that people in the room tabulating the votes were stunned by Huckabee's showing. Stunned, for some of them, is an understatement. It seems clear to me that this was an opportunity for the leaders of the social conservative movement to sigh, shrug, and embrace Romney. They intended to.
They gave Romney a platform by himself on Friday night. They played heroic anthems for his entry and departure. He had the night all to himself. And he did well. Then Huckabee showed up the next day, sharing the same time cluster as Rudy. And Huckabee, with a speech he wrote himself, was magnificent.
Now, you can call me partisan or biased or whatever you want, but all I'm doing here is reporting. The leaders of the social conservative movement who were present, the Arlington Group members you hear so much about, were ready and willing to get on board Romney's campaign on Saturday morning. Then Huckabee spoke. Then the straw vote was tabulated. Then they realized that were they to do so, it would put them completely out of step with their members.
The social conservatives do not want to rally around Huckabee because he is as distasteful to fiscalcons as Rudy is to socons. Even Tony Perkins, the head of FRC, said he hoped the social conservative candidate would be palatable to the fiscal conservatives out there. Huckabee is not.
And here we arrive at the conundrum for the GOP and the Press. While the media has been filled with stories about the socons ready to bolt from the GOP if Rudy is the nominee, the real story and the untold story is that the business community is even more ready to bolt from the GOP. For the last eight years they've watched as the socons have scored every significant win on the right — stem cells, judges, etc. Only against Labor have the fiscal guys scored wins. But there have been no budget cuts, no culling of pork, steel subsidies, etc.
The fiscal guys see the writing on the wall. They see Hillary's position. And they are just about ready to cut a deal. And then you have the Republican libertarians who are just about ready to really vote for Ron Paul, doing to the GOP in 2008 what Ralph Nader voters did for the Democrats in 2000.
Huckabee breaks the coalition more than Giuliani because the socons fear Hillary more than the fiscalcons do. And that is why we won't see too many of the socon leaders rallying to the clear favorite of the socon base.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | LA-GOV: Wrap-up about Governor Jindal's Performance — Comments (3) »
The GOP Conundrum: SoCons like Huckabee, but he's more a threat to the coalition than Rudy 116 Comments (0 topical, 116 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
He is more of a W clone than anybody else in the race. The ultimate compassionate conservative. Getting him elected would be like getting W reelected for a 3rd term. That's not going to happen, even against someone like Hillary.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
C'mon!
Think back to the 2000 election. Who did Huckabee endorse in the Republican primary?
When everyone else was clamoring to jump on the Bush bandwagon, Huckabee endorsed Lamar Alexander.
Don't get me wrong. Huckabee likes Bush and respects him... But if Huckabee's ideology were a carbon copy of Bush's, don't you think he would have endorsed Bush in 2000, especially considering they both were governors of adjacent states?
Look, I know people have changed--that our country has changed--in eight years. However, Bush's fiscal policy has more or less remained the same. Since the concerns you have with Huckabee is that he will continue Bush's fiscal policy, then answer me this .... Why didn't Huckabee support Bush in 2000 if they share the same fiscal agenda?
I don't care who he endorsed in 2000. I do care what he has done as Arkansas governor and what fiscal policies he is advocating today. Also, dissing the Club for Growth looses points in my book.
Huckabee is a great speaker, but his fiscal record is mixed with profoundly anti-growth positions on taxes, spending, and government regulation.
The Club's full report on Huckabee is here.
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/01/a_report_on_mike_huckabees_fis.php
I've been a strong supporter of the CFG. But they've really let me down this year. They had Huckabee's report the day after he announced. Thompson was either the same or next day. But where is Ron Paul's report?
Paul has a 10 term voting record in the House so they should have no trouble researching his positions. He announced late March, they've had plenty of time. After the last quarter, Paul had more cash on hand than McCain and Huckabee put together. With Brownback dropping out, they even have space on their website.
Is the club now considering non-economic factors? By doing so, that would be a big loss to their credibility. Paul announced in March. Come on Club for Growth, release your report on Ron Paul.
Wiseburn
I think that The Club for Growth considers factors such as "has a shot in hell of being nominated" before compiling an entire report on the guy.
That is why the Club has put out reports on neither Duncan Hunter nor Tom Tancredo - who both also have long House records to scrutinize.
Plus, with all of Ron Paul's pork, I doubt that their review of Dr. Paul's record would be all positive.
W didn't do such a great job controlling spending, true, but he didn't demagogue on class warfare, and he his record on trade issues is excellent. Clearly something that can't be said about Huckabee.
Don't get me wrong, I'd vote for him over Hillary, but we shouldn't pretend that the business community would be scared of him, and that if he actually did some of the stuff he says it would hurt the economy.
Jindal/Palin '16
and Ficons don't really care about them? I'm tired about hearing about the poor FiCons. You guys got a trillion dollar tax - cut, and Bush tried with Social Security, but sometimes you can't everything done. We got good judges, but as far as I can see we don't know yet whether the Judges will be better for SoCons or fisCons, in the hearings at least Roberts seemed open to judging based on precedence which would mean Roe stays- nothing gained for SoCons. I'm not a Huckabee fan, but I'm tired of this narrative about how SoCons got everything and FiCons didn't get anything.
You may be tired "of this narrative" but the narrative is an accurate description of how things are viewed by the fiscal conservative guys. It does not make it fact, but it makes it the perception, which is really more important in the grand scheme of this race.
...perception is so important that it often becomes reality.
SoCons thinking they are being practically kicked out of the party with a Guiliani presidency just as seriously.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
YES and don't bother us FiCons anymore about your silly problems.
???WhoamI????
Assuming you're right about McCain, I can't help but think that we'll look back on 2007 as the year the GOP turned its back on the one candidate who was socially conservative, fiscally conservative, and strong on national security enough for every group in our apparently fragile coalition.
I'm reminded of a close friend who dated a woman for some time, and ended up breaking up with her because she wasn't hot enough. He went on to repeat this pattern with three or four other women. In each case they had integrity, were stable, educated, and kind. In each case, he had a vague "I don't know" sense about them. In each case I thought he was being fickle.
He lives alone, bitter that he hasn't gotten married, and all I can think is that he has only himself to blame.
spend seven years stabbing him in the back to garner rave reviews from their girlfriends?
It wasn't the Republican Party that turned its back on John "Hi, just call me 'Maverick'" McCain...
Also, vis a vis the whole "socon" vs. "fiscon" divide, according to Leon back in '06 and '05, that's a divide that exists only in the minds of fiscons (and a few nanny-state outliers). In the main, socons almost always support the fiscon agenda, but the reverse is not true: "the best indicator of whether a Senator is likely to support anti-pork measures like the Coburn amendments, is whether they also opposed government-funded embryo destruction or supported a constitutional amendment for the traditional definition of marriage."
See http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2006/a_friendly_reminder_for_t... and http://www.redstate.com/story/2005/11/11/145253/48
1. Yes people from conservative districts are usually conservative across the board. So your point is right, except for people like President Bush and Gov Huckabee who are probably the two biggest examples of socons who don't understood or care about limited government.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
"When people are hurting, government has got to move" -- W.
I haven't studied Huck's record, but he /does/ have a rep as a nanny stater.
FWIW, W's 2000 campaign as a "compassionate conservative" struck me in two ways: #1: apparently W agreed with the MSM and DemLibs that all those /other/ conservatives (like me) are just plain mean. 'Cause ensnaring entire families into generations of government dependence is oh-so-compassionate. #2: hold onto your hats, because 'compassion' -- ie. govt spending -- comes before 'conservative'. And boy was I right about that.
Huck's populist notes strike a similar chord with me...a dissonant, jarring chord at that.
Bolting is a multi-directional activity.
When Fortune magazine puts Hillary on the cover with a story about her increasing business support, the deal is being cut.
The cover of Fortune Magazine is a highly reliable contrary indicator.
Treating would be capitalists as tools ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
That is just obsurd. First, I believe there have been 3 or or more waves of tax cuts. Meantime, if I may ask, has Roe v. Wade been overturned? No. Also, on stem cells, but had promised to oppose it, and is now, and has been, allowing testing on existing lines of stem cells. That is a Loss for the social conservatives, and a campaign promise broken.
Harriet Miers was another promise broken for the social conservatives. Likewise, why has Don't Ask Don't Tell not been reversed? Why have women been (illegally) but into warzones to fight. I could go on; Bush has not been a friend of the social conservatives. Case-and-point is on boarder security.
Also, your statements on Huckabee are not fair. They have some truth, but not fully. I agree that Huckabee is not the first choice for the low-tax community. However, it is not fair to even compare him with the Democratic nominee. Giuliani is pro-choice, pro-sodomy, and pro-gun control. Huckabee is no where near that on taxes. Yes, he has an imperfect record, but he is no less conservative on taxes than Reagan was. Also, during the campaign he is clearly moving right. Remember Reagan signed the sweeping pro-abortion law for CA, but later switched to more pro-life. Huckabee is doing something similar with taxes (though Huckabee's tax increase was not as liberal as Reagan's pro-abortion law, nor as liberal as Reagan's strong support to allow sodomites to teach at public schools).
Huckabee is also not a Bush clone by any means. For starters, Huckabee is able to speak very well. Huckabee is also more conservative on boarder security. Huckabee is a social conservative and a fiscal moderate. He is not as liberal as Bush on fiscal issues.
Brownback was the solid fiscal and social conservative; he is now out of the race. The people left are:
1- Rudy - who is neither a fiscal nor a social conservative; is a social liberal and a fiscal moderate
3. Thompson - Who is neither a fiscal nor a social conservative, he is a moderate for both.
4- Romney - who is a big question mark
5. Huckabee - who is a social conservative and a fiscal moderate
6. Tancredo - who is a social ultra-conservative and a fiscal ultra-conservative.
7 - Hunter who is a social conservative and a fiscal moderate.
8 - Ron Paul who is against the Iraq War.
Since all the factions are blackballing everyone, who is left? I guess Romney has the best chance of keeping this party intact. If we really are this fractured, what better time for a realignment? Maybe there is no good time, but we can't keep doing this forever.
I still think Rudy is the odds on favorite. It seems to me that the GOP establishment will give him more endorsements than anyone else. No question Fred was the "golden boy", but if he does not turn this thing around fast, he could be the next to go.
Maybe Romney will win by default, simply because he is the least offensive to all the factions. Either way, we as a party seem like a bunch of whiners right now, no focus at all.
Molon Labe!
AND MCCAIN . . who is a fiscal conservative, social conservative, and strong on national security. But I guess your fingers got tired of typing . . .
McCain was seriously dammaged by Rush Limbaugh over a period of years since the 2000 election. I think McCain did offer his enemies too much ammo as well, but Limbaugh really did a number on him. There are too many Republicans who just do not like him for whatever reason. And he is not exactly doing a great job in this campaign.
Molon Labe!
You can't blame Rush for that. You can't stick it to the base over and over again and expect to be loved. This really started during the 2000 election, when he was depending on Democrats and independents for votes in open primaries, and he just never let up. He has nothing but disdain for the base, and it shows.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Seems to me that McCain's been doing a lot of fence-mending with the base. If your argument is, "yeah, but he's doing that just to win votes," that's fine. Just make sure you don't end up voting for romney, rudy, or thompson - each of whom has had his share of late-age mind-changes on critical issues.
Oh, and one more thing: McCain did have a lot of independent and dem support in 2000. So did Reagan in '80 and '84. Guess what? That's what it takes.
He has tried to suck up to the base recently, but he can't even do that right. "I'll build the g*dd*mned fence if they want me to." Yea, that's just great. Now where do I send my contribution?
McCain did have a lot of independent and dem support in 2000. So did Reagan in '80 and '84.
Reagan didn't get that support by selling out the base and running to the left. Pretty big difference if you ask me.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Rudy is a conservative as far as NYC goes but beyond 100 miles of NYC he is definitely no conservative. The question is: Is someone who is a fiscal conservative and a social moderate really a conservative and vice-versa or do you need both to be a real conservative?
I say if we can't get both and win the election then we deserve to lose and re-group in 2012.
???WhoamI????
He's actually a conservative within 100 miles of NYC. Remember, you're talking about Jersey, Nassau County, and Connecticut. Your larger point holds, but I couldn't let you make New Jersey and Connecticut any better than NYC.
250 miles and not including the Northeast.
???WhoamI????
Oh good grief, go hang out at your Constitution Party meeting why don't you.
Jindal/Palin '16
The Bush Tax Rate Cuts jumpstarted the economy. But without the spending cuts to go with them they mean jack. Now, we have massive borrowing and B-52 Ben Bernacke inflating the currency to pay for the out of control spending.
On top of that, we have no one to blame for this but Republicans. And people wonder why fiscals conservatives are unhappy with Republicans.
Just wait till the economy implodes when Hillary lets the tax rate cuts expire.
Ka-Boom!
Wiseburn
Huckabee makes John McCain look like Duncan Hunter on illegal immigration. I'm currently studying his record, and it is bad. Not just bad, but REALLY bad on matters that should be a major concern.
Tommy Oliver
www.race42008.com
in too many ways to list but can never actually call myself one. I am a non-practicing Christian. The GWOT is/are my #1 - #5 issues. FiCon is next, and I'm for taxes as low as they can be and government as small as possible with a robust Defense. Fred is my favorite but after watching Rudy's latest speech (I used Power Line's link this a.m.) I am awfully impressed by him. Extremely impressed.
I pray our party isn't split, but my vote will never go to he who must not be named, Huckabee, or my personal Republican bete noire, McCain. McCain cannot get the nomination and the other 2 don't have a prayer of beating She Who Must Be Beaten. That should be our top priority; not competing self-interests that drag us as a party into backbiting obscurity.
You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.
His Words:
Huckabee, who supports guest worker programs and is not an immigration hard-liner, said he believes opposition to comprehensive immigration reform is 'irrational in many cases.' And he did not discount the causative factor of racism.
"If I were to say that some of it is driven by just sheer racism, I think I would be telling you the truth. I've had conversations with people that and it became very evident that what they really didn't like was that people didn't look like them, didn't talk like them, didn't celebrate ht holidays like they do, and they just had a problem with it. Now, that is not to say that everyone who is really fired out about immigration is racist. They're not."
http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/05/huckabee_some_c....
Somebody's been drinking kool aid- My words
Tommy Oliver
www.race42008.com
Huckabee said "some" anti-illegal immigration opponents were racist. He also said not every body who is fired out about immigration is racist. By inductive reasoning, one may conculde that everyone else in the anti-illegal immigration bandwagon is not a racist.
What's untrue or offensive about that?
I oppose illegal immigration. But I am neither a racist, nor am I offended by Huckabee's remarks. Why? Because he made reference to me in the last sentence of his remarks. I am in the category of those who are fired up about immigration, but are not racist.
Which category are you in?
Don't be offended though, because I'm obviously not talking about you. Some people who believe in "x" are "y" is a pretty old trick. It's a cowardly way of attacking the motives of your opponents used by those who don't have the guts to do it directly.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
then how can John McCain be your bete noir?
I'd really appreciate a response, because your position makes no sense on first impression.
He's the strongest among the candidates on national security, and a comment like your bete noir comment given by someone like you who seems to really care about McCain's strongest suit raises eyebrows.
Because in my view, border security IS national security.
Neither W nor McCain seem to grasp the natsec implications of unguarded borders, or of too-intimidated-to-do-their-jobs border guards. (What, you thought there was no /message/ involved in the prosecution and imprisonment of Ramos and Campean?)
Therefore, IMO, W and McCain -- as strong as they have been about fighting terrorists and Iran's proxies /over there/ [*] -- are not to be trusted in defending our country from Hezbollah and al Queda cells simply walking across our borders /over here/.
[*] except, of course, that McCain is much more Alan Alda than Jack Bauer when it comes to captured terrorists. If we're just really super nice to them, then our captured soldiers will be well treated. Or something.
Uh huh.
I'm sorry, bur for McCain, even his last-minute "conversion" to "Well, I guess we'll just have to secure the borders, then, 'cause you xenophobes won't let me be president otherwise" isn't gonna cut it. At least not for me.
If he had just stood up to Democrats instead of reading / believing his fawning headlines, he would be the next President of the United States.
He thought the way to the Presidency was to be Senator Maverick, partner with Snarlin' Arlen, and drag Linday Graham with him. As it turns out, he won't even be the nominee, and neither Graham nor Spector will likely not be a Senator soon.
"and neither Graham nor Spector will likely be a Senator soon."
Still a poor sentence fragment, but a little less confusing.
McCain is weak on national security and the war against islamic extremism because he wanted to build a wall at the same time we dealt with 13 million illegals in a way that wouldn't bankrupt our government?
The president is weak on national security and the war against islamo-fascists?
I find your analysis both troubling and disappointing.
Troubling in that you seem to have forgotten that this president with support from a republican congress and individual members like John McCain has kept America safe since 9/11.
Disappointing because you seem to be willing to throw someone who has helped keep us safe by keeping us on the offensive in Iraq under the bus because you disagree with him on immigration reform.
PS-spare me the Alan Alda comments. McCain is a man of honor who knows torture and when he speaks about its ineffectiveness, its detrimental effect on our warfighters, and on its negative effect on our moral superiority in this war, I'll listen to him over a guy like you any day. Shameful.
McCain is weak on national security and the war against islamic extremism because he wanted to build a wall at the same time we dealt with 13 million illegals in a way that wouldn't bankrupt our government?
The president is weak on national security and the war against islamo-fascists?
I find your analysis both troubling and disappointing.
Troubling in that you seem to have forgotten that this president with support from a republican congress and individual members like John McCain has kept America safe since 9/11.
Disappointing because you seem to be willing to throw someone who has helped keep us safe by keeping us on the offensive in Iraq under the bus because you disagree with him on immigration reform.
PS-spare me the Alan Alda comments. McCain is a man of honor who knows torture and when he speaks about its ineffectiveness, its detrimental effect on our warfighters, and on its negative effect on our moral superiority in this war, I'll listen to him over a guy like you any day. Shameful.
We have remained safe in spite of the illogical immigration stances by both President Bush and John McCain...
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
You have your establishment/corporate candidate, ready made to win since he entered last winter, gets the elite support, but the regular folks can't stand him and don't trust him, fair or not. OK, next you've got the preliminary favorite, who has fallen from frontrunner to afterthought because nobody trusts him, and his disdain for disagreement has come back to haunt him. Next, you've got the hero unacceptable to social conservatives, almost forcing them to
All of a sudden, you've got a candidate who has no financial backing who is the clear choice of the Christian footsoldiers, but the elite can't stand him, and his record as governor is very suspect. And finally, you've got the old warrior, who might've seen better days, but quite frankly, is the only candidate that can unite all the factions of the GOP, but the insiders don't like his style, and his principles don't allow him to go as far as they would like.
They try and rig the straw poll by allowing online voters, knowing full well that one of the campaigns were staging a full effort to enlist online support. I have absolutely no sympathy for them. NONE whatsoever.
The elites are getting a taste of their own medicine. They spilled it, and now it's them who have to clean up the mess.
And that's not even covering Ron Paul.
Tommy Oliver
www.race42008.com
FRC reportd no surge in enrollment over the last week. I think the spin of Romney rigging it is a bit overstated. Huck won the local vote because he gave a great speech, Romney won overall because they see him as the best Social Conservative who can unite the party and win.
www.mymanmitt.com
www.race42008.com
www.illinoisreview.com
Member of Romney for President Faith and Values Steering Committee-an unpaid advisory position, that does not require an endorsement.
I might agree with you more if Ron Paul hadn't miraculously come in 3rd place online. They had a member of their coalition out publicly encouraging people to vote for a certain candidate, which is completely fair, by the way. However, I only learned about the online voting from mymanmitt, of all places.
Here's the problem I have with it, why include online support, or why not just do a seperate vote online like those who watch the debates and vote in the online polls for the networks afterwards? The FRC knew full well that online polls are easily manipulated, and they did absolutely nothing. After all the public outcry from the likes of Sean Hannity after Ron Paul wins online post debate straw polls, you'd think they'd know better. By doing online get out the vote, people who are not interested in the message of their cause, or didn't even watch the event could vote in it. I don't think Romney did anything wrong. I think those conducting the poll just assumed that things would turn out a certain way, and they didn't.
Now, I don't think Romney rigged it at all, but it would be naive to think that they weren't well aware that certain camps would be promoting it more than others.
All this has done, for better or worse, is make them look foolish.
Tommy Oliver
www.race42008.com
I think it was online because the FRC has many members who woud like to vote but can't come to DC for the summit.
It starts to sound like sour grapes.
Ron Paul does have a certain following amongst social conservatives, even in my state there are some prominent activist who are for Ron Paul, he's wacky for some but not for others.
www.mymanmitt.com
www.race42008.com
www.illinoisreview.com
Member of Romney for President Faith and Values Steering Committee-an unpaid advisory position, that does not require an endorsement.
www.mymanmitt.com
www.race42008.com
www.illinoisreview.com
Member of Romney for President Faith and Values Steering Committee-an unpaid advisory position, that does not require an endorsement.
It may sound like sour grapes, but it isn't intended to. We've all, over at the site (which I havent abandoned for RS), have spent the last 6 months completely bashing online polls. So why would we trust them all of a sudden? Personally, if I'm skeptical of something like online polls, I usually tend to stay that way. I don't give them any credit, or you'd see me gushing over the blogger straw poll results every month.
With or without online poll results, I'm not spinning our bad turnout. Thompson did nothing to stand out from the crowd, and it showed in the results of the poll. He's got to do better than that. My take? He had great substance, but was inconsistent in his delivery. He did nothing to inspire undecideds Friday. He and McCain were scheduled as basically the opening acts of the whole summit, in their speaking order. From going so early, he needed to perform at a level that kept him on the mind of everyone there through the rest of the speeches, and he didn't deliver, in that regard. Mike Huckabee did.
You can't gauge how much undecided support was swayed from an online poll of people who could not attend. It's impossible. For the people who were there, the top tier got creamed by Huckabee. No spin necessary because there's no way to spin it. In on site votes, neither Thompson or Romney were able to even significantly seperate themselves from Rudy. Romney came out with an upperhand, with the most consistant performance, but even he only bested Rudy by 26 votes. That's not a lot. There's no way to be able to tell how many of those who voted online were actually attendees at the conference. It's impossible to predict. Especially when some actively encouraged their supporters to vote. Nothing wrong with it, but nobody can tell. There were 2500 more hundred votes than were in attendence. So who knows?
Tommy Oliver
www.race42008.com
My point does not disagree with anything you write here. My point is that the online poll can be gauged since the FRC claims there was no surge in registration prior to the conferance and the poll was only open to FRC members. Romney did win the total poll, and I think when you couple it with the fact he is the only candidate who seems to be acceptable on some level to all ends of the party, we can deduce that Huck's onsite win was do to his speech, and Romney total win was do to across the board support of FRC members.
If the poll was only open to FRC members, and there was no surge in membership as reported by the NYTimes, than it appears there is something more to Romney's win beyond MMM telling people to vote for Romney.
www.mymanmitt.com
www.race42008.com
www.illinoisreview.com
Member of Romney for President Faith and Values Steering Committee-an unpaid advisory position, that does not require an endorsement.
I covered it here:
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/anteater/2007/oct/21/some_thoughts_on_mike...
If Romney--who has countless millions in the bank--can't round up more than 1,446 people to vote in an online poll, then maybe there is a reason why his numbers are dropping in states such as Iowa (down 6 points since August) and New Hampshire (down 5 points since August).
Conversely, if Huckabee--who has raised less money than Romney has donated to himself--can come within 30 votes of Romney (in nationwide voting) and can beat him 5-to-1 in the live vote, then Romney is by no means in a safe position.
Romney's weakness is especially apparent considering that he is now in 4th place in nationwide statisical polling (the RCP average).
The NYtimes reported that FRC so no sike in their membership enrollment ver the last week, numbers as usual. not the spike rival campaigns reported.
What I think happened was this, Huckabee gave a great speech, that in the moment provided a real high. Those who voted directly after his speech, were swayed. Those who didn't see the speech in person or voted prior to were not.
But good speeches wear off quickly. Maybe people would refer Huck on socon issues but realize he is way off on others. Giuliani they might prefer for his tough on terrorism talk or whatever. But both will split the base. FisCons are just as upset as SoCons. With Romney you won't have the split. Wall Street people will be happy to get behind the former Private Equity fund manager, and SoCons will be happy to get behind the guy who did some socially conservative things in Massachusetts that cost him some popularity.
They will see Huck as incapable of running the campaign force to beat Hillary, and Rudy as incapable of keeping the 3rd of the base excited enough to GTOV next November.
Romney doesn't need to lead in any category specifically, just be strong in all of them, which he is.
www.mymanmitt.com
www.race42008.com
www.illinoisreview.com
Member of Romney for President Faith and Values Steering Committee-an unpaid advisory position, that does not require an endorsement.
Just as Dobson and other socons have made their feelings about Giuliani known, Toomey and other fiscal conservatives need to make their feelings about Huckabee known. (Club for growth has already done this some, but I think it would get much more attention now that Huckabee's chances are rising.)
I think that Toomey needs to go around and tell social conservatives that if they support Huckabee they risk fracturing the party just like with Giuliani.
If social conservatives get behind Huckabee then we know that all their talk about keeping the party united is a load of crap.
Fiscal conservatives, speak up now before Huckabee has a chance to catch on and before any social conservative leader makes the mistake of thinking Huckabee would be a good nominee.
It's coming. I've been spending the last few days completely reviewing Huckabee's record, and plan to do a full post at race42008 when I have everythin double and triple checked. It's going to come out. If Huckabee wants to be considered in the same league as Romney, Thompson, McCain, Giuliani, then he will be treated as a contender.
Tommy Oliver
www.race42008.com
just using myself as an example. People will start vetting him now, and there's no way he'll survive the onslaught.
Tommy Oliver
www.race42008.com
As soon as people care about Huckabee, he will get nailed for his populist rhetoric and for his tax raising past.
He is GWB all over again only without tax cuts. He also is weak on terror and the war in Iraq.
As a social conservative I would much rather have Giuliani as the nominee because he would cause less damage to my socially conservative views than Huckabee would to all my other views.
Huckabee will get rolled by the Dems and we would get socialized medicine with tax hikes for the rich to pay for it.
Objectively I agree with you. If Huckabee were even moderately sound on fiscal policy I could get behind him. He is not, and in my opinion it is too late for him to build trust with the business community / fiscal cons to avoid fracturing the party in Giuliani's favor.
The continuing strength in support for Giuliani shows that, like it or not, a very significant portion of the GOP cares more about fiscal policy and defense much moreso than social issues, whether we like it or not. It is reality. My personal experience is by no means statistically sound, but I am shocked at the number of my conservative friends and family that are ready to pull the trigger for Giuliani on the basis of his fiscal and military stances alone in spite of his decrepit stance on moral issues. As Hannity says . . ."if we don't win the war on terror, there will be no fight against abortion" I don't agree with him, but his comments reflect what's out there.
A Romney/Huckabee ticket would be both uniting and healing for the party at once. Not predicting it will happen. But wouldn't mind it happening either. Romney is my 1st choice, but I could probably even stomach the reverse, as long as Romney was given Cheney deference to run fiscal policy. . .
On principle, I would take Romney, Thompson, or Huckabee over Giuliani. Realistically, I don't believe the latter two could win enough conservative AND crossover support to beat Hillary.
...believe it would do more harm for the party than either candidate alone. Instead of making everyone happy, I think this ticket will more than likely make everyone unhappy. There may not be any refusal to vote (though I still wouldn't vote R if Guliani is on the top), but there simply will not be excitement from anyone.
This is probably one of the most intelligent things that Erick has ever written and is several standard deviations better that most of what he writes. *golf clap*
LOL
Sounds to me like the Social Conservatives are finally playing hardball in response to Fiscal Conservative support for Rudy.
I'm not in favor of this. I made no qualms that I will not, cannot vote for Rudy Guliani for personal reasons, and would even consider voting for Hillary over him. Huckabee doesn't offend in the same way, but I think he is equally as bad for the Conservative/Republican agenda.
Please, everyone (Fiscal Conservatives, Social Conservatives, Defense Conservatives) WE MUST NOMINATE SOMEONE WHO WILL BE ACCEPTABLE TO ALL THREE ASPECTS OF THE PARTY.
Guliani doesn't, let's throw him under the bus.
Huckabee doesn't, let's throw him under the bus.
McCain doesn't, let's thrown him under the bus.
Ron Paul... well I needn't say anymore on him.
People, stop supporting these guys who can't pull our party together! It seems we only really have 3-4 options here (in no specific order): Romney, Fred, Tancredo, and possibly Hunter.
Let's stop trying to lose this election by supporting some candidate in the primary who cannot unite. If we could narrow the field to these 3-4 candidates, we would go into the general election united, strong, and powerful. If we continue to support 1-2 leg Conservatives like Guliani and Huckabee, we'll only go into the general bitter, disheartened, and primed to lose.
Hahahahahahahah...haha...okay, I'm good--... hahahhahahahahaha!!!! hahahah!!!
Wow. Whew. That was a good laugh.
Hahahahahaha!!!!
We're not the party that doesn't trust dem furriners.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
...though his candidacy for President is, of course, a non-starter. I like him on defense -- not a big fan of the protectionist tendencies though, as I'm a free marketeer.
Send us your felons, your TB cases, and your terrorists, since we don't know who's coming and going. And don't ever, ever, secure the border or build the fence that's already been approved and funded.
______________________________________
"Our job is to bash the president"
Newsweek's Evan Thomas, on the role of the MSM
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
I don't even know much about Tancredo. Strike him from the list.
So we're down to: Romney, Fred, and Hunter
Hunter's a no-go, as someone else further up mentioned.
So what we need is all of our Guliani-backers and our Huckabee-backers to get realistic and support either Fred or Romney.
And the 1994-2006 era has seen a slow drain of fiscal conservatives and business community voters to the Ds. Nominating Huckabee would be the flip side of nominating McGovern for the Ds. It would seal the deal for the Ds allowing them to be the socially liberal, fiscally (more) conservative party.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
if THEY see no difference between the two Presidential candidates, on the issues they care most about.
Most fiscal cons will figure out ways to protect their financial interests, even in a HRC Presidency. But, I don't see how the SoCons can protect their policy interests in a HRC Presidency.
For the last eight years they've watched as the socons have scored every significant win on the right — stem cells, judges, etc. Only against Labor have the fiscal guys scored wins. But there have been no budget cuts, no culling of pork, steel subsidies, etc.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
Big business will be fine under Hillary. Big business would probably prefer universal health care.
It is small business that she will destroy and that will have no voice.
Fiscal conservatives aren't Wall Street. (after all, Wall Street always wants to get bailed out of all their mistakes)
Fiscal conservatives are small businessmen, independent contractors, etc.
If you asked me to name a big-company CEO of my acquaintance that is a Republican, the only ones I can think of are retirees. Even the people who run the big defense contractors are just as likely to be Democrats.
The managers of large companies generally care a great deal about the makeup of Congress, but not in a partisan way, since it turns out that Democrats are just as easy to corrupt as Republicans are.
Your right about McCain.
He did have his chance and gave it away without thinking through his stance on immigration. Just how could he be such a strong national security candidate and be so against immigration enforcement - not exactly a tenable position.
Of course, he also had to refudiate his part in campaign finance reform (and those that he associated with). He then would have been the odds on favorite. He is responsible for his own failures..
Huckabee is too anti-federalist to appeal to fiscal conservatives. Since I believe most social conservatives tend to be small-government types also, he also loses appeal with the them.
Guiliani breaks up the party, Huckabee breaks up the party. The only possible unifying candidates are Thompson (currently running weak) and Romney - neither a total consensus builder. Hopefully, the situation will looks much better in June 08.
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
McCain is not against immigration enforcement. He thinks we need to solve the whole problem. That involves dealing with those who are here and getting control of the border. He is also instinctively pro-immigrant and thus would never buy into the "end mass immigration" wing of the party that doesn't like pressing two for spanish.
I understand that people don't trust government to enforce the laws and thus don't support comprehensive immigration reform, but that doesn't mean you should mischaracterize his position.
McCain wants to enforce immigration laws and change them to make them work in the future (and make them enforceable).
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
He only changed his mind after he entered the presidential race. He was way too vocal for liberalization of immigration earlier. I admit that he has professed change, but way too late to be believable.
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
I wish the party could unite around a concept of federalism and strong national defense. That would mean a small federal government (ie. tax cuts and spending cuts) along with social issues being decided by the states. That's a kind of platform that could win over every political block except for big government liberals. It would leave all red state voters with precisely the laws they want on social issues and over time high-tax states would be forced to lower their taxes to compete with low-tax states.
I also want to mention something that I think is an important point. While Guiliani may not push the social conservative agenda, he won't nominate liberal judges, pass gun control laws, legalize partial birth abortion, or support any gay rights bills because it would be political suicide and those aren't the issues he cares about. Huckabee, on the other hand, is a proven populist and tax-raiser who will actively increase government spending and raise taxes, directly and actively opposing the fiscal conservative agenda.
I'm told Huckabee has signed the pledge not to raise taxes, something he never did in Arkansas.
If Giuliani can do that shuck and jive, so can Huckabee.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
And I believe Huckabee about 99% more than I believe Guliani.
Which is to say I don't believe him at all, and he's no better on Fiscal Conservatism than Guliani is on Social Conservatism.
...when the willfully snub the Americans for Tax Reform. Looks like they are open to raising taxes as President.
Is that it does not save any lives, it just causes a minor inconvenience on ending a pre-born human by driving a car or taking a bus a couple of hundred miles.
It may make some people feel better like the passing and upholding of the Partial-Birth Abortion bill but neither has or will save/saved any lives.
???WhoamI????
because each state would then have a say which would undoubtedly reduce abortions in the conservative states. You may argue that it would be offset with out-of-state abortion increases, but I would think that the overall effect would have to be a reduction in totals.
It would, at the very least, place the responsibility for abortion back to the states where it belongs, and could be fought more effectively.
So, yes, it would save lives which is always a good thing...
Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
Huckabee is a continuation of the Bush presidency and that is not a good thing. Bush's biggest weakness is the inability to control spending, especially using the veto pen. This is a shame because being SoCon and FisCon is not mutually exclusive.