DOES HUCKABEE JUST NEED TO “SPLIT THE DIFFERENCE?”
[NOTE: GET THE LATEST COMMENTS ON HUCKABEE'S RUN HERE (http://speedzzter.blogspot.com)]
With Mitt Romney out, is it possible to stop McCain’s march to the nomination?
Some think so.
The Vote for Huckabee blog poses the following scenario:
“McCain’s campaign release stated there are 963 delegates left. McCain would need 471 of those to equal the magic number of 1191.”
“963-471 = 492. So if Huck can get 493 and leave McCain with 470 (or anything less!), it goes to a brokered convention.”
“So the question is, can the conservatives who hate McCain, line up behind Huckabee and basically force a 51/49 split of the remaining delegates?”
It’s basically a reverse test of the notion floated by the elite GOP pundits when they were excusing Romney’s losses by suggesting that Mitt and Huck were “splitting the conservative vote.”
The race is finally ONE CONSERVATIVE vs. McCain.
The "split the difference" idea is not to say that Huckabee shouldn’t go all out for the win. But merely splitting the difference gives Huckabee enough leverage to make a huge impact.
Will those “Anybody But McCain” conservatives rally around someone who is obviously more conservative than Clinton or Obama and who could knock off McCain at the GOP convention or (miracle upon miracles) even before?
George Neumayr, editor of Catholic World Report and press critic for California Political Review posted an article at the American Spectator website questions the genuineness of “movement conservatives” and their motivations.
"It tells you a lot about the state of the establishment conservative movement that in the end, given a choice between a (basically) red-meat conservative from the South and a recently pro-abortion moderate from the North, it chose the latter. The savaging of Mike Huckabee has been highly revealing, betraying more than just personal distaste."
"HUCKABEE . . . is striking much closer to the bedrock of philosophical conservatism than his critics."
So why has Huckabee been forced to fight against the “headwinds” of talk radio and the pundit class?
Clearly, a significant portion of the anti-Huckabee rhetoric was motivated out of bare-knuckled pragmatism, not ideological purity.
The Eastern conservative elites wanted one of their own to win. When Rudy stumbled and Fred bumbled (although Fred Thompson really wasn’t ever a darling of the elites, just another pragmatic means to an end), hope centered upon Romney. Romney was an alum of a selective Eastern college and knew all of the “right” people from his Bain Capital days. He’s urbane and familiar. He’s safe. He was “one of them.”
Conversely, Huckabee was perceived as merely an unfamiliar, underfunded roadblock to the coronation of the elite conservative vanguard’s choice of McCain antidote.
Logical, pragmatic conservatism suggests that if conservatives really want the best available conservative and still have concerns about John McCain’s orthodoxy and electability, they will immediately switch to Huckabee.
Undoubtedly, Huckabee ranks higher as a “second choice” for many Romney/Thompson voters than does McCain. Add in Huckabee’s enthusiastic base of support and the geographical weighting of the remaining primary schedule, it’s not impossible for Huckabee to contend for the split necessary to keep the “game” alive, if not the outright pre-convention win.
As previously blogged on this site, Huckabee needs all the delegates he can get to maximize his influence upon what happens at the convention, even if he’s not the nominee.
If the remaining contest is not excessively divisive, a protracted Huckabee-McCain battle to the nomination is also a good thing for the GOP.
If McCain is allowed to coast until September, the Democrats will suck up all of the news media attention. Moreover, until the Democrats settle on a nominee, the “fall campaign” Romney mentioned in his give-up speech at CPAC cannot being in earnest. A continuing primary campaign will help energize the GOP base and strengthen the grassroots organization necessary to compete in November. It will also give the party activists “something to do” while waiting for the “main event” in the fall. Thus, forcing McCain to campaign against Huckabee sharpens McCain’s “game” if he were to become the nominee and keeps the GOP in the news.
If the Romney-ians and the Fred Heads in the states which haven’t voted yet fail to switch to Huckabee, can we really take their anti-McCain handwringing and “suicide vote” threats seriously?
Romney’s exit is a long-awaited gift from God and the start of a huge opportunity. But will the conservatives take advantage of it? Or will they sit around an pout because their man didn’t make the “finals?”
[NOTE: GET THE LATEST COMMENTS ON HUCKABEE'S RUN HERE (http://speedzzter.blogspot.com)]
With Mitt Romney out, is it possible to stop McCain’s march to the nomination?
Some think so.
The Vote for Huckabee blog poses the following scenario:
“McCain’s campaign release stated there are 963 delegates left. McCain would need 471 of those to equal the magic number of 1191.”
“963-471 = 492. So if Huck can get 493 and leave McCain with 470 (or anything less!), it goes to a brokered convention.”
“So the question is, can the conservatives who hate McCain, line up behind Huckabee and basically force a 51/49 split of the remaining delegates?”
It’s basically a reverse test of the notion floated by the elite GOP pundits when they were excusing Romney’s losses by suggesting that Mitt and Huck were “splitting the conservative vote.”
The race is finally ONE CONSERVATIVE vs. McCain.
The "split the difference" idea is not to say that Huckabee shouldn’t go all out for the win. But merely splitting the difference gives Huckabee enough leverage to make a huge impact.
Will those “Anybody But McCain” conservatives rally around someone who is obviously more conservative than Clinton or Obama and who could knock off McCain at the GOP convention or (miracle upon miracles) even before?
George Neumayr, editor of Catholic World Report and press critic for California Political Review posted an article at the American Spectator website questions the genuineness of “movement conservatives” and their motivations.
"It tells you a lot about the state of the establishment conservative movement that in the end, given a choice between a (basically) red-meat conservative from the South and a recently pro-abortion moderate from the North, it chose the latter. The savaging of Mike Huckabee has been highly revealing, betraying more than just personal distaste."
"HUCKABEE . . . is striking much closer to the bedrock of philosophical conservatism than his critics."
So why has Huckabee been forced to fight against the “headwinds” of talk radio and the pundit class?
Clearly, a significant portion of the anti-Huckabee rhetoric was motivated out of bare-knuckled pragmatism, not ideological purity.
The Eastern conservative elites wanted one of their own to win. When Rudy stumbled and Fred bumbled (although Fred Thompson really wasn’t ever a darling of the elites, just another pragmatic means to an end), hope centered upon Romney. Romney was an alum of a selective Eastern college and knew all of the “right” people from his Bain Capital days. He’s urbane and familiar. He’s safe. He was “one of them.”
Conversely, Huckabee was perceived as merely an unfamiliar, underfunded roadblock to the coronation of the elite conservative vanguard’s choice of McCain antidote.
Logical, pragmatic conservatism suggests that if conservatives really want the best available conservative and still have concerns about John McCain’s orthodoxy and electability, they will immediately switch to Huckabee.
Undoubtedly, Huckabee ranks higher as a “second choice” for many Romney/Thompson voters than does McCain. Add in Huckabee’s enthusiastic base of support and the geographical weighting of the remaining primary schedule, it’s not impossible for Huckabee to contend for the split necessary to keep the “game” alive, if not the outright pre-convention win.
As previously blogged on this site, Huckabee needs all the delegates he can get to maximize his influence upon what happens at the convention, even if he’s not the nominee.
If the remaining contest is not excessively divisive, a protracted Huckabee-McCain battle to the nomination is also a good thing for the GOP.
If McCain is allowed to coast until September, the Democrats will suck up all of the news media attention. Moreover, until the Democrats settle on a nominee, the “fall campaign” Romney mentioned in his give-up speech at CPAC cannot being in earnest. A continuing primary campaign will help energize the GOP base and strengthen the grassroots organization necessary to compete in November. It will also give the party activists “something to do” while waiting for the “main event” in the fall. Thus, forcing McCain to campaign against Huckabee sharpens McCain’s “game” if he were to become the nominee and keeps the GOP in the news.
If the Romney-ians and the Fred Heads in the states which haven’t voted yet fail to switch to Huckabee, can we really take their anti-McCain handwringing and “suicide vote” threats seriously?
Romney’s exit is a long-awaited gift from God and the start of a huge opportunity. But will the conservatives take advantage of it? Or will they sit around an pout because their man didn’t make the “finals?”
Labels: John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney
posted by Editor at 16:37
32 Comments:
Great post, Speedzzter!
The point that you made about Huckabee staying in the race making the party stronger was fantastic. If you don't mind, I might steal it and bring it up in my summary of today's events (with the proper acclaim given to you, course).
Keep up the great work!
Go Huckabee! We'll see what you can really do now, seeing that you're not fighting against Mitt's pocketbook anymore.
You Hucksters crack me up. Hard to even have a serious conversation with people who have no sense of reality or grasp on the political pulse outside of the local baptist church.
Trust me, most Romney suppoters may swallow hard and vote for McCain but would sit it out if Huck was his running mate! The idea that Romney supporters would suppot Huck is simply delusional. You need to understand that most conservatives (who are not evangelical baptists) look at what Huck did in office and do not view him as a conservative! The all around conservatives were Fred and Mitt. That is why Mitt drew the support of conservatives from National Review to Laura Ingraham, from Hannity and Rush to HH, and from the Cub for Growth to great conservatives like Rick Santorum (too bad after Huch entered that you guys went from seriously considering Romney to viewing him as evil). Most conservatives have no interest in a candidate whose major campaign theme do date has been "vote for me, I am a real Christian." You simply don't understand that huck is essentially a fringe candidate. That is why he BARELY registers outside of his home turf.
Romney did the math and, despite being able to draw votes throught the country (including being very competitive even in many southern states), it was simply not realistic after close loses in FL and CA. As Rove just said on Fox, its over. Rove pointed out that Huck would have to go from around 10% of the vote to 85 to 90%.
Finally, I find it amusing how Hucksters now talk about personal attacks after blatantly attempting to belittle another candidate's religion. Sure, Romney and all of the candidates attck the others on the issues, but huck and McCain seemed to go after Romney personally. I had to laugh watching Huck, caught off guard by Romney's withdrawal, talking kind of sheepishly about how he hoped Romney suppoters (hey, don't some of those suppoters believe satan is Jesus' brother -- smirk) would now support him. yeah -- riiigghht.
Too bad Romey couldn't quite stop McCain. He was our only real hope after Fred (go fredheads). Romney is a truly excepional executive who might have been able to actually do something with our government. As for Huckabee - - Baptist preachers are a time a dozen
Here we go with the "Religious Bigotry" gambit again.
As I blogged earlier today at QuiverDaddy, Religion had no part in Romney's failed campaign. Speedzzter may not hold this view, but I believe the Romney flameout was a result of the hysterical browbeating conservatives took from Talk Radio and conservative push-back from the notion that a candidate could self-fund his way to the White House. With his campaign investing $85 million and all the millions in free air time on talk radio going uncontested for two straight weeks, any solid candidate would have been put over the top.
As for Romney's religion, that should have weighed in his favor. He served as a Bishop in his Ward and Stake for a combined total of 15 years -- he had what amounted to a pastoral ministry. People posting anti-Mormon rhetoric all across the Internet were not Huckabee supporters trying to make their own candidate look stupid. Think this trhough: Who benefits when such nasty bilge is spilled all over the place?
I was drawn to Huckabee in spite of having an LDS background because I believed in his issues and the clarity of his committment to what he says. Even though I am an Evangelical now, I do not abide the nasty cracks people were making about Mormons, and I can only conclude they were posted not by Huckabee supporters, but by the supporters of another candidate who are known throughout this process as bomb-throwing black helicopter types with a pencheant for hate speech.
I TRULY REGRET that there was also a lot of uncharitable and uncivil rhetoric directed at both Romney and McCain by myself and others, but neither I nor anyone in the serious Huckabee blogosphere uttered nor would we tolerate anti-Mormon rhetoric. The reason in MY case is that it is not only irrelevant to the political process, it's un-American.
Romney didn't lose because he's a Mormon. He lost because he didn't convince enough people that his year-log odyessey into conservatism was the fruit of personal conviction and not just another data driven outcome.
My, aren't we defensive. Where did I say Romney lost because of his religion? My post does not analyze the reasons Romney lost--that is for another day.
My post simply points out (responding to the topic)that it is delusional to believe that the Huckster is going to now stop McCain or that Romney supporters are going to vote for Huck. While Romney enoyed considerable support across the country, Huck appeals only to some evangelicals. Here in AZ, for example, they are just discussing how with Romney out that seals it up for McCain. Huck is not even seen as a viable candidate. As for religion, I only pointed out that it is laughable, after Huck's comments, to expect some of Romney's supporters to support him. While we could debate how many evangelicals vote based upon the religion of the candidate, I have no interest in trying to guess that number.
Finally, the rhetoric has been unbelievable. While every supporter casts blame at the other candidate, almost all of the commentators were the ones commenting on how McCain and Huck seemed to be really going after Romney personally. I then see the sort of garbage posted here against a great American like Romney and I see the sort of damage that Huck's candidacy has wrought. We are now, for the first time, really divided based upon religion rather than trying to find common ground. Very sad.
Assuming Karl Rove's numbers are correct (factoring in the "superdelegates" that will hop on to the McCain bandwagon, Huckabee needs to do a little better than "split the difference." Rove suggests that McCain's magic percentage is around 40%.
Huck's task is hard, but not impossible.
Bags's post is a prime example of why, if the conservatives don't rally around Huckabee, no one should take all of that "anyone but McCain" talk seriously.
Huckabee wasn't governor of Arkansas for 10.5 years in Clinton country on the strength of only "evangelical baptists" (are there non-evangelical baptists?). Huckabee was a popular governor who, like Reagan in California, governed responsibly in our Federalist system.
Apparently Bags would rather Arkansans drive on horrible roads, with children attending last-place schools managed by the court and not by local school boards, and had less wildlife for hunting and fishing.
Are Republicans becoming so adverse to good, responsible state government that we want anarchy, Bags?
Let's not forget that Mitt spent millions of dollars to build his base of support (excluding the eastern elites who "dis" social conservatism and already knew that flip-flopper) and Fred was already a celebrity.
Huckabee hasn't campaigned on a "vote for me, I'm a real Christian" platform, Bags. He has a very detailed and mainstream Reagan Conservative platform at www.mikehuckabee.com.
It's amazing that Rom-bots like Bags claim to speak for all conservatives, yet obviously have done nothing to research what Mike Huckabee really stands for.
It's also troubling that apparently being a traditional "Christian" disqualifies a candidate from serious consideration on his SECULAR merits for the Republican nomination.
Wow.. bags.. your comment paints you as nothing more than an angry Mormon (tsk tsk). Calling Huckabee supporters "delusional with no sense of reality or grasp on the political pulse outside of the local Baptist Church!" Religious bigotry at its worst! While you claim Huckabee and his supporters are religion bashers - you turn right around and do it yourself! How insulting...
While its understandable that you would be upset since your candidate proved once again that you cant win an election by simply saying the right stuff and throwing money around, to come right out and attack Huckabee supporters is just plain nasty.
To suggest that Christians are just dumb lemmings blindly overlooking Hucks "liberal past" is just about the worst case of pot calling the kettle black that I've ever seen!
The way the Mormon population was able to "overlook" Mitts disgusting blatant 100% flip on every conservative value we hold dear just to get elected in Mass, is quite frankly about as hypocritical as it gets. And why? For one reason and one reason only - Mitt was a Mormon. Period.
When I can pull up a 2002 youtube video of Mitt passionately defending a womans right to choose and promising to do more for gay rights than Ted Kennedy, it would take a monumental effort to ignore his obvious character flaws by the normal guy, much less by the religious person.
So I think its about time the Mormons who keep posting crap like this start living up to what they claim they stand for - and quit acting like a bunch of hate filled bitter babies.
The reason that Huckabee has caught so much flack is that the Eastern Party elites have wanted one of their own, or their own bought man sitting in the oval office... never mind that any of their bought men would have gone down in defeat to Hillbilly Clinton or B Husein Obama.
I find it just this side of hysterical that Pat Toomey and company are recommending people that largely leave social conservatives cold.
Although I don't want to sit out the race in November, maybe its time that social conservatives sit this out, so that the "Powers that Be" remember that we are the foot soldiers of the Reagan Coalition and without us, they lose.
It may be the time for the “social conservative” wing of the Republican party to wake up and realize that the so-called “conservative agenda” (with all of that “values” stuff) is not shared by all Republicans, and does not represent the mainstream of the Republican electorate. And that those who do not share your views of the “conservative agenda” or your image of the Republican party are not “rhinos” but actually people who believe in principles of small(er) government, strong national and homeland defense, elimination of the inheritance tax, encouragement of entrepreneurship and innovation and other “radical ideas”…but simply do not share those religious views that have so overtly been foisted upon the rest of us? MORE? I believe that Republicans have to exist without the Christian conservative social agenda. In the marketing world, we would call that a segmented marketplace (too small for any real traction). Right now, they’re just screaming loudly. They might quiet down eventually…or maybe not.
There are two words to explain why Huckabee is where he is. And it is not Christian Evangelical, it is FAIR TAX. Get your heads out of the sand, and stop trying to marginalize him.
From that great conservative Charles Krauthammer on the search for a compelling conservative: "Then . . . there was Huchabee --until conservatives looked at his record as governor of Arkansas . . ." But hey, he is a real Christian so he has my vote.
Huckabee has spent so much time trying to criticize Romney that none of us know how he differs from the front runner, McCain. Unfortunately, the negative energy Huckabee directed at Romney makes it a little too late to show what he really stands for. It also will come back to bite him as he looks to Romneyites for support.
Romney and Huckabee are both out of the race -- one of them just doesn't know it.
Storm Warning writes:
It may be the time for the “social conservative” wing of the Republican party to wake up and realize that the so-called “conservative agenda” (with all of that “values” stuff) is not shared by all Republicans, and does not represent the mainstream of the Republican electorate. And that those who do not share your views of the “conservative agenda” or your image of the Republican party are not “rhinos” but actually people who believe in principles of small(er) government, strong national and homeland defense, elimination of the inheritance tax, encouragement of entrepreneurship and innovation and other “radical ideas”…but simply do not share those religious views that have so overtly been foisted upon the rest of us? MORE? I believe that Republicans have to exist without the Christian conservative social agenda.
Storm Warning, I think you bring up a valid observation. I'm a Christian social conservative who ALSO supports limited government, strong national defense, and free-market capitalism.
BUT if you (and others like you) think, for even one microsecond, that STAUNCHLY being against abortion and gay marriage which is part of a Christian's biblical DNA is grossly unacceptable to the GOP party, then speaking for myself only, I would happily bid adieu to the GOP party.
Please notice that your post is a declaration to cast out social conservative Christians from the GOP tent. And also notice that it's Not social conservative Christians who are casting you and your ilk out of the GOP tent.
This is a Category 5 Hurricane Warning to you.
Agree with Truth Unites. The social conservative issues are essential to 99% of the mormon voters. Social conservatives are essential for the GOP. We just need to ensure that a candidate is not disqualified because of his religion (or even lack thereof). What matters is what kind of a President the person will be. What will they be able to accomplish. What unique talents and abilities would they bring to the White House.
Some of these comments are surreal.
Anon. wrote "Huckabee has spent so much time trying to criticize Romney that none of us know how he differs from the front runner, McCain."
What?
While some unpaid supporters (i.e. Speedzzter) have spent lots of time criticizing Romney's flip-flops, Huckabee himself has spent almost no time on anything but his own positive agenda.
Stop being lazy and get thee to www.mikehuckabee.com to learn about Mike's positive and conservative agenda for America . . . or read some of the posts on this blog that cover a lot of that same ground.
STORMWARNING, the Republican Party stripped of its social conservative "leg" is . . . the libertarian party. How many national elections have they ever won?
Perhaps you've wandered into the wrong teepee. Maybe this GOP "tent" isn't for you. Why not fire up one of your "doobies" and think about it. (just kidding)
Seriously, your comments suggest that you can't even vote for McCain, because even he pays at least lip service to the so-called "the Christian conservative social agenda."
Never mind that the items on that "agenda" are the return to or the maintenance of TRADITIONAL SOCIAL PRINCIPLES AND LAWS (Isn't protecting and "conserving" what's good fundamentally what "conservatism" is?)
Besides, you secular country clubber just TRY to beat Hillary/Obama (or radical Islamofascism) without us . . . .
However, Stormwarning illustrates the degree in which some Republicans hold SoCons in contempt.
Bags, considering that some of the exit polling showed that in many states other than in Utah (Hmmmm?), Romney, McCain and Huckabee divided the evangelical vote, the "anti-Mormon" bigotry canard/excuse is wearing a little thin.
BTW, Dr. James Dobson (who last time I checked was one of those Social Conservative Christians that the purist Stormwarning wants to exspell from the GOP) apparently had so much fear for offending "Mormon voters" that he waited until after Romney quit to endorse Huckabee.
Some of the LDS whining about Evangelicals discussing their "unique" theology and faith reminds me of the old Harry Truman quote, "I tell'em the truth and they think it's . . . ."
Romney didn't lose becuase of his religion and don't mean to overplay it. Sure, as all of the commentators have noted in the last day or two, it can not be ignored that his religion was a problem he had to overcome as there were a number of evangelicals that stated they could not vote for a mormon. But that is not the reason he lost. Unfortunately, it would also be disingenuous to claim that Huckabee did not attempt to capitalyze or draw attention to Romney's faith in order to get votes. That is why I find it amusing that you folks think you are going to get romney supporters. Now, mind you, most of those supporters are obviously not LDS. But those non-LDS supporters include many fiscal conservatives -- the ones that looked at Huckabee and don't see a conservative. Could be wrong, but I don't see Huckabee getting much of that support.
Finally, what initially caught my attention to this blog was the talk about how now Huckabee could "join" the race. Honestly, its over. Rallying around Romney was the last chance to stop McCain. I know a lot of conservatives (LDS and not) who are not sure whether to vote or not, but hardly anyone is thinking of joining Huckabee.
Bags, did you take a poll or something?
I'm SHOCKED, SHOCKED that the Romney-ians have no 2nd choice.
Then I presume they will become very quiet or will fall in lockstep behind McCain.
I was never much of a fan of the old saw "if you don't vote, you don't have a right to complain," but now that I'm hearing all of this emotional "crazy talk" from alleged conservatives, I may have to rethink that old chestnut of folk wisdom.
Read the following and honestly tell me if it doesn't sound a whale of a lot more conservative and competent than either of the cut-n-run/nationalized health care/no-real-experience Democrats (Hillary or Obama):
The truth about Governor Huckabee is as follows:
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
1. With ten-and-a-half years of experience running state government, Governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas has more relevant executive experience than any candidate in the race – either Republican or Democrat.
2. Recognized and tapped by his peers for leadership, the National Governor’s Association selected Governor Huckabee as it’s Chairman,
3. TIME Magazine honored him as one of the five best Governors in America.
4. Governor Huckabee is a fiscal conservative who cut taxes almost 100 times in the state of Arkansas, including the state’s first broad-based tax cuts, and turned a $200 million deficit into an $850 million surplus.
ISSUES
1. TAXES/ECONOMY –Governor Huckabee supports The FairTax because it will restore the “Made in America” label, making American goods 12-25% more competitive, boosting economic growth, increasing our exports, and securing American jobs. It also prevents criminals or illegal aliens from avoiding taxes, and makes the taxes we all pay 100% transparent.
2. GOVERNMENT SPENDING – Governor Huckabee is committed to reducing government spending. One way he’ll do this is by reducing the cost of welfare. Governor Huckabee will work with states to reduce welfare roles through programs like the one he implemented in Arkansas, which reduced welfare roles by 50%.
3. HEALTH CARE –Governor Huckabee will implement a consumer-based healthcare system that emphasizes preventative medicine and wellness. Because 70% of our $2 trillion dollar healthcare costs is spent treating chronic, preventable diseases, this approach will make healthcare more affordable for everybody while keeping us healthier.
4. FAMILY VALUES –Governor Huckabee supports a federal constitutional amendment to protect the right to life. He Successfully fought for Arknasas’ marriage amendment and strongly supports a similar, federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
5. IMMIGRATION –Governor Huckabee will secure the border (with physical barriers, electronic surveillance, and more border-patrol personnel and detention facilities). He will also end sanctuary cities and increase penalties on, and enforcement against, employers who hire illegal immigrants. Governor Huckabee will make sure the border patrol has adequate funding to end our “catch and release” system so that everyone caught trying to enter illegally, overstaying their visa, or committing a crime will be held until they’re tried, convicted, and deported. Gov. Huckabee has also signed the Numbers USA "No Amnesty" Pledge.
6. WAR ON TERROR AND IRAQ – Governor Huckabee knows it takes a large, well-equipped military to ensure our national defense and to deter conventional military confrontations. He also knows we need large, well-equipped intelligence and Special Forces operations for our national offense – so we can effectively find and eliminate terrorists threats at home or abroad. Governor Huckabee will be a Commander in Chief who knows that IF WE HAVE TO FIGHT A WAR, our President has to fight it the way our GENERALS tell him it can be won, not the way we wants it to be won.
7. ENERGY INDEPENDENCE –Governor Huckabee will implement a program to end the import of foreign oil in the next ten years by increasing domestic oil production in the short term, and then replacing oil-based energy infrastructure with alternative and renewable energies.
8. TAXES –When Governor Huckabee left office, the tax rates remained exactly the same as when he first came into office. Governor Huckabee returned almost $400 million to Arkansas taxpayers, and he also DOUBLED the standard deduction for individuals and married couples, DOUBLED the childcare tax credit, and eliminated the marriage penalty. He also repealed capital gains taxes for home sales, lowered the capital gains rate by 25%, expanded the homestead exemption, and set up tax-free savings accounts for medical care and college tuition. Gov. Huckabee has also signed the Americans for Tx Reform's pledge not to raise taxes.
9. SECOND AMENDMENT-
• Lifetime member of the NRA, member for over 15 years
• First Governor to have concealed-carry permit
• Removed restrictions on carry permit holders
• Protected gun manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits
• Opposes reauthorization of the Assault Weapon Ban
• Opposes expansion of the unconstitutional “Brady Bill”
• Opposes waiting period for purchase of firearms
• Opposes background checks on private firearms transactions at gun shows
• Will nominate judges who interpret the Constitution a the Founders intended, rather than as a “living document reflecting current political trends or opinions”
• An avid hunter and conservationist, and a member of the Ducks Unlimited, National Wild Turkey Federation and BASS.
Governor Huckabee has also been a rock-solid supporter of the right to life (unlike Mitt Romney).
Governor Huckabee has said "No candidate has a stronger record on the sanctity of life than I do. I have always been actively and aggressively pro-life. I first became politically active when I helped pass Arkansas' Unborn Child Amendment, which requires the state to do whatever it can to protect life."
"As Governor, I used that Amendment to pass pro-life legislation. The many pro-life laws I got through my Democrat legislature are the accomplishments that give me the most pride and personal satisfaction. I banned partial birth abortion, I required parental notification, I required that a woman give informed consent before having an abortion, I required that a woman be told her baby will experience pain and be given the option of anesthesia for her baby, I allowed a woman to have her baby and leave the child safely at a hospital, and I made it a crime for an unborn child to be injured or murdered during an attack on his mother."
"What I accomplished as Governor proves that there is a lot more that a pro-life President can do than wait for a Supreme Court vacancy, and I will do everything I can to promote a pro-life agenda and pass pro-life legislation. If I'm saddled with a Democrat Congress, I'll veto any pro-abortion legislation they pass. I will staff all relevant positions with pro-life appointees. I will use the Bully Pulpit to change hearts and minds, to move this country from a culture of death to a culture of life. I have no desire to throw women in jail, I just want us to stop throwing babies in the garbage."
Huckabee is a real REAGAN conservative.
This will probably be my last comment as I have already monopolyzed this blog too much (and it takes too much time!). The sad part of this primary is that we probably agree on 95% of the issues but I feel a real antagonism towards Huckabee -- much so than towards McCain even though I might agree more with Huck -- and that is a problem for Huck. Good luck folks.
Great Post! Right on Target, as Hannity used to say --- a pragmatist to the end.
Romney supporters need to cool off. I understand their disappointment. I could have voted for Romney without much problem. I voted for Mike Huckabee in South Carolina partly because the polls indicated that he was the most likely to stop McCain in his tracks.
Mike Huckabee's opponents have tried to marginalize him as simply the evangelical candidate from the start. This is not fair or true.
Face it, if McCain wins the nomination, we will once again be faced with voting for the lesser of two evils. I am quite tired of being presented with this option.
It seems to me that McCain has a commanding delegate lead simply because of the misguided "winner take all" rules. If Mike Huckabee can stop McCain from getting the necessary delegates, it would be appropriate for Romney to prove his conservatism and throw his support and delegates to Mike Huckabee.
It is now essentially impossible to stop McCain. Can you guys not do math? Look, Romney won 11 states and came in second another 11 times (and, unlike Huckabee, is/was a contender in almost every state). There were clearly more states he would win but it simply was, for all intents and purposes, mathematically over. Appreciate your enthusiasm for your guy but you are also showing your political ignorance.
Finally, Huck marginalyzed himself by his strategy to appeal to evangelical religious bigotry. He should learn that you reap what you sow. He is in many parts of the country, as a result, simply considered a fringe. But hey, if you don't believe it, I will try and check back in again in a few days and watch the great swell of Romney supporters to Huckabee. Can't wait.
Oh, and Romney does not need to prove his conservatism. Except for some of you folk here who try and tear him down, Romney drew the conservative vote around the country. Huck didn't draw ANY support outside of evangelicals because conservatives did not see a conservative -- or at least saw better ones in guys like Fred and Mitt.
religious bigotry?
how about the Utah mormons giving Huck only 2% of the vote....
it's fairly easy to see the mormons defending their cult on here
www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Mormons/mormon_missionaries.htm
The anti-Huckabee posts in this chain are symptomatic of a serious anti-Christian, and particularly anti-Evangelical, bias in a significant portion of the Republican Party. It is critical that the Party rest upon all three of its legs -- social, economic, and defense conservatism. As our first Republican President pointed out, a house divided against itself cannot long stand. (You might note that he was quoting the same higher Authority who is the foundation of most social conservatives' beliefs.)
Unfortunately, we often see secular economic and defense conservatives exhibiting an almost visceral loathing of social conservatives. I have not noticed religious or social conservatives exhibiting this type of outright rejection and hatred toward other segments of the Reagan coalition. Of course, not every Republican is going to be solidly conservative on all three axes (as I am), and we need to make room in the Party for some disagreement. But the extent of rancor and belittlement often directed at the social conservatives, and especially at Evangelicals, is terribly destructive.
It is also destructive to refer to Mormonism as a "cult" or in other derogatory terms. I have strong disagreements with Mormon theology. I imagine that Mormons strongly disagree with my traditional Christian theology - indeed, as I understand their position, I am an "apostate" (which is worse than a "heretic"). But as an American, I support their right to practice their religion, just as I believe that the overwhelming majority of Mormons support my right to do the same.
On the other hand, I think that the charges of anti-Mormon "bigotry" on the part of Evangelicals is wildly overstated. As "blah blah" pointed out, the Mormon vote in Utah went overwhelmingly to Romney -- the exit polls that I've seen show 94% Romney, 3% McCain, and 0% Huckabee. Likewise among Mormon voters in Nevada -- 95% Romney, 3% McCain, 0% Huckabee.
On the other hand, in my home state of Arizona, Evangelicals voted 30% for Romney, 46% for McCain, and 16% for Huckabee. In Georgia, the Evangelical vote was 28% for Romney, 27% for McCain, and 43% for Huckabee.
This is hardly evidence of Evangelical "bias" or "bigotry," and if anything might be taken as evidence of Mormon "bias." But I think such a suggestion would be unfair and incorrect. Voters have every right to vote for the candidate that shares their values, and one very important indicator of shared values is shared faith. I have no objection to a Mormon voter favoring Romney due to their shared religion. I don't seen any reason that anyone should object to an Evangelical voter favoring Huckabee for the same reason.
I am a strong Huckabee supporter, though I am troubled by some of his record in Arkansas, particularly on raising taxes, and some of his populist rhetoric. But -- unlike McCain -- he is now committed to supporting all three legs of the conservative stool, and I think that we can take him at his word.
McCain, on the other hand, has veered leftward in recent years. His lifetime conservative rating, per the National Journal, is 71.8 -- but since 2000, his average is just 59.7. Much better than any of the Democrats, of course, but not very solidly conservative.
For the good of the Party and the country, I urge all of you to seriously consider a vote for Huckabee.
Here is the difference: republican LDS are very conservative (they vote in the primary 85 to 90% for the conservative candidate) and there would be no negative reaction to a candidate simply because of their religion (even you weird baptists). Any poll of where those utahs stood on the issues are exactly where Mitt stood. The fact is, most of the prominent leading conservatives, from national review to HH, from hanity to Santorum, viewed Mitt and Fred as the all-around conservatives. After fred dropped out, Mitt has been the conservative candidate -- except for evangelicals.
On the other hand, polls clearly show that 25 to 30% of you folks would not vote for a candidate simply because he was mormon -- you call it what you want. Huck, of course, tried to emphasize that fact. The exit polls showed that huck got votes not so much for his positions but because of his religion.
Anyway, can't wait for those Romney supporters (which includes all types of conservatives)to start flocking to Huck. With Mitt's 30 to 35% of the vote the polls should now clearly start showing huck over 50% of the vote in all of the remaining states. You can feel the momentum, can't you?
You will need to forgive some of the Romney suppoters. Many have VERY negative feelings toward Huckabee. They beieve, rightly or wrongly, that he attempted to use Romney's mormonism against him. If true, of course, that is really crossing the line.
Anyway, McCain has this all wrapped up. Romney, especially before Huckabee rose up, really tried to make inroads and build a bridge to the evangelical community and was fairly successful. Perhaps in 2012.
Hey gg, mormons don't consider you an apostate or heretic -- simply a baptist. We would also have no qualms whatsoever in voting for you (as long as we agree on the issues :-)).
I have looked and looked and looked, and never found ANY Romney or LDS oriented websites that criticized Huckabee's religion.
On the other hand, we see Huckabee supporters like Pastor Haisty that are RIDICULOUSLY anti-Romney and anti-LDS:
http://pastors4huckabeeblog.com/why-i-can-only-support-mike-huckabee/
That said, I do not think that lack of evangelical supoort caused Romney to drop out of the race. California showed Romney how impossible the climb to the nomination would be and evangelicals had nothing to do with it.
Why all the articles on real clear politics on who McCain's VP is going to be? Don't they know that huckabee has joined the race and can still stop McCain? Here is the reality from fred barnes:
"Supporters of Mike Huckabee shouldn't get their hopes up. True, McCain and Huckabee have become friendly rivals in the presidential race, but it doesn't make sense for McCain to pick someone who's as unpopular with an important segment of the conservative community as McCain himself is"
Sorry, I tried to explain.
Of course McCain was friendly with Huck -- he needed Huck to draw off just enough conservative votes to defeat Romney while huck himself poised no serious challenge. Can't believe conservatives allowed themselves to be divided like this.
Conservatives "allowed" themselves to be divided because too many of them listened to Rush, Sean and Laura and voted for a SoCon flip-flopper who ran a poor excuse for a campaign.
Huckabee was/is the only consistent conservative in the race, as the voters of Louisana and Kansas acknowledged last weekend (and perhaps the Washington voters would have, had the party establishment not "pulled the plug" on the caucuses with 15% or so of the delegates not yet awarded.
Post a Comment
<< Home