I have written little here about the Presidential campaign. While I have no horse in the race, I do have some clear opinions and preferences. For the most part I’ve been sitting back and watching things unfold as the frontrunners vie for my support.
However, the recent overpublicized “Huckabee Surge” has stirred me from my silence. That’s because the thought that the former Arkansas governor and would-be Preacher-in-Chief could actually secure the Republican nomination is quite disturbing.
Largely well known has been Huckabee’s very apparent fiscal liberalism and economic populism. The problem is about more than taxes and spending – his positions on trade, regulation, and school choice leave a lot wanting, as well. (Not to mention how they blend incoherently with his record on immigration.) Altogether, his record on these issues is the weakest in the GOP field.
Michael at Best Destiny brings up the other major problem with Mike “Shucks”-abee: his Democrat-like unseriousness about our nation’s important foreign policy threats and challenges. With the exception of Ron Paul, he again is less preferred than all his Republican rivals in this very crucial area of national leadership.
Third, Huckabee’s inability to respond coherently to the recent 1992 AIDS “quarantine” controversy (covered in detail by Hugh Hewitt) demonstrates that he is not only unprepared for anything resembling a primetime fight with Hillary Clinton but also that his candidacy’s “surge” may quickly be nearing a crash. And as more Republican primary voters take a closer look at the former Arkansas governor, it would be nice if they could go a little deeper than his stances on life and marriage. The only good news about Huckabee’s surge is that it probably already has reached its peak.
Then there’s the national general election strategy. With a fiscally liberal Huckabee at the top of the ticket, the GOP would cede a lot of crucial ground in the Western states to the Democrats. Why else are Clinton-supporting Democrat strategists only saying nicer & nicer things about Huckabee as he “surges” closer to becoming a plausible candidate for the nomination? Welcome the Clintons back to the White House, my friend.
Fellow Republican voters, including those who will join me in casting a caucus ballot here in Colorado on February 5. We can do a lot better than Mike Huckabee. How about Fred, Mitt, Rudy, or McCain? All to be preferred in my estimation. And this coming from a conservative Baptist. From the current field, I’d choose Huckabee to my pastor, but someone else to be my President.
Not Rudy–cheating on his wife makes him unfit to be president. How could we possibly trust him?
(let me start by stating that on-the-record I am unable to support or endorse any candidate before the primary)
When selecting a president, and a presidential candidate, there are a few things to consider. National appeal is surely one, but Electoral appeal is more important in winning. Prior races and prior opponents surely matter. And of course, the ability to serve all citizens.
The biggest issue I have with President Bush is that he became so wrapped up in his own agenda that he isolated a good number of citizens (or allowed the left to isolate themselves), thus furthering the political divide. When I look at a candidate, I look at a candidate that has a wide base appeal, because this country needs a leader who can bring the nation together and heal the political divide. Fred Thompson (to mention someone directly) has come out and all but stated that he is going to continue the butt-kicking of the democrats (and independents, I presume). He is a continuation of the “Cowboy Republican” image that has further isolated the GOP from the rest of the nation. National appeal wins elections… and we need a candidate that can do more than 49.5% of the vote… else we run the risk of a deeper political divide.
Regarding Electoral appeal… Looking at the 2004 electoral map, one must consider which candidates are capable of holding ALL the Bush states. A candidate like Rudy, where many have voiced SOCON concerns, may cause a series of undervotes or 3rd party votes, thus tipping the tables and handing over entire states to the Democratic contender (most likely Clinton). The base, as a whole, is more concerned with SOCON issues than FICON issues… So the base is more likely to get out and vote on behalf of a SOCON, especially against Clinton… This puts Rudy and Mitt in question… and McCain and Huckabee if you consider past stances on immigration a part of the SOCON agenda.
The ability to serve all, as I hinted at above, is a HUGE factor. You specifically mentioned Huckabee above, so I will here as well. Mike Huckabee’s recent endorsement of the Teacher’s union in NH and the Machinist Union in Florida are not signs of liberalism, but rather as the ONLY Republican candidate who went out to speak to them! He is reaching out to all citizens, where others are ignoring those votes as they traditionally go to Democrats. I already discussed Thompson’s view of anyone other than a Republican… and I don’t see the other candidate’s ability to reach out, or their efforts at all… especially in this campaign.
And past races are very important. Rudy was losing to the Clinton machine in his NY bid for the Senate. NY is a tough state for a GOP contender, but losing to a carpet-bagger? This doesn’t bode well… as well, there was a LOT of dirt that the Clinton’s had that they never got to use on him… so he will be faced with a tough battle, especially when so many Republicans have all but sworn not to support him even if he gets the nomination. Mitt went up against the Kennedy machine, which might as well have been the Clinton machine, and lost in MA. To win, he had to take even more liberal stances, all of which he has now changed as he is seeking a higher office. Remember Kerry in 2004… we will see the exact same thing by the Clinton’s against Mitt… even if it is not true, the perception is there, and the masses will hear about it. Huckabee has faced the Clinton machine time and again in Arkansas, and the people chose him over the Clintons. Of course, the same old mud is going to be news to the rest of America, but I can guarantee that Huckabee, having been faced with all the same mud before, has canned responses to all of it.
I think that Huckabee is capable of taking on the Clintons and winning…Electorally, and nationally… It is pitting a uniter against a polarizing figure… and we will come out on top. Electorally, what states do you see switching their 2004 votes in favor of Clinton over Huckabee? I cannot think of one!
Now… If Clinton happens to NOT get the nomination… well, we will surely have a WHOLE NEW discussion about electoral strategy! An Obama or Edwards nomination on the left will change things drastically…
The key wil be if Huckabee can maintina his high numbers in the face of all the old mud coming out for the nation to see… if he can, and he can answer the questions, I do not see why you suggest he is not viable. Is he not as established a politician as all the rest?
One additional comment about Huck – notice that his support is not from the Independents (Paul) or the center-left Republcians (Rudy). His support is the SOCON base. The same base that Fred had, and squandered… So I don’t think that the Clinton “positive” comments effect the SOCON vote.
Sorry for being long-winded. I am just very passionate about our contenders, and looking at strategies that can benefit the GOP in 2008. And I will surely speak out any time that someone uses Hugh Hewitt as a credible and independent source in this debate. He is so clearly pro-Romney that he cannot see the problems with his candidate in a general election.
Hope all is well! Cheers!
Steve, You wrote: “Fred Thompson (to mention someone directly) has come out and all but stated that he is going to continue the butt-kicking of the democrats (and independents, I presume). He is a continuation of the “Cowboy Republican†image that has further isolated the GOP from the rest of the nation.”
That’s quite a stretch, don’t you think? Do you have anything more substantial on which to base your criticisms? Something on the record? Thompson has been the best candidate in the field at introducing and articulating achievable conservative policy goals. I haven’t seen him gratuitously kicking dirt on others, just developing and defending principles. Now you could say his campaigning has been lackluster, and that’s a problem. I would agree. I just think this critique is off base.
As for Romney, what you have expressed doesn’t add up completely. Yes, his views have evolved on some issues. I don’t think his record is 100% defensible, but he has done a lot better job than Huckabee giving clear, consistent, and cogent explanations for his transforming viewpoints. You’re right about Hugh – he’s not an independent source, but his site was the most easily accessible collection of links to other sources highlighting Huck’s shortcomings.
Considering Rudy, he dropped out of the 2000 Senate race early, to battle cancer. This was also pre-9/11. What dirt on him do the Clintons have that hasn’t already been out there? What % of GOP absolutely swear they won’t vote for Rudy if he’s the nominee? Do you have any polling data on this? Maybe by your logic concerning Fred, he will reach out & attract more Dems & independents to make up for it. Anyway, show me the facts & figures. If you look at the data out there, Rudy or McCain seem to fare the best in head-to-head matchups.
As far as Huck vs. Clinton, Arkansas ain’t the rest of the country. That being said, he may have a chance to win. The events of this week especially raise my doubts, though.
But if raw “electability” were the only consideration – a poor one to make – I’d be 100% behind Rudy or McCain. It’s not the only consideration. And Huck is off the reservation on too many issues for me to find appealing. By all appearances, he’d govern to the Left of Bush. And he’s running as the “Christian” candidate, which is a bit unsettling to me in this pluralistic republic in which we live.
Just a few more thoughts. Thanks for your comments!
Ben – Thanks for the great rebuttal! I appreciate a great debate!
One example of Fred’s Cowbay way is his recent comment about not just making abortions illegal, but also jailing women who have the procedure… He has also made similar hard-line comments regarding the Democrats… It is this kind of leadership that increases the partisan divide. I am looking for a candidate who can espouse the conservative ideals, while also able and willing to work with liberals to unite the country.
Look, the Republicans don’t have it all together, nor do the Democrats… there is a fine balance of input needed from both sides to come to a concensus on what our society deems right and worthy.
As far as Romney goes, there was an interesting cartoon I saw… it was him dressed as a monk, sitting on a bus-bench. He says to the other rider somethign about that he should not jduge him based on his religion, to which the other rider says it is not his religion, it is his flip-flops… and of course the cartoon prominantly displays his feet wearing flip-flops. This is the very thing that killed Kerry in 2004, and we should see this one coming a mile away. It is perception, and something like flip-flopping has seriously stuck to Romney.
Huck is perfect, hell, I cannot find one candidate that is perfect. But to say that any of our candidates are unelectable against the Clintons is bad form, on both our sides. Sure, they are all going to have very tough battles… It is the Clintons… but whomever we chose, I think we need to look at electoral vote ability…
What states do you see Huck not able to retain, or Rudy, or Mitt? That is the important question, I think!
Huck’s “flip-flops” haven’t been highlighted as much as Romney’s for two reasons: 1) He hasn’t been considered a serious, high-profile candidate long enough; and 2) Democrats want “Glass Jaw” Huck to win the nomination (read the Drudge Report today). Romney (who’s not my first choice as candidate) has done a much better job coherently addressing the alleged “flip-flops” and explaining to the public how his views have changed.
I have never heard or read Fred say anything about wanting to jail women who get abortions. Do you have any links or documentation of these specific alleged comments? I’d seriously like to weigh them in consideration, if they’re out there. But I have to see specifics.
Once again, I agree with your post.