Super Tuesday is being capably covered by my cohorts here at Sound Politics. Have one thing to add since it is obvious the allegiance of my compadres is elsewhere.
If you're a supporter of the last real (conservative) Republican candidate in the race you gotta be loving the early numbers for Mike Huckabee. John McCain will probably walk away with the largest number of delegates after tonight if conventional wisdom holds up. Huck keeps on defying expectations and all predictions of his political demise.
If Romney gets whomped I don't see him continuing to drop millions of his own personal fortune into the race just to "win the silver medal" time and again. The only reason he is still around isn't because of his personal appeal but because he is self-financing.
This can't happen too soon. The guy is a phoney who is destroying the GOP and has run a despicably negative campaign for over a year now.
If Romney were a real Republican, and not simply a faux candidate willing to slime whoever it takes to get elected, over the last week he would have quickly kiboshed all this talk about voting for Hillary, or sitting out in November, if McCain were nominated.
Instead Romney's press people (this one by Stephen Smith; Director of Online Communications) released a statement by Dr. James Dobson and his "choice of conscience" ultimatum about not supporting the Arizona senator... ever.
This is remarkably reckless for any candidate that ultimately must reunite all the divergent factions of the party.
The quicker Romney drops out; the quicker conservatives can rally their wagons around the last conservative candidate with a positive upbeat message (Huckabee). And the quicker that the fetid air of pessimism can be banished from this contest.
More on this later...
Update: Did mean to put last real "conservative" Republican candidate in paragraph 2.
Posted by DonWard at February 05, 2008 04:45 PM | Email ThisI would also argue the tactics of McCain and Huckabee have been more sleazy than Romney. Take a gander at West Virginia today. As I have stated here for months, I will never vote for MacCain or Huckabee. Today is probably my last week as a Republican because it has become a crony, statistlite party.
I'm shopping for a new party, anyone got any good ideas?
Posted by: AP on February 5, 2008 05:40 PMThe GOP = dead. It is time for us conservatives and classic liberals to stop being s--- sandwich eating Republicans. Enough is enough!
Posted by: AP on February 5, 2008 05:55 PMUnless you want to lose the SCOTUS for the next 35-50 years to liberal ideology and rulings...we need to replace our angst for McCain and turn it towards the RNC leadership who've absconded with the GOP mascot and replaced it with a Rhinocerous.
Posted by: Rick D. on February 5, 2008 06:24 PMNow as to the "negative" attack ads... Is any of the information untrue or a lie? I know for a fact that the statement made by McCain about Romney's position on timetables is an outright lie. Where is your condemnation of that? As a Conservative I find it offensive that we have McCain and Huckabee working together to see that conservatives who voted for Romney in W.Virginia are marginalized. What happened to listening to "the will of the people"?
Posted by: David on February 5, 2008 06:36 PMHello, President Hillary.
Tell me where I am wrong.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 5, 2008 06:50 PMRush Limbaugh's prescription pill habit has affected his mental capacity to be objective. He and his friends have been purchased with Romney's money. Rush needs medical attention, Coulter needs to be slapped and Hannity needs to shut up.
Don is right, the only reason Romney is in the race is because of his self-financing and willingness to slime other candidates.
Romney should take his money, move back to France and run for public office there. Maybe he can convince the Europeans that he is more than a slimy, phony, left-over car sales-man. But I doubt it.
Got any proof to go along with any of that? Or are you just repeating what you heard from lefties in the Main-Stream media?
Posted by: David on February 5, 2008 07:23 PMI can respect a dislike of Romney, McCain, Huckabee, whatever. I don't have a problem with hating the things they say and do, even hating THEM.
I cannot respect calling someone not-a-Republican. He's been a good Republican longer than you've been alive. Maybe not as good as you or I wants, but nevertheless.
That said, I do appreciate that we have plenty of SP editors who run the gamut here. No single-mindedness here. :-) Not that I would expect it, but some do ...
Posted by: pudge on February 5, 2008 07:25 PMNot sure why Huckabee did better than expected - McCain and Huckabee would not set well with the Republican base. Sen. McCain had better consider picking someone who is really conservative - like Tom Coburn as a running mate. Huckabee is probably the best speaker of all Republicans and has some charisma going, maybe not to the extent of Obama. However, he is not a real conservative - more of a populist.
Posted by: KS on February 5, 2008 08:04 PMThanks to Huckleberry Hound, the only Republican chance of retaining the White House has faded like the pigment in Senator McCain's complexion.
This party needs to grow up and play the strongest hand dealt in National elections and stop with the navel-gazing mentallity of
"My god is better than your god".
All I've got to say is that's a bold statement to call Huckabee the "last real Republican candidate in the race." Very bold. Not sure you'd get a lot of agreement among the Republican masses on that one, especially once you get outside of Evangelicals and Southerners.
Posted by: Eric Earling on February 5, 2008 08:31 PMIf you want to be a Huckabee backer that's fine, but don't pretend there aren't conservatives who have serious issues with him regardless of whether or not Mitt Romney's campaign ever existed.
Posted by: Eric Earling on February 5, 2008 09:32 PMWe'll have to hash this out Clash of the Titans style in the days coming up before Washington caucus and primary.
Look, I've been pretty fair with all the candidates on both sides of the aisle (with the exception of that worthless excuse of a human being John Edwards).
One of the things that has got me annoyed is this notion by Romney backers (Limbaugh, Malkin, Coulter, Hannity. etc) that if you don't believe exactly the way they do and don't hop on board their particular candidate's bandwagon then you aren't a Republican or a conservative.
Romney backers I've noticed are the first to whine and complain and threaten to not vote for McCain (or Huckabee) should either get the nomination. I don't hear McCain or Huckabee voters threatening a boycott if Romney gets the nod.
It is rather annoying to have to hear the lies being put out that Huckabee is not a conservative, that he is a "Christian socialist", a Democrat, a liberal when the man is clearly a more conservative candidate (on the whole) on social, fiscal and constitutional issues. (explain later)
Bash McCain all you want but for God's sakes let's be honest and realize that Huckabee is pretty damn conservative on most issues that matter.
Finally Romney has been so negative and divisive that he is never going to be able to cobble together a coalition of Republicans to get the nomination let alone enough moderates, independents and conservative Democrats to win a general election.
There's a reason why both McCain and Huckabee hate the man's guts.
(Oh, and I'm not an evangelical and don't go to church... go figure)
Posted by: Don Ward on February 5, 2008 09:49 PMAP @ 2:
It's called a convention, and switching votes is a very common strategy. It's not sleazy. And Sean Hannity claiming it's "illegal" is just ridiculous.
I understand that many Republicans have reservations with Huckabee, but honestly, to not have more reservations with Romney (RomneyCare, et al) is willingly keeping yourself blindfolded.
Posted by: Cydney on February 5, 2008 10:33 PMI don't really give a rip if some Romney supporter took a cheap shot at Huckabee, or if McCain's people in WV jumped into the Huckabee camp in order to screw Romney, or any of that... that's politics.
I do care if the candidate opens his mouth and something falls out which is demonstrably false, and he demonstrably knew that at the time. But it's not enough to generalize; to make that case most effectively to a discerning audience, you need a specific quote and a specific, fact-based refutation.
I also care about where a candidate's loyalties lie, and whom he feels he needs to answer to. Me? I'm an Evangelical. I'm also second-generation military, and know a guy who was in the Hanoi Hilton with McCain and speaks very well of his service there. So which one do I choose?
Romney. It's not even close. If I've just lost my mind, I'm happy to have lost it in the good company of most of the conservative movement.
If you want to prove, point by point, issue by issue, that Huckabee is more conservative than Romney, please give it a shot. But cover everything -- don't cherry-pick -- and be as prepared to 'fess up on your boy's shortcomings as I will be to do so on mine. Good luck.
Posted by: TB on February 5, 2008 11:07 PMIf it were anyone else but you I'd be saving this up for my general post. You're worth a direct response.
Mike Huckabee is a strong 2nd Amendment supporter who actually owns firearms. He's also endorsed by Duncan Hunter (your man:-).
Mitt Romney thinks banning bayonet lugs, flash suppressors and nasty military looking weapons is a good way to fight crime. Mitt Romney reiterated his support for banning "assault weapons" during one of the GOP debates last year. He signed one of the toughest assault weapon bans as governor.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Mitt_Romney_Gun_Control.htm
Of course if you want Mitt Romney can tell you now he is opposed to the ban. Which Romney do you want? He can turn a trick either way.
Posted by: Don Ward on February 5, 2008 11:20 PMThis Huckabee supporter is looking forward to a good showing in Texas. Regardless, the next few weeks will be interesting. Washington might even matter.
Posted by: Lynnwood Evangelical on February 5, 2008 11:30 PMOne of the things that has got me annoyed is this notion by Romney backers (Limbaugh, Malkin, Coulter, Hannity. etc) that if you don't believe exactly the way they do and don't hop on board their particular candidate's bandwagon then you aren't a Republican or a conservative.
So ... you follow suit? I see two options here: you were intending to be funny/ironic by calling Huckabee "last real (conservative) Republican candidate in the race," or you're being a hypocrite. (For what it's worth, I also criticize all the other candidates and all their supporters when they make similar claims of others.)
Bash McCain all you want but for God's sakes let's be honest and realize that Huckabee is pretty damn conservative on most issues that matter.
Huckabee is the LEAST conservative on the issues that matter the most to me: specifically, making government smaller, and reducing unconstitutional federal programs. He wants more programs, and bigger programs. More government. To him, government is the solution. That is not conservative to me.
The only other issue of similar importance to me than smaller government is foreign policy, and whether Huckabee is "conservative" there or not is difficult to say, given his almost nonexistent experience (not much worse than Romney in this area, of course).
I could also, of course, point out ways in which McCain and Romney are not conservative. But their "sins," from my perspective, are far less pervasive, and they are, in some cases anyway, apologetic about them. Huckabee is proud of his "sins" against conservatism.
Now, perhaps you mean Huckabee is the last real "social" conservative Republican in the race. But my agreement with him on "life issues" isn't enough for me to vote for him, especially given that McCain and Romney aren't much different. McCain has a very long and strong anti-abortion voting record (though he fails for many conservatives, including me, on embryonic stem cell research).
I am totally up front about Romney: yes, he is a relatively recent convert to the Second Amendment and pro-life positions etc. But regardless of what is actually going on in his head, he is bound to abide by those positions once elected, because he's cleaved so strongly to them in the campaign. There's no turning back. And I would much rather have that, with someone who is a fiscal and small-government conservative, than someone who is a lifelong supporter of those positions, who is a big-government "compassionate" "conservative" and, worse, proud of it.
Also: You Forgot Ron Paul! And lest you say he has no chance to win the nomination ... neither does Huckabee. None. Zero. Even if McCain and Romney both died, Huckabee could not win the nomination. I don't mean to discourage you from supporting him, only to discourage you from illogically leaving out Ron Paul from your calculation.
It bears mentioning here that I think you're confusing anti-McCain conservatives with Romney supporters. The people you cite have gravitated to Romney by default the last couple weeks, primarily because they want to stop McCain. Pinning their rhetoric on the Romney campaign and/or Romney supporters isn't correct or justified.
Also, you say Romney has been "negative and divisive" and imply this has occurred in some sort of silo. McCain and Romney have been going at it since last spring, with McCain's camp taking some real, serious, and sustained shots at Romney...a number of which carried over into TV and radio ads this year (plus a lot of earned media too). Likewise, Brownback's campaign went after Romney unprovoked and with gusto before Sam imploded. Huckabee later picked up that mantle, with a bit more charm, though as of late he's been doing McCain's dirty work on a regular basis (again, with a smile).
I don't begrudge any of the candidates for that. But to pin it all on Romney simply isn't correct. He runs some of the tamest contrast ads in political memory and all of a sudden people declare him a negative campaigner. That characterization is simply false, whatever you think of Romney and his campaign.
Posted by: Eric Earling on February 6, 2008 12:06 AMMany find it perplexing. Even the secular world is finding something amiss. Time magazine, in a recent article of remarkable spiritual perceptiveness, was stunned by Dobson’s reluctance to make “the natural Christian right choice.”
For months, Dobson has [seemed to favor] … Mitt Romney over Baptist preacher Mike Huckabee … the natural Christian right choice. In December, Dr. Dobson praised a Romney speech, as ‘a magnificent reminder of the role religious faith must play in government and public policy. His delivery was passionate and his message inspirational.’ Dobson even made a congratulatory phone call to the candidate.
When Romney lost the Iowa caucuses to Huckabee, Dobson attributed the outcome to ‘conservative Christians,’ but he has not warmed to the former governor…. who has spoken of his great and longtime friendship with the Dobsons, [wondering] … why no endorsement appears to be coming…. In … [Dobson’s] citizenlink.com assessments, Huckabee was found wanting in terms of foreign policy and ‘fiscal’ issues…. Romney, on the other hand, was praised as ‘solidly conservative’ and unlikely to renege on that stance.
The question remains: WHY no endorsement? And the answer appears to be Dobson’s the “End Justifies the Means” theology. The “End,” reconciling the lost to the Lord is commendable, but the “Means” are much less so. In order to save the world Dobson had to become more like it. And he seems to have honed the political arts of alliance, compromise, and concession far better than the discipline of unwavering Spirit lead conviction. All things considered, perhaps Dobson HAS given Huckabee the endorsement he needed.
http://popularapostasy.blogspot.com/2008/01/end-justifies-means-theology.html
Posted by: C Smith on February 6, 2008 12:40 AMIt's a significant hit, but I'm factoring that in. As a broad generalization, we are winning the battle for the Second Amendment. We've been through an assault weapons ban before, but you'll notice that it expired in September '04 (which I remember well, since the party I attended was out in the woods and involved policing up brass afterwards). If Romney wins though, he will have conservatives to thank for it -- not too many moderates, and no liberals -- and I'm not convinced that he might not find some good excuse not to sign an assault weapons ban (I just realized that I'm echoing pudge up above on this point). True, there's no reason to count on that, and I don't. But I don't see another assault weapons ban as nearly so much a certainty as its 1) being relatively mild, i.e. an importation ban, not confiscation, and 2)lapsing or being repealed in a few short years thereafter.
OK, my turn. Tell us about Eugene Fields. What do you really think happened there?
Perhaps we won't come to agreement on this (I'm voting for that). But give me a break, Romney's ads actually said nice things about McCain and Huckabee before contrasting records in a pretty mild manner. If a GOP candidate ran ads that tame against a Democratic candidate in a competitive election we'd be f*#*%'ing pissed off for such a gutless decision.
Take off the anti-Romney glasses on this one. I've long since chucked the pro-Romney glasses in evaluating ads in this race. If politics is supposed to be bareknuckles, Romney's ads we're the biggest pair of training gloves I've ever seen in an intra-party contest.
You can knock him for a lot of things. But trying to say he ran a negative campaign is laughable. Divisive I might give you since the dynamics of the race meant he ended up tangling with virtually every major competitor. But calling his campaign "negative" is unfair to true negative campaigns.
Posted by: Eric Earling on February 6, 2008 01:12 AMThe exact same thing that happened in Graham when Daniel T. Tavares murdered Graham couple Brian and Beverly Mauck. A mistake was made and an evil man committed a crime.
The only difference is that Romney backers like to smear Huckabee as being "soft on crime" because of it but Mitt gets a free pass. That and for some reason the Massachusetts State Patrol felt the urge to warn the Romney campaign about Tavares' presence in this state but didn't bother to tip off the Pierce County Sheriff's office.
http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/story/212417.html
You see, Huckabee isn't running a negative campaign so this hasn't been brought up.
We can go negative tit-for-tat if you like though. I wasn't going to bring that up. Just keep in mind that Huckabee is the candidate who is not only in favor of the death penalty but has used that tool to bring justice to Arkansas murderers.
Posted by: Don Ward on February 6, 2008 01:30 AMI don't think it is fair to say that Dr. James has some obligation to endorse someone who is simply "the most anti-abortion" or "the most anti-gay marriage" or both. Shouldn't he endorse who he thinks is the best candidate? And if he is like most of the rest of us and doesn't see someone he feels comfortable endorsing, then maybe he is best not endorsing anyone?
Dobson is more than a symbol, he's a person.
Posted by: pudge on February 6, 2008 08:31 AMI don't think denominations have anything to do with this.
Why is it so hard to accept that people just dislike or disagree with him on his own merits?
Posted by: pudge on February 6, 2008 01:56 PMDobson specifically mentioned McCain's refusal to support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and his support for embryonic stem-cell research - that is what Dobson specifically mentioned about McCain. Hillary and Obama were virulently anti-family.
Huckabee is rock-solid on those issues, there is something more at play here and it probably has far more to do with electability. My National Right to Lifer's did a horrible thing by endorsing Thompson way too early. Dobson can't go out and endorse Huckabee when Romney is still in it, you have to remember Romney still has Dobson's endorsement, he can't just say he's taking it back while Romney is still in it.
What he can do is what you're seeing all over the place, act like Mitt's slavedog and whine and cry that he won't vote for anyone if McCain's the nominee.
Posted by: Doug on February 6, 2008 02:34 PMYes, of course: the fact that Dobson thinks Huckabee would not make a good President because he has strong socialist tendencies and other flaws.
My National Right to Lifer's did a horrible thing by endorsing Thompson way too early.
They should have done it far earlier.
Posted by: pudge on February 6, 2008 10:34 PMIf it was Huckabee that had all the dough and looked like he would give Rudy a run for the nomination then Dobson would have endorsed Huckabee.
It has nothing to do with any other positions. What I am wondering is why are all the big Romney supporters out in the media saying they won't vote for McCain if he is the nominee. It can't just be groupthink, there must be some sort of directive for them to do this, maybe to get more people to think McCain's not the electable one?
Posted by: Doug on February 6, 2008 11:30 PM