Disturbing as it is it some sense, the groundwork is already beginning to form for potential Republican Presidential candidates in 2012 and beyond.
Mike Huckabee's post-Super Tuesday continuance was largely predicated on that long-term vision, and he's clearly looking to stay in view even after dropping out of the race.
For now, one of the big proving grounds for a potential candidate in the eventual post-McCain era is the current round of VP speculation. The latest news in such machinations is Fred Barnes laying out the deductive case for Mitt Romney. As much as this pro-Romney blogger doesn't quite embrace Barnes' ultimate conclusion (especially the dim view he takes of possible options from the ranks of GOP Governors), he makes a fair argument. And the notion of Romney as VP isn't an idle thought.
Yet, the VP selection process is an unpredictable beast given its private nature (see Cheney, Dick). The more valuable exercise at this point is assessing the pros and cons of Romney and Huckabee as future nominee candidates in the wake of the 2008 primary season:
PRO
Romney:
-An established national fundraising network
-An established national grassroots network
-Earned favorable support from large swaths of the conservative movement
-Won 8 out of 10 caucus/convention contests prior to bowing out, demonstrating strength among conservative activists
-Consistently outperformed in growing suburbs of contested states, even in the South (see interactive county maps at this New York Times page [update: link fixed]), including Jacksonville & Orlando, Florida; Atlanta, Georgia; Nashville, Tennessee; Kansas City & St. Louis, Missouri; and Orange County, San Diego, and Sacramento, California.
Huckabee:
-A proven, demonstrably effective presence on TV, in almost any format.
-An established vote getter in regions of Evangelical and/or rural strength.
-An unparalleled ability to conduct a low-cost campaign.
CON
Romney:
-An authenticity problem, which is more a function of his personality - he's a bit of a dork - than obsession over past policy positions. Either way, it will be difficult to overcome absent more prolonged exposure as a VP nominee or by assuming a leadership position within the conservative movement.
-Demonstrably poor performance in rural areas during primary elections, particularly in the South. That raises real questions about his ability to appeal to non-urban, working class voters who are key voting blocs in many swing states.
Huckabee:
-Serious inability to expand beyond an Evangelical rural base of support. He was a non-factor in large, non-Southern state contests. Even after Romney's departure he was crushed in vote-rich urban and suburban population centers in Louisiana, Texas, and Virginia.
-Earned the entrenched antipathy of economic and foreign policy conservatives during the primary season, hamstringing his VP potential and creating likely roadblocks for a future run.
-Demonstrated an alarming inability to raise money, even in the wake of the fawning press coverage of his rise in Iowa and consequent victory in the Hawkeye state.
The VP nominee selection process with play itself out, with ample speculation that will likely be more conjecture than true predictive knowledge. For now, though, it seems clear that of the two individuals most visibly at the forefront of becoming a post-McCain contender, Romney has the better standing, imperfect though it might be.
UPDATE: The original post text errantly excluded Byron York's conclusionary coverage of the Huckabee campaign, which duly notes the reasons why he is set to be a player on the national stage in the coming years...if even appearing on a Presidential ticket isn't highly likely.
Posted by Eric Earling at March 09, 2008 04:37 PM | Email ThisRomney failed to clearly enunciate his "Robin Hood in reverse" approach to tax reform, until he gave his withdrawal speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference:
"The threat to our culture comes from within. ... [T]he liberals haven't given up. At every turn, they try to substitute government largesse for individual responsibility. They fight to ... remove more and more people from having to pay any income tax whatsoever.
...
It's high time to lower taxes, including corporate taxes, to take a weed-whacker to government regulations, to reform entitlements, and to stand up to the increasingly voracious appetite of the unions in our government!"
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/romneys_withdrawal_speech.html
Posted by: Richard Pope on March 9, 2008 05:21 PMWe could look forward to more government intervention into our personal lives.
We could look forward to increased government spending with minor tax increases, leading to increased deficits and more inflation, as well as low economic growth. Republicans should support reducing government spending first, and significant tax cuts later. But we won't see that with McCain/Huckabee or McCain/Romney.
We could look forward to much more human life and money wasted in Iraq. This will weaken our economy and lead many more foreigners to hate the US and to hate the idea of liberty as well.
We could look forward to continued erosion of our rights to privacy and freedom of commerce. The government now knows when you make large bank transactions, and views your credit card statements without a warrant.
We could look forward to restrictions on our diet, and the government's regulating our private behavior from Washington, DC. The federal drug war will continue, thus wasting more of our money and increasing the violence in our inner cities. This violence will help the left enact more strict gun control laws.
We could look forward to more federal government meddling in education, which would continue the erosion of quality in the government schools.
Hillary/Obama would be worse in some areas and better in others.
If the Libertarian nominee is even half-way decent, I will vote for him or her.
But I still support the campaign of Ron Paul (who, contrary to media reports is NOT dropping out of the race) in order to send a message to the Republican Party that people still value the concept of limited government, the rule of law, and the Constitution. I know the nomination has been won already by McCain, but the candidacy of Ron Paul can still continue, and spread the message of freedom and limited government. It can strengthen the Republican Party if the GOP leaders are wise and embrace the energy of this movement.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on March 9, 2008 05:23 PMI'm thinking: "WHAT?? W absolutely "accomplished that. What IS this guy thinking???? Any shred of political respect I may have had for this guy just went out the window at that moment. He has no idea what he's talking about.
Posted by: Michele on March 9, 2008 05:37 PMOf course if somehow Obama survives the nomination process and is the Dem to beat, McCain can choose whoever he wants since Hillary will be McCain's volunteer campaign manager - she's clearly thinking ahead to her run in 2012.
Posted by: GO(P) FL on March 9, 2008 05:54 PM-----------------------------------------------
Think about it the next time someone complains that the rich people get the lion's share of a tax cut.
Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until on day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.
But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia
---------------------------------------------
Now in light of the parable above, factor in that the bottom 45% of all wage earners in the US pay ZERO income taxes; the bottom 50% pay just 1% of taxes. The top 5% of wage earners pay 40% of all income taxes, and the top 10% pay 60% of the total load. How can we cut taxes further WITHOUT it benefitting the top 50%, or even the top 10%?
Can you explain that? Or are you simply a Marxian redistributionist, demanding that those who produce sacrifice all for those who either cannot or will not produce?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 9, 2008 06:29 PMSince Giuliani had the same basic appeal as McCain in the primaries (to moderates and national security voters) it's hard to see how that combination does anything to boost the ticket. And even setting aside the fact that a pro-choice nominee VP nominee would be a huge problem for McCain, it's not as if McCain has actual problems with Independents and open-minded Democrats that need to be addressed.
Posted by: Eric Earling on March 9, 2008 06:30 PMI'll be voting for Ron Paul even if I have to write him in on the ballot. The Republican choice, McCain, is not my choice, that's for sure. I don't know of any Libertarian candidates, but Ron Paul is really a Libertarian, so he'll get my vote in November.
Posted by: Politically Incorrect on March 9, 2008 06:46 PMMitt Romney doesn't like the outcome of the dinner bill example. Romney apparently wants the first five men to pay $2 and cut the bill of the tenth man by $10.
One of the biggest fallacies that you present is the idea that people with high incomes "produce". The ones with the highest incomes don't "produce" anything. What do all these corporate executives with eight figure incomes produce? NOTHING!
Posted by: Richard Pope on March 9, 2008 07:06 PMRomney wants to see the Bush tax cuts made permanent; they are just like the example I posted.
About CEOs not producing anything? I guess Bill Gates and Paul Allen didn't create a company that PRODUCES over $2 BILLION in net profit every month.
I guess Lee Raymond hasn't helped grow ExxonMobil to be the largest energy company in the world, with strategic acquisitions and corporate directions.
I guess Steve Jobs didn't do anything for Apple, either when he started it nor when he came back and turned the company around.
Lee Iacocca did nothing for Chrysler.
Heck, the ultimate "non-worker" Warren Buffet, who has presided over the years to buy companies, strategically reorganize them, and make them highly profitable.
And it's not just in terms of direct involvement that the "rich" produce. Who provides companies with the capital to start, grow, expand? People who invest in them - private equity firms, people who buy stock, angel investors, venture capitalists. High income people have resources to invest to stimulate the growth of companies.
Why should they not get to keep the profits earned for their risk? Should they only get back what they put in, regardless of the success of the venture? Why not let them keep the rewards, so they continue to risk?
Richard, have you ever really worked in the corporate world? Middle-management is often fat with incompetence, but at the highest levels performance IS the norm and expected and compensated appropriately. I know when I want to get a client company moving, I bypass my normal contacts and managers and directly contact the top levels; action happens much faster, much more decisively, and much more effectively.
Sounds to me you just want to redistribute wealth. So how much wealth is enough? What should everybody make? What is Comrade Pope's economic plan?
Why decry Lee Raymond making $26 million when he leads ExxonMobil to making $41 BILLION in profits? That's about 0.6% of the profits of the company - is that not just? Or is that obscene - no company or person should make that much profit?
See, over here in Shanghai, even the Chinese government has figured out that if you let people keep what they earn, and turn loose the reigns of the economy, things will take off and improve.
It appears the politicians in the US who have NEVER worked in the real world (Paging Mr. Obama; paging Mrs. Clinton) don't understand the fundamentals of economics, or even the basic concept of a free enterprise system.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 9, 2008 07:35 PMFor my part, if I can't support the Republican nominee, I like the idea that I can contribute to building a viable third party option for the long run. That's why I like the idea of voting Libertarian.
But Ron Paul is a great candidate. I hope the media reports his write-in percentage in November. He might beat Nader! :)
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on March 9, 2008 07:58 PMStephen King US Rep. Iowa would be a good candidate, to help proactively secure the borders. That will continue to be a problem in 2012 and beyond and needs to dealt with sooner rather than later. Another good one would be Mike Pence of Indiana - also good on the borders, would make a good Vice Pres. candidate with McCain. Whoever is the Vice Presidential nominee this time will vault into the lead for President in the future.
All of this conundrum is because Bush destroyed the Republican Party ! When Republicans act like Democrats - as Bush has, the Democrats will win the election. So, McCain has to show himself clearly to be more conservative than Bush, which he is.
Big Mac LOVES working across the aisle. Would steal half of Obama's vote total right from the get-go. They could work together to protect us from global warming, big and evil corporations, the corrupting influence of money in politics and racist xenophobes who want to document and control who comes across our border. It's perfect.
Oh, but wouldn't he lose the conservative vote? Go check out your nearest GOP convention this political season. Count the number of cars in the parking lot with political bumper stickers. Count the ones with McCain bumper stickers. Divide the first number by the second number. And then shrug.
John & Al. Two peas in a pod.
Posted by: TB on March 9, 2008 09:52 PMhttp://buckeyegop.proboards45.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1204048503
Posted by: BuckeyeGOP on March 10, 2008 04:33 AMRomney's numbers were much higher among conservatives outside the few heavily evangelical states. Romney is just plain more popular than huckabee and the numbers up until Romney dropped out prove it.
Posted by: Jason on March 10, 2008 08:21 AMMcCain is hopefully the first of many moderate Republicans to retake the leadership of the party.
The Democrats are going to ice Obama by rigging the PA polls (the ballot boxes have already been stuffed).
I really slick move would be for McCain to invite Obama to the Republicans and maybe the ticket creating a United Moderate front.
Romney is not going to score any points among the Christian Coalition types who say they're OK with a Mormon but their really not. They are the GOP base, that's who you need to appeal to in order to get the Presidency. You need the Christian Coalition types to turn out in November and have them choose R instead of D. Not going to happen with Romney in the second slot.
Your best option may be to give the country four years of Obama and make them realize the Dem's solutions are not all they're cracked up to be. Them run Romney, give the country some time to get used to the whole Mormon as President thing.
Thank you for revealing the scary insight into your ‘progressive’ thought process on taxation. You’re a fan of Robin Hood (robbin’ hoods) are you?
You don’t believe that the “rich” actually produce anything? Does the ‘executive’ farmer, one who now oversees his workers rather than continuing to till the fields himself, produce “nothing” now that his farm-produce yields have multiplied?
Perhaps you have confused the “rich” with folks like Howard Dean, Albert Gore Jr., John F. Kerry, and John S. McCain III who have inherited their wealth without having to work to produce it?
But there’s another class of parasites, such as tax collectors, most lawyers, and the like, who essentially rob the wealth of citizens which has actually been ‘produced’ by their own successful hard work.
Why would you not want to lower the tax burden on corporations? Hint for Robbin’ Hoods: Corporations do not actually pay taxes; they are always passed on to YOU and ME to pay. Taxes on corporations are paid by us in the form of higher prices, lower wages, lower quantity/quality of products, lower yields to shareholders and investors, etc. When you attempt to punish the success of companies through taxes, you really are punishing the American People who are successful.
It appears you did not understand the profound, and simple, economic parable provided by Shanghai Dan:
First of all, the ten men, of the original scenario, just happen to be representative of the tax burden of each decile (10%) of all American taxpayers. Why would you think that anyone paying 0$, let alone increasing the number of people in this segment, is somehow fair? How does one ‘refund’ taxes to people who pay no taxes?
Secondly, as powerfully demonstrated by the story, the lion’s-share reduction in taxes goes to the “richest” in absolute value, BUT what is always missed is that on a proportional basis (% savings, relief), the people paying the least were actually FAVORED most! How could this be fair?
Thus, spelled out for the weak-minded, for all of the caterwauling about how the Bush tax cuts “favored the rich”, the sick truth is that it actually further tilted the progressivism (favoritism) to the poorest! – further distorting the tax burden of our monstrously unfair tax system.
Personally, I favor the FairTax system – wouldn’t you?
Huckabee likely won't help the McCain ticket, though the person who would the most (Rice) doesn't fit the bill on some of our conservative issues.
Florida will easily go for McCain in November (so will Washington), we need to worry most about Ohio and Pennsylvania if Clinton is the nominee and a couple of the Southern States if Obama is the nominee.
Posted by: Doug on March 10, 2008 05:50 PMhttp://OsiSpeaks.com or http://RealConservativesSpeak.com
Posted by: KYJurisDoctor on March 12, 2008 08:01 AMYes, that's how to further the conservative agenda...by staying home and helping elect someone you agree with 10% of the time by not voting FOR someone you agree with 70% plus percent of the time........This, my friend, is "RETARD LOGIC".
Posted by: Rick D. on March 12, 2008 09:18 AM