1

Joe,

It is so depressing to see you eating sour grapes and continuing to find the worst possible things to say about Mitt Romney. I suppose after your false rumourmongering didn't pan out you've got to find something to slam the guy on.

I do like your political acumen, though. You said Huckabee was going to win two out of three and he only got one. My guess is that your assessment of the situation with Romney

How much more money will Romney spend before he realizes that it's over?

is about as accurate.

It makes me sad that a conservative Christian Republican like yourself has made somehow being rich and successful into a bad thing.

Shoot, if you didn't like Huckabee you could be saying similar things about him, "If Huckabee weren't a Baptist Minister...." or "If Huckabee weren't a Christian...." etc. As if those are bad things.

Nothing wrong with Romney having money and spending money. Actually, I prefer that our candidate be able to compete in all 50 states come the general election.

And yet you continue to chew on sour grapes because your candidate is only able to compete in a few evangelical stronghold states and can only win one of them.

Very dissapointed in you Joe. Hopefully Huckabee will not get back into the race in 2012 and you'll stay out of politics and go back to Philosophy.

2

when the conservative punditry realizes that a man they truly despise (McCain) will be the eventual nominee, they'll suddenly...

...realize that Hillary will be the next president of the United States.

Scroll down to the section on ideaology and see who voted for McCain... Liberals and moderates. In the general election, the base will not turn out for McCain, and the libs/moderates will vote for Hillary. By trashing Huckabee for the last 2-3 weeks, Rush and Co. have ensured that Hillary will win in November.

If McCain is on the ticket, I sit out. I know I'm not alone.

3

Well, tonight was indeed a tough loss for Huckabee. From my perspective, the Evangelicals really let him down. Catholics overwhelmingly went for McCain and the rest split slightly for Huckabee but not nearly as much as they did for Bush in 2000.

Coming from someone who is not an Evangelical, I hope Mike will now put more emphasis on the rest of his message and not so much on the Evangelical aspects, although it is important as that is who he is. But I think his ideas on the Economy, Healthcare, Education, Immigration, and Conservation are really the main topics these days especially since most of the Evangelical leadership has failed to jump on board the Huckabus such as Dobson and others. I think a lot of people who are Christians but not overly political are a little turned off by how much religion is emphasized.

I think 3 things doomed Huckabee tonight. Number one was Fred Thompson stealing away about 4% of his vote over the last week. Number two was Romney leaving SC early and thus handing over about 4% to McCain. Number three, and most important was the underwhelming support from Evangelicals as stated above which cost him about 6%. If all those things had gone his way, he would of won by the margin he was up in the polls 2 weeks ago, which was double digits.

As painful as this night was, I do not think it is over by any means, at least not yet. Since Fred will most likely drop out now and Duncan Hunter has also dropped out, that should give Mike a little boost in supporters. Of course Fred will most likely endorse McCain now which may influence most of his supporters to follow but we will have to wait and see. That will leave 2 moderates in McCain and Guiliani. It will leave Romney who I believe can not be trusted but may well convince Social Conservatives that he has indeed changed, especially if Dobson continues to talk nice about him and ends up endorsing him. And it will leave Huckabee, at least through Super Tuesday because of his support in the rest of the south and some rogue states out west.

For Huckabee to be viable past Florida though, he either needs to win or have Guiliani win and he finish second. If McCain or Romney finish in front of Huckabee in Florida, I think his dance is over. My guess is, Guiliani and Romney both will have to attack McCain hard in Florida which could allow an opening for Huckabee to sneak up the middle.

4

Joe,

I think you nailed it. There is still hope, but I think you are right when you said Rush and company killed Huckabee's campaign. Most people had already made their mind up that Romney was not their guy. By trashing Huckabee, all they did was push undecideds to McCain. Also, I have to wonder how many liberals went out and voted for McCain. He should be the Democrats ideal candidate to beat. I wonder what the talking heads will say Monday?

5

Joe,
I think you nailed a lot of these- I particularly liked the fact that you busted on Rush, who has clearly declined in his ability to herd the sheep.

It's sad what a difference 3 little percentage points can make, isn't it? Tonight was indeed a disappointment for us.

What do ya think though of how Huck still is in 2nd as far as delegate counts? (Romney's in first, and McCain's in third, according to FoxNews.com).

~Jess

6

Well, tonight was indeed a tough loss for Huckabee. From my perspective, the Evangelicals really let him down.

What do evangelicals owe Huckabee? Are we supposed to vote as a block for the guy who is an ex-preacher? I think you are making a common mistake; assuming that evangelicals are some sort of monolithic voting block who always vote for the "God guy". If you look at Huckabee, he has one majorities of self-described evangelicals in only one state.

7

If you look at Huckabee, he has one majorities of self-described evangelicals in only one state.

I can't believe I typed "one" for "won. No more posting until I have had at least on cup of coffee.

8

"What does that say about Rush's influence?"

My guess is that Rush's influence in South Carolina and Rush's influence nationwide are not the same thing. The demographics of the state are such that McCain's military service and Huckabee's faith mitigate Rush's influence.

9

I still think Huckabee can win the nomination, but I think it is an extremely uphill battle. Why? Because he is not just fighting the other candidates. He is fighting the Republican establishment and the media, both main stream and conservative. He has a lot of support among the people, but that is being out-gunned by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, who have clearly been on the attack against Mike Huckabee from the beginning. It is sad time in our political process when a candidate with such promise can be derailed by the lies spread by the very people who should have been supporting him.

10

In a few weeks, when the conservative punditry realizes that a man they truly despise (McCain) will be the eventual nominee, they'll suddenly "discover" that Huckabee's record and positions were more conservative than they had led people to believe.

More accurately, more conservative than he (Huckabee) led people to believe. Huckabee's last minute flip-flops on immigration and smoking ban just show what a chameleon and opportunist he really is. At least Romney got his flips out of the way before the start of his campaign. Huckabee's triangulation instincts are as strong as that other guy from Hope, but he does it in such an obvious and transparent manner that even people who want to believe in him have to wince. I'd say that he lost some of his own people in SC because of that. When you're running as Christ's candidate, you gotta be more honest and trustworthy than that. Or at least make a good show at being so.

The admission will lead to a backlash among conservatives who trusted that the pundits were telling the truth about Huckabee rather than unfairly maligning him because they were ashamed to have a barefoot hillbilly preacher as the head of their party.

If he didn't run as the barefoot hillbilly preacher, then he wouldn't be maligned as one. You can't have it both ways, Joe. You can't play your identity card and then complain when the media tars you with that identity. I don't recall anyone calling him a barefoot hillbilly, so I think you're projecting your own collective inferiority complex here. Why do you evangelicals feel so marginalized, and why are you so keen to get one of your own elected?

11

Joe, I think you're fairly spot-on and nailed it as a prognosticator.

I was exactly like you. Unenthused about a weak line-up. Then becoming a Fredhead with all the media build-up of him tossing his hat in the ring. Then becoming a Huckabee supporter, least flawed among all the flawed candidates.

Am still very put off by all the conservative punditry, especially Hewitt and NRO and Rich Lowry (who I usually like very much) totally trashing Huck without taking the same measured critical stance towards other GOP candidates.

If McCain gets the GOP nod, I'll still vote for him. But I have a feeling he'll lose. Too old. Will get crunched by Hilary and the mainstream media.

GOP shoots itself in the foot again. Good thing I'm a Christian first.

12

ucfengr writes:

What do evangelicals owe Huckabee? Are we supposed to vote as a block for the guy who is an ex-preacher? I think you are making a common mistake; assuming that evangelicals are some sort of monolithic voting block who always vote for the "God guy". If you look at Huckabee, he has one majorities of self-described evangelicals in only one state.

You missed the point I was making. The media has built Mike up as strictly an Evangelical vote getter but that did not happen. A lot of the Evangelical rank and file talk about Mike as though he is the only choice simply because he is so out front when it comes to religion along with his pastor status. I think Mike would be better served by not being so religious in his message such as his recent remarks about changing the Constitution to meet God's standards. I know what he meant by it but a lot of people just saw it as the start of someone injecting religion into the government. He should of just simply stated it was in reference to amending the Constitution for abortion and marriage and left it at that. I know he was trying to rally his base of Evangelical supporters but he ended up alienating a lot of people in the process. I just think he tailored his message in SC to a base of support that wasn't as strong as the media led everyone to believe.

13

Joe, you should stick to writing about issues, and steer clear of predictions and political analysis.

This is naive beyond belief:

"A Clinton-Obama/Obama-Clinton ticket would be unbeatable in the general election. While McCain would do slightly better than Romney, both would be crushed by the Democratic landslide."

You really need to get out and meet some real people. If you honestly believe that a ticket with a black man named Barack Hussein Obama has a prayer of winning the White House in 2008, you've been cooped up in the blogosphere far too long. You need to get out and talk to a few ordinary people. BHO hasn't got a chance in the general election. The average voter is far older and whiter than the average American. No matter what they tell pollsters, the average ordinary voter in 2008 is not going to touch the screen to put a black man in the WH. And a black man named Hussein Obama? Again, stick to writing about issues, Joe.

Also, Huckabee might've won SC had he appeared to really believe the religious stuff he's peddling. But he didn't. He made it clear that he's merely pandering with his performance last Sunday. He preached in a church, speaking with authority and proclaiming Jesus Christ as the way to heaven. But that's just telling Christians what they want to hear. After church, a reporter asked him if only Christians go to heaven. He refused to answer, said the decision was up to God and not him. This reply , of course, gave the lie to everything Huckabee said in the pulpit. He falsely implied that God hasn't spoken about Jesus Christ being the only way to heaven when (according to Christians) he clearly has, in John 14:6 and many other passages about Christ being the only way of salvation. And in the pulpit, Huckabee tells Christians that they can believe the Bible. Then he turns around and refuses to answer reporters' questions on a topic the Bible is quite clear on, and even falsely implies that God hasn't spoken about the issues at all. He made it clear that he's ashamed and embarrassed by the Bible, just after telling Christians how much he loves the Bible and they should too. Don't think that this sort of behavior sets well with SC evangelicals. That "well, Christianity is true for me and Christians but maybe not for others" approach might fly with McLarenites, but not in SC. Huckabee didn't look sophisticated and nuanced; he simply came off as a lying, pandering weasel using Christians for votes.

And please don't bring up the "well, it's not clear in the Bible what happens to people in Borneo and Mongolia whe never hear the name of Christ" excuse to defend Huckabee. That wasn't what the reporter was asking. He was asking if Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc., go to heaven just like Christians. And Huckabee knew exactly what he was being asked, but knew that if he gave the biblical answer the ADL would have him for breakfast. So he weaseled out and gave a mendacious answer.

14

I agree with RedState's analysis of the Fred campaign. It is sad to see him fail. The Republican Party is not better off for it.

I like barefoot hillbilly preachers. I don't like preachers who suffer from a character problem. I don't like panderers to the slovenly or opportunists who would attack a sitting president of their own party because he looks unpopular and vulnerable (according to conventional wisdom.)

The rest of the Republican field is each at least as uninspiring as Fred in different ways. At least when one takes a close look at Fred there is substance.

I am forced to one of two conclusions.

1) The voters heard Fred's message and rejected it. Republicans have repudiated conservatism.

2) The voters failed to look beneath the surface. They voted based on emotionalism instead of substance.

I really hope it's the latter.

15

How has Fred Thompson not turned out to be who you thought he was?

Frankly I've found him to be the only one that hasn't had to run in one direction or the other to be seen as conservative and Republican (Paul running to the left and everyone else to the right).

16

Joe,

A Clinton-Obama/Obama-Clinton ticket would be unbeatable in the general election.

I don't think so.
McCain-Lieberman.
Watch.

Collin

17

I largely agree with your analysis, though not your prediction about conservative pundits regretting the loss of Huckabee. Both you and many commenters here still seem to try to be having it both ways: the conservative pundits (Rush, et. al.)killed Huckabee's chances and the pundits had almost no effect on voters.

From what I can tell, Rush and company dislike McCain as much as Huckabee, so how has he triumphed? I'll stick by my position that the pundits on both sides of the aisle have very little impact on the voters.

18

Mike J wrote: After church, a reporter asked him if only Christians go to heaven. He refused to answer, said the decision was up to God and not him. This reply , of course, gave the lie to everything Huckabee said in the pulpit.

Or it means that Huckabee knows the Bible better than you do. "For he says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.' So it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who shows mercy." [Rom 9:15-16]

19

Joe,
Hillary is in her second term.

I think she was elected in 1998 and then re-elected in 2004.

20

Glenn

If McCain is on the ticket, I sit out. I know I'm not alone.

I don't really understand why conservatives are so hostile to McCain. He is anti-abortion and generally conservative on just about everything. Off the top of my head the only two criticisms I see from a conservative POV is that he has been pro-stem cell research & has been critical of Bush. Am I to take it these are his 'sins'?

Joe,

I'm surprised you didn't mention Rudy. If I recall, even Ron Paul outplaced him. At this point even if he won Florida I don't think it would be enough to avoid having to drop out before the convention.

Joesph
Well, tonight was indeed a tough loss for Huckabee. From my perspective, the Evangelicals really let him down.

The Evangelicals have been the only people who've supported him to date. He is the one that failed to go beyond that. His eyewinks to the strange 'Christian reconstructionist' movement about changing the Constitution to fit 'God's word' only reinforced the image that he is a candidate for a special interest group. That is a shame because I think he did put up a sincere effort to branch beyond his evangelical base.

Mike J
Also, Huckabee might've won SC had he appeared to really believe the religious stuff he's peddling. But he didn't. He made it clear that he's merely pandering with his performance last Sunday. He preached in a church, speaking with authority and proclaiming Jesus Christ as the way to heaven. But that's just telling Christians what they want to hear. After church, a reporter asked him if only Christians go to heaven. He refused to answer, said the decision was up to God and not him. This reply , of course, gave the lie to everything Huckabee said in the pulpit...

Again perhaps Republicans should consider the possibility the average American voter wants to elect a President and not a Pope.

You really need to get out and meet some real people. If you honestly believe that a ticket with a black man named Barack Hussein Obama has a prayer of winning the White House in 2008,

Perhaps, but you might be surprised. It would be very damaging if the GOP won the next election on the idea "we can't elect a black man with an African name".

21

Technically speaking, someone's being a junior senator doesn't tell you much about their experience. John Kerry is a junior senator. So are Joe Lieberman and Jay Rockefeller. All it takes to be a junior senator is that the other senator from your state has been in the Senate longer than you. You could be in the Senate for 50 years and still be a junior senator. Lots of senior senators haven't been around all that long, either, e.g. Chuck Schumer. The difference between the senior senator and junior senator from California is something like a month, I believe. Saxby Chambliss, Mary Landrieu, Norm Coleman, Elizabeth Dole, Lamar Alexander, and Tim Johnson have all been around for relatively short times and are all senior senators.

It would be better just to say that she's only in her second term in the Senate. That's more precise and much more reflective of her actual senatorial experience.

22

Joe, I think you hit the target. I have been very surprised at how the media have treated Gov. Huckabee. I am not surprised the liberal media have been negative against a Christian as that seems to be the status quo in everything including politics. Frankly, Gov. Huckabee's outstanding response to smarmy, smart elecky, condesending evolution question and follow up at one of the debates was when it crystalized in my mind that this man had just stood up for a lot of us and that I should support him. What has been surprising is how the conservative media have treated Gov. Huckabee. While there have exceptions, most have been very unfair to Gov. Huckabee. A lot of the columnists, pundits, bloggers, and talk radio hosts that I used to respect and trust have gone down a lot in my mind. To repeat as fact distortions and not give the information on other candidates, especially with Gov. Romney and Mayor Guiliani. Rush Limbaugh has been especially bad. He accuses Gov. Huckabee of engaging in identity politics that is some how beneath the republican party, but he fails to mention that in 1994 that Gov. Romney said he would be more "pro gay rights" than Ted Kennedy. How is that not identity politics? Sen. McCain is my second choice and unlike you I think Huckabee would be wise to accept the #2. Against Senator Clinton, McCain would be formidable appointment and he just might win especially with some turnout help that Huckabee just might provide. With his age, McCain may only be a one term president. So if he did when with Huckabee on the ticket, Gov. Huckabee could wind up in the cat bird seat in 2012. How's that for a rosy scenario!

23

Huckabee of engaging in identity politics that is some how beneath the republican party, but he fails to mention that in 1994 that Gov. Romney said he would be more "pro gay rights" than Ted Kennedy. How is that not identity politics?

I doubt Romney was claiming to be gay!

Against Senator Clinton, McCain would be formidable appointment and he just might win especially with some turnout help that Huckabee just might provide. With his age, McCain may only be a one term president.

I'm still trying to figure out the hostility to McCain by conservatives? McCain, for example, is almost perfectly pro-life on abortion yet conservatives go ballistic on him over stem cells...Romney, though, got a blank check for essentially being pro-choice until he decided he needed to be pro-life for the nomination. McCain was critical of Bush in many areas but he has been more hawkish.

24

Boonton writes:
I'm still trying to figure out the hostility to McCain by conservatives? McCain, for example, is almost perfectly pro-life on abortion yet conservatives go ballistic on him over stem cells

Many conservatives, even Christian conservatives, are more than just social conservatives. We also look for conservative words and deeds in other areas like finance, law, immigration, and government involvement in individual lives. McCain falls flat in all these areas.

He is no fiscal conservative. His consistent voting against President Bush's tax cuts show him to be less conservative in this area than the President, who has shown himself to be, at best, a fiscal moderate.

McCain's deal with the Dimmocrats on Bush's judicial nominees and McCain-Feingold free speech constraints shows again that he is less conservative in this area than Mr. Bush.

His positions on security and immigration are also not conservative.

The bottom line is that McCain is a hawk who is somewhat socially conservative, but moderate to even liberal on everything else. IMNSHO that's worse than President Bush and many conservatives are quite disappointed in his lack of conservatism in several key areas.

Romney, though, got a blank check for essentially being pro-choice until he decided he needed to be pro-life for the nomination.

Don't even get me started on that flip-flopper. Take what I said about McCain, remove the social conservatism and you're getting close to Romney.

p.s. The lack of conservative words and deeds in areas other than religious social issues is also what many conservative have against Huckabee.

25

Kevin

Thanks for an honest answer. It seems to me that the conservatives are writing themselves into near total irrelevance this decade. Immigration is going to have to result in a compromise that is going to include some form of legalization for the millions of illegals that are here. Instead the 'conservative' demand is an impossible to achieve mass deportion and nothing less than a perfect lockdown on the borders. Anyone who fails is 'liberal', in fact to me anyone who fails this is reasonable. This nonsense only will play in the states that have next to no illegal immigration (ex Iowa). You've essentially written off all the big states and the entire Hispanic population. Kind of a shame because for a while it seemed like the GOP would capture a portion of the Hispanic vote that would have offset the lock Democrats have on the black vote.

As for fiscal conservatism, the word means being hawkish on the deficit. It seems to have been rewritten to mean being a "borrow and spend" republican. Every dollar spent is a dollar taxed (either now or later) so there is no such thing as a tax cut without spending cuts. George Bush was the biggest tax raiser in history and to the degree that McCain was less reluctant to get onboard....well there you go.

More to the point, I'm still not sure I get it. In essence you're saying that McCain was slightly more hawkish on the deficit than Bush and he committed the sin of being more supportive not of the Democratic immigration plan but the President's! This doesn't seem like much to me to write someone out of an ideology.

26

Boonton writes:

In essence you're saying that McCain was slightly more hawkish on the deficit than Bush

That is not at all what I meant by being a hawk. I was referring to the more classic definition related to security and international affair. President Bush got it half right fiscally; Good for the tax cuts, bu he missed big time on reducing spending.

and he committed the sin of being more supportive not of the Democratic immigration plan but the President's!

Both plans were bad. Anyone who supported either one is IMNSHO not a conservative on the issue of immigration.

27

This Libertarian Paternalist is about to vote for Huckabee in the CA primary.

He is quite pro-life, a proud church going Christian, and an anti-elitist.

I suspect McCain will win the Rep nomination, but Romney will become the anti-McCain for the rich Rep Establishment. Rudy will drop after Florida, but most of his support is split to McCain & Romney.

Huckabee should stay mostly positive, especially against other candidates (tho not Club for Growth), and be more on message. His "God's word" about the Constitution was maybe a small gaffe, but in fact everybody wants their own morality to be written into the Constitution. The problem was handling the spin after.

In fact, any of the three of McCain, Romney, or Huck have excellent chances to win against a pro-defeat Dem, as Iraq becomes a success.

If Huck takes a few #2 spots on Super Tuesday, he should schedule a trip to Iraq to see it first hand, talk to the troops, and get recharged with real stories of improvement there -- and how Victory for Democracy in Iraq is the best hope in the long term for Peace in the Middle East.

McCain - Huckabee in 2008 wins if Iraq is looking good. Reps lose if Iraq fails. Or McCain-Lieberman. I like John, too; and even Mitt is OK.

Christians who feel under cultural pressure from the anti-life (culture of death) elites should be voting Huckabee to create more space in the Republican Party for cultural Christians.