During this election cycle we've been exposed to two contrapositive perceptions: pundit-based reality and voter-based reality.
Pundit-based reality is the political simulacra created by the bloggers, journalists, radio talk show hosts, and other confident opiners who understand how the world should work. Voter-based reality is the messy electoral aftermath that occurs after voters cast their ballots and show us how the world actually works. For the past few months we've been living in the pristine bubble of pundit-based reality only to have it popped by the inexplicable actions of the Voter Class.
Here are some of the lessons we learned on Super Tuesday:
Pundit-based reality: Huckabee is stealing votes from Romney.
Voter-based reality: Huckabee is competing for votes with McCain.
In the latest USA Today/Gallup poll Huckabee supporters were asked for whom they would vote if the race came down to John McCain or Mitt Romney.
The results showed that McCain wins over Romney as the second choice of Huckabee voters by more than a 2 to 1 margin, 64% to 28%. McCain beats Romney 42% to 24% with Huckabee in the race (Huckabee gets 18% of the vote) and expands that margin to 53% to 30% with Huckabee voters forced to choose between the two candidates.
A more likely scenario is that Romney's continued presence in the race siphoned off votes and support for Huckabee.
Pundit-based reality: Romney is a full-spectrum conservative; he is the only one that can bring together the "Reagan coalition."
Voter-based reality: Romney is a poor-man's Michael Bloomberg; he never had a legitimate shot at the nomination.
Out of the six states that Romney won, four were caucuses (MN, ND, CO, MT) that were largely uncontested and favored the candidate with a strong organizational structure. The only primary states Romney was able to win were the ones in which he has previously resided – UT and MA. (The only other primary state that he won before Super Tuesday was another state where he lived – MI.) In other words, Romney can win if he can pay to organize party volunteers at a rally. What he can't seem to do is convince people to go to the polling booth and actually cast a ballot for him.
Without the ability to self-finance his campaign, we would now be referring to Romney as the CINO (conservative in name only) who washed out in Iowa. Sadly, he'll continue on despite the fact that his base of support consists of Mormons, talk radio hosts, and people who really, really, hate McCain.
Pundit-based reality: A McCain-Huckabee ticket would be unacceptable to the party.
Voter-based reality: The majority of GOP voters would be fine with a McCain-Huckabee ticket.
Can anyone explain why a ticket comprised of the two candidates that will win/have won the most delegates, as chosen by Republican voters, is considered an unacceptable option for… Republican voters? Are the pundits unaware that the GOP voters that vote in the primaries are the same GOP voters that vote in the general election?
Pundit-based reality: Rush Limbaugh's opinion carries a great deal of weight.
Voter-based reality: Thanks, but we can think for ourselves.
Adding to his recent string of embarrassments, Rush Limbaugh made the unforced error of endorsing Mitt Romney. If El Rushbo truly believes that Romney "is a candidate on our side who does embody all three legs of the conservative stool" then he needs to hang up his Golden Microphone, for he has lost all sense of discernment. I truly don't think Rush is dumb enough to believe that is true. So why does he think that we voters are dumb enough to believe it just because we hear it proclaimed on our AM radios?
What has happened to Rush? The reason he was once entertaining is because he'd tell us "Dittoheads" what we already knew was true (e.g., liberal are silly). That was his shtick and he did it well. But somewhere along the way he started taking himself too seriously. He seems to think that he is the adjudicator of who and what is considered to be "conservative." For him to give the impression that he is some sort of thought leader is both mildly amusing and moderately insulting. His primary audience is conservatives, a group that doesn’t take its guidance on how to vote from entertainers (and yes, Rush is first and foremost, an entertainer).
As a pundit I understand that having 12 million listeners per week is reason to be in awe of Rush. But as a voter that doesn't impress me much. If I need someone with a large audience to tell me how to vote I'll turn to Wolf from American Gladiators.
Pundit-based reality: McCain will destroy the GOP.
Voter-based reality: McCain is the leading choice for a majority of the GOP.
Listen, McCain is not my first choice. But he appears to be the inevitable choice of our party. If he's nominated I'll vote for him for the simple fact that his is far better than Obama or Clinton. If you disagree, then quietly vote for the third party candidate of your choice. But for heaven's sakes, stop whining, stop hyperventilating, and stop all the hyperbolic, Tony-award worthy dramatics. It's unbecoming.
The animosity toward McCain is even more bizarre when you consider that he's not that different than the other "acceptable" candidates. Fred Thompson co-sponsored McCain-Feingold and no one accused him of tearing up the 1st Amendment. Romney was for abortion, amnesty, and an assault weapons ban until--what, last week?--and no one seems to hold that against him. And Giuliani, a candidate that really would have rent the party in two, was once touted as the only alternative to Hillary the Inevitable.
Now, McCain is considered to be less acceptable than Hillary. I don’t get that at all. The Coulter-Clinton-Buchanan Axis is not in the best interest of the party, our movement, or our nation.
It's time we gain some perspective. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." The voters have presented us with facts that we can no longer deny. It's time for us to to face up to our situation and stop living in the fantasy realm of a pundit-based reality.
Update: If I seem a bit harsh on Romney, I have my reasons—and it has nothing to do with his religion. See this post for The Case Against Romney.
Joe,
Wow! hold the horses Joe...
I think there's a lot of rhetoric from this post.
Only in the republican nominees will you have moderate candidates calling themselves conservative which many are not. Many are hypocrites (including Huckabee - Don't forget his push for tuition for the children of illegal immigrants). I would say none of the candidates are true conservative.
On the other hand, look at the nominees for the Democrats. They call themselves what they truly are. They called themselves liberals and have been fighting for liberal agendas. I don't see a lot of hypocrisy even I will never ever vote for them.
Rhetoric? Uh, no. In fact, I would argue Joe is one of the few (very few) conservative voices that has not been full of rhetoric lately.
Another insightful piece Joe.
It's refreshing to hear someone who actually understands the conservative evangelical mindset rather than someone who is trying to mold the evangelical mindset to fit their image (Coulter, Rush, Glenn Beck, etc.).
Good break down, Joe. The best news out of this night is that Hillary has the edge over Obama. She's easier to beat. But if it comes down to a negotiated Dem convention, she is going to eat Obama alive.
Did we learn tonight that evangelicals cannot vote for a Mormon?
I think we also learned tonight that the Democrats will take the White House back.
Joe, not sure of your math, but I do not have numbers that show McCain is the choice of a majority of GOP voters.
I think his anemic tally is in the low 40s (4.2M out of ~10M cast to date).
McCain is a Fossil, and we can only hope Clinton is the Democrat nominee.
If it's Fossil v Fossil, we have a chance, but if it's Fossil v Obamamania, we are toast.
Fossil won't be able to raise a dime to Obama's quarter.
Jindal '12!
McCain-Huckabee? won't happen
Would be a disaster if it did. The substantial number of us who would have to try VERY hard to choke down EITHER of these populist innovators would gag on BOTH of them. You'd be adding the very few who wouldn't vote for McCain under any circumstances to the very few who wouldn't vote for Huckabee under any circumstances, and adding the number who (like myself) might be induced to vote for one or another of these evils, but couldn't possibly stomach both of them at once....
Rove's right about this one.
On Jan 11 Joe wrote:
"Question of the night: Will it be obvious after the South Carolina primary that Thompson stayed in the race merely to be a stalkinghorse for McCain? Or is he just auditioning to be McCain's VP? (Sorry, Fred. McCain don't need the deadweight.)"
Question of the night: Will Joe have the intellectual honesty to apply this same statement Huckabee tonight?
I guess not.
Huckabee's "Wal Mart Republican" rhetoric is the saddest form of class warfare i've seen since, well, another slimy Arkansas ex-governor. What a shame.
It will be interesting to see if Huckabee starts to direct his venom at the actual frontrunner in the race rather than a bad candidate that has been trailing in the polls.
I really can't see a situation where the GOP heals itself by November. If it weren't for the terrifying prospects of a(nother) Clinton presidency, I'm not sure that a pummeling which drives class warfare out of the Republican party would be such a bad thing.
Now on to the obvious question. Who's the 3rd party candidate gonna be? Can he beat Perot's record for splintering the vote? I can't wait for November. (/sarcasm)
Sierra:
The exit polls suggest that evangelicals, even the dreaded white evangelicals, can vote for a Mormon just as well as the voting population at large.
Look at the CA exit poll numbers. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#CAREP
On the last page, look at the "White Born Again/Evangelical" numbers. Romney had the plurality, 33% versus Huckabee's 23%. Considering that 33% is the proportion of the overall CA primary vote held by Mitt, white evangelicals voted for Mitt at exactly the same rate as the rest of the party. It was actually McCain who proportionally suffered among white evangelicals in that state.
The same stat in Arizona:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#AZREP
McCain carries the white evangelical vote, Romney is second and within a reasonable margin of error of his overall vote tally. Huckabee scored higher with them than he did overall, but that is just from skimming a similar number of percentage points off of the other two candidates.
Now look at Huckabee's Southern stronghold:
The poll in Tennessee:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#TN
Romney gets 19% of white evangelicals, 24% of the overall vote. Hardly a huge religious bias gap, even if each one of the votes in that 5% difference was decided purely on bigotry.
Georgia:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#GAREP
Romney 30% of the vote overall, 28% of white evangelicals. I am guessing that would be within the margin of error.
Even in the South, where one could claim that evangelical/fundamentalist anti-Mormon bias is strongest, there is no sign in the exit polls that the evangelical vote was significantly impacted by
Mitt's religion. If any bias would have been in play in the south to account for Huckabee's strength there, it could just as easily be in the fact that Romney is a Northern businessman while Huckabee is a common Southern preacher man.
Conservative Evangelical here. Joe Carter has captured and articulated my thoughts exactly. I'll vote for whoever the GOP nominee is in November. But right now I see both McCain and Romney as RINO liberals. I firmly assert that Huckabee is a true conservative and I firmly maintain that any attack on Huck can be easily rebuffed with a winning counter-attack on YOUR preferred candidate on the same grounds as your criticism of Huckabee.
I have listened, enjoyed, and appreciated Rush, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, Hugh Hewitt, and many conservative print media pundits. And I will do so in the future. But they are all terribly wrong to have savaged Huckabee while giving Romney and McCain a lighter treatment. They have made strawman caricature attacks on Huck that were misrepresentations and distortions of Huck. They have cast aspersions on Huck and made unmerited, unsubstantiated accusations of impropriety about Huck's character and his motives. It's gotten so ridiculous that I think they're projecting their own politically nefarious ways onto the object of their hate who happens to be Huck.
Honestly, Mitt's a characterless flip-flopper and McCain has stuck his finger in the eye of conservatives for many years. It was an EASY decision to vote for Mike Huckabee. EASY.
Romney should be deeply ashamed of himself. When you look at the ratio of MONEY SPENT to DELEGATES WON SO FAR, Romney looks like the worst money manager by far. Compared to what Huck or McCain spent and what they've achieved in delegate votes, Mitt comes off like a LOSER.
Mitt should quit. Leave the race to Huck and McCain.
Also, if Romneyians want to go into full whining mode and finger-pointing mode for their sad results, then they should blame Fred Thompson. That laggard stayed in the race in South Carolina just to siphon off votes from Huck and throw it over to McCain. McCain then leveraged his SC win to a momentum victory in Florida. But if Huck had won in South Carolina, it might have blunted McCain's momentum train, and given Romney a chance to build up some steam. So Romneyians, if you refuse to look in the mirror, then cast your stones at Fred Thompson and his FredHeads for giving South Carolina to McCain.
Conservative Evangelical here. Joe Carter has captured and articulated my thoughts exactly. I'll vote for whoever the GOP nominee is in November. But right now I see both McCain and Romney as RINO liberals.
If you see both Romney and McCain as liberal, what is the purpose of voting for them over the Democrat candidate? From a strategic perspective, wouldn't it be easier for Republicans in Congress to unite against Clinton or Obama than McCain. If your goal is to elect Republicans, than it makes sense to vote for whoever the Republican nominee is, but if your goal is to maximize the possibility of getting conservative policies and minimize the possibility of getting liberal ones, than it may make more sense to sit out the election and hope for better candidates in 2012.
I firmly assert that Huckabee is a true conservative and I firmly maintain that any attack on Huck can be easily rebuffed with a winning counter-attack on YOUR preferred candidate on the same grounds as your criticism of Huckabee.
What is different about the rhetoric and policy positions of McCain and Huckabee? I am just not seeing a lot of daylight between the two.
Honestly, Mitt's a characterless flip-flopper
But Mitt has flipped in the right direction. Why should we shun someone who has "flipped" to our positions. If this is our standard, then we would have never gotten a Reagan, who was pro-choice while California governor. As to Mitt's character, let's be a little reasonable here. By all accounts he is a devoted family man and is devoted to his church. He has also been very successful. That doesn't sound like someone lacking in character. In fact, it sounds like the kind of guy conservatives used to admire.
Joe:
Your animus toward Romney and Guiliani is palpable. But how is it that you can support McCain while trashing them?
Do you think there's any truth to the notion that a President Clinton or Obama will NOT pull troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan prematurely? They both know that if they do they will be seen as the losers of this battle. They only wanted Bush to pull out so HE would be seen as the loser.
And given that neither would change course in Iraq, why would it be important for conservatives to vote for McCain as opposed to Tweedle and Twaddle?
As to Rush taking himself too seriously and no longer being relevant, two questions:
Why are the candidates taking him so seriously?
Why did Harry Reid excoriate him from the floor of the Senate?
I still can't believe that some people around here still think that Huckabee is not the most conservative candidate!
Except for the distaste of knowing that he has visited some mega-churches with questionable Christian views, he is the only viable conservative candidate out there. That's just fact.
Bravo!! I think Romney voters go to Huckabee, but I don't think Huckabee voters go to Romney.
Well, you're dead wrong about why Romney won Minnesota. At my caucus, there were no Romney people, but there were a ton of Ron Paul people. Romney still cleaned everyone's clock. As to why people in Minnesota have so much more of a clue over other states, I have no idea. I haven't seen any significant Romney campaigning in this state, and we have McCain's running mate as our governor.
Discerning Christian here....
First of all, I live in Arkansas and Huckabee's deal with the scholarship to "illegals" still hasnt been given proper light. Those students would have to have became citizens. It wasnt that bad of an idea. Arkansas went from the 48th ranked schools to the 8th, much oweing to Huckabee's leadership. The pundits dont seem to mention that much. I remember Lou Dobbs bringing up the issue(probably just to talk about something different) and then griping about how NONE of the other candidates were talking about this! What?? Huckabee's been talking about it all the time.
Secondly, to the guy who said that Mitt's "flipped in the right direction" ...let me put it to you another way...Mit Romney is a liar. It doesnt matter what position you hold or say you hold if your heart isnt passionate about doing it and you're just holding it to be "right" Theres a different in holding a position and being pro-active on a position. You vote for Romney and you'll vote for a guy that you have no idea whether he'll actually go at some of these positions full force.
He's a liar and i cant believe how many undiscerning Christians are non-Christians there are out there. Why would you vote for a guy that woudl lie to your face and then expect you to believe it. Martin Luther King, NRA, etc. By the way, he also lied to McCain's face and to the country on that debate whether he said over and over again that he didnt call McCain's bill amnesty. He did and has continue to do it. Then he said he didnt see the commercial that called McCain's bill amnesty. What? You didnt review your own commercial? Even if he told the truth on that, he lied about all the other times he's called it amnesty. Maybe it is amnesty, I dont know. But I know he lied.
He's just so good at it all of you people get fooled.
If Huckabee proved anything tonight its that he can win. Romney says that Huckabee has been stealing votes from him, ...how do we know that Romney hasnt been stealing some votes from Huckabee? Maybe some of these conservatives will wake up and actually vote for a guy with some character like Huckabee. I live in Arkansas and he did just fine for us in those 10.5 years.
Rbull, Romney lies and Huckabee doesn't???? Hahaha. That's a good one.
Let's not forget the HUGE lie about the Dumond case. Or the scummiest political trick I've ever seen when he pulled the Romney attack ad yet still showed it. If Romney doesn't win, I may just stay home in November. I can't stand McCain and the liberal Huck is going to pull the Republican party down with him. Bye bye true conservatives, it's been fun.
I think all the so-called whining by conservatives has been great. I hope it continues even more loudly. It lets politicians know that we are paying attention, and that the decisions they make today may come back to haunt them tomorrow. So whine on brothers! Whine on.
::: laughing ::: LOVE that! Excellent post Joe!
Rbull:
You vote for Romney and you'll vote for a guy that you have no idea whether he'll actually go at some of these positions full force.
An you have no idea whether he won't. So you are prematurely calling him a liar. You call that discernment?
As far as I can tell, Romney has conducted himself with more integrity in his campaign than Huckabee and McCain put together. Huckabee and McCain are both purveyors of gutter politics. I'd still support Huckabee over McCain, but it's just not going to happen.
Romney's biggest liability is being from Massachusetts. Southerners are just not going to embrace a guy from Massachusetts.
Secondly, to the guy who said that Mitt's "flipped in the right direction" ...let me put it to you another way...Mit Romney is a liar.
How very Christian of you. Do you read other people's minds or just Romney's?
It doesnt matter what position you hold or say you hold if your heart isnt passionate about doing it and you're just holding it to be "right" Theres a different in holding a position and being pro-active on a position. You vote for Romney and you'll vote for a guy that you have no idea whether he'll actually go at some of these positions full force.
Accepting this as true, how does that make him any different from Huckabee or McCain? Do you really think that Huckabee is going to be "pro-active" on his "new" immigration stand or McCain on his "new" tax stand? Do you really think that McCain is going to appoint Supreme Court Justices like Thomas who said McCain Feingold, was "most significant abridgment of the freedoms of speech and association since the Civil War."?
By the way, he also lied to McCain's face and to the country on that debate whether he said over and over again that he didnt call McCain's bill amnesty.
What about McCain lying about Romney's position on "the surge" and timetables or more recently lying about Bob Dole's letter to Limbaugh? Do those things bother you as much as Romney's "lie" about calling McCain's immigration bill amnesty?
Joe --
as a long-time passive reader of your blog, I have to admit something: I like you better as a political analyst than I do as a "god blogger". ;-) Not that your god-blogging wasn't good -- it's just that stuff like this post is much better. You seem to have more passion for this, and that makes better reading.
And that said, there are no Ronald Reagans in the GOP today. Sorry everyone: the truth is that the national objectives for our country are not as clear as they were when reagan took office the first time, and therefore there aren't any men or women out there leading in a sort of deliberate and straight-forward way.
There is nothing going on right now which is analogous to the Cold War -- not in a way in which the analogy doesn't break down quickly. The solution to illegal immigration is also not as black-and-white as some people might spell out, even though it is plainly a law-and-order issue and not some kind of diplomacy issue. The question of how to deal with international terrorism is a multi-faceted one which has religious, political, military, economic and cultural implications which, I think, no one really grasps as a whole.
For some to bark glibly about Reagan, one way or the other, overlooks the place in history he occupied vs. the place we are in today. Do I think conservative politcal values are still the key to American political success? yes. No question. Do I think that means we "need a Reagan"? I'm not sure how Reagan could fix the problems we have, given his narrow band of excellence.
Now, that said, I think McCain represents a down-grade of conservative political thinking which is a reaction toward both libertarianism and liberalism. Is he "middle of the road"? Yeah, probably -- and so much so that he's not got a lot of axes to grind against the left side of the aisle.
But here's the thing: should our nation be driven toward some political destination which is a choice between moderately liberal and extremely liberal -- or should it be seeing a choice which is, frankly, a little more stark? Or should our nation be seeking a political system which is inherently without ideology or philosophical foundation which is based on an idealized virtue of compromise and attrition?
If you ask me, that sound like Woodrow Wilsow, not Ronald Wilson Reagan. But you didn't ask me, and I have already somehow co-opted your meta, Joe.
Good post. Food for thought. Keep up the good work.
I am a strident Huckabee supporter. But... I would happily gouge my eyes out with a spoon before I would vote for either McCrazy or Mitt Phony. No thanks, Im with Rush on this one. If the country is going to take another hit of 8 years of elite liberalism vis a vi McCain/Hillary I would just as soon it be the democrats who take the blame.
See you all in 2012.
Great piece, Joe. Politics is tiring, but I hope you keep it up.
Wait a second here, Joe:
Didn't you just say in a recent entry, "Fortunately, [Huckabee] still has enough money to stick around and bleed votes from Romney"? Doesn't that make you a party to the pundits who were very obviously wrong? If so, why not just fess up and be clear that you were wrong as well?I don't care who you match with two-face McCain, I will never vote for that guy.
Republicans for Obama 2008!
Absolutely brilliant piece. I just love your skewering of Limbaugh. The thought of these entertainers wanting us to take them serious. Sniff.
Keep up the great work, Joe!
http://slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008/02/06/mitt-s-death-watch.aspx
“The only region where Romney did especially well was in the mountain West, where Mormons live and news stories go to die.”
I am part of McCain's all voulenteer army in NH. I am very impressed with Huck and would be very happy with a McCain/Huck Ticket. I would throw in Rudy for Homeland Defense and Fred for AG, Phil Gramm for Treasury, Colin Powel for Sec of Defense and you get a pretty good dream team.
Huck as VP is a smart move to put the preacher thing 8 years lower on his resume and also spin him around the world. He gives McCain youth, less edgy, masterful verbal defense, powerhouse in the lower right end of the country,and more he is in line with what voters want this year - Authenticity. Huck is what he is as is McCain.
GOP could be in for 16 yrs in spite of themselves.
Dead on, Joe.
I hope that many of the "real conservatives" who say they'll never vote for McCain will keep their mouths shut when Hillary Clinton nominates 2-3 liberal justices to the Supreme Court (think Breyer and Ginsburg).
The idea that we would fight this hard to get four rock-solid conservatives on the court, only to give up when the prize is near is mind-boggling to me.
The "I'd rather have Hillary get blamed for the mess in Washington than a Republican" is another monument to stupidity.
I live in Michigan. We have the worst governor in the country, Jennifer Granholm, a committed left-wing, anti-business fool. She just won re-election in a landslide by blaming Michigan's downfall on businessman and Republicans (in spite of the fact that she had been in office for 4 years).
Don't imagine that Hillary and the Dems will get the blame for a weak economy. Most voters know nothing about economic policy, and the media is more than willing to lie and distort in order to help liberals.
McCain is our best hope. He ain't perfect, but he's a hell of a lot better than the alternative.
Personally, I'd rather have a pro-life, pro-military, anti-spending "LIBERAL" like McCain than a pro-abortion, anti-military, pro-spending "LIBERAL" like Hillary. I guess that's just me.
Sierra wrote: "Did we learn tonight that evangelicals cannot vote for a Mormon?"
Did we learn that Mormons will not vote for an evangelical? See Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah...
Rush, National Review, Hewitt, Ingraham and the other Romney endorsers have chosen their candidate out of pure self-interest -- they want to remain important, and McCain and Huckabee have shown that they don't care about the "conservative establishment." There's no obvious reason why Romney's better on issues, as you point out. Rush, NR, and Hewitt have defined "the only conservative choice" as "the only choice who will let us remain relevant." Voters, unsurprisingly, have not made NR's future relevance their top voting priority.
How sad - both parties end up with candidates that so many people can't stand. So much for change. Looks like politics as usual. Makes me wonder, where are all the great leaders in our country? What happened to integrity, honesty, and standing for something? I guess in politics, the mantra is "whatever it takes to win, whatever it takes..."
There is a group of people who state that they will sit out the general election if McCain is the nominee because it's better to have a Democrat run the nation into the ground for four years than a Republican. That way, the thinking goes, the nation will hunger for a "true conservative". People who think and say this will have blood on their hands four years hence for three reasons:
First, when our troops are pulled out of Iraq by a Democratic president, countless more Iraqis will die on a percentage basis than even now, plus America will almost inevitably be attacked again on our soil. Those lives lost cannot be retrieved.
Second, when a minimum of two pro-abortion justices are put on the Supreme Court, our present infanticide will continue for decades unabated, and perhaps interminably. Those lives lost cannot be retrieved.
Third, when our health care is nationalized, people with treatable illnesses will die waiting on the bureaucracy and health care shortages just as they presently do in Canada and Europe. Those lives cannot be retrieved.
These aren't issues of ideology, policy, or legislation. These are tangible life or death issues, and will occur under a Democrat president. All three Republican candidates will pursue the war on terror, all three will appoint strict constructionist judges, and two will seek free market solutions to health care (Romney socialized health care in Massachusetts). Vote Republican in November, or be responsible for the consequences.
Interesting. It seems to me Huckabee can ONLY win in the south where the mostly die hard anti-mormons are. See, most Christians live out in the real world and Mormon's are their neighbors. That's why they can vote for Mitt Romney.
With Huckabee as a VP, about the only thing that ticket might win would be the south because every where else, Huckabee isn't much appreciated and McCain doesn't even begin to make up for it. That's voter based reality.
This is a most excellent article! The logic is sound. Rush and Sean and Coulter are like Coca-cola peddlers who keep insisting we like the "new coke" when we just don't! We know conservatism when we see it and we keep voting for Mac and Huck! The newly packaged Romney tastes suspicious.
Thank-god the party is rejecting those former-social conservatives of the caustic set, those microphone chatteratit who focus only on their own priveleged fiscal reality. The party is moving back to a form of postive populist conservatism that cares about someone besides the polo pony crowd.
Rush, Sean, Coulter, Hugh Hewitt, Mark "Wannabe" Levin, and scores of others are the crybaby conservatives and it appears that James Dobson has succumbed to crawling in the cradle with them.
Hey Joe -
You're doing a real disservice with the line "Romney can win if he can pay to organize party volunteers at a rally." I voted in the Minnesota caucus and I'm a delegate to the district level (where people will get selected to go to state level, where people are selected to go to national level, who will actually cast a ballot...) Nobody paid me to show up. Nobody recruited me for their campaign. I agree with Romney more than any other candidate so I polled for him.
I took my son along to the caucus so that he could see democracy in action. I hope he grows to understand that choosing our leaders wisely is a privilege and a responsibility. You may not have meant to imply that my vote was bought (either directly or indirectly), but it sure comes across that way and I'd like to think that's beneath you.
The ultraconservative sectors consists of only 1/3 of conservative voters. Romney got a majority of the ultraconservatives (just 1/3 of conservative voters). McCain split with Romney on the remaining conservatives and took a big portion of moderates and liberals. In other words, McCain is the overall choice of Republicans -- all Republicans, you know, conservative (barring ultraconservative), moderates and liberals. At this point, if you guys want to stay home, then stay home. We will surely make up the difference on the swing independents that McCain will bring into the general election for the first time. The VP will not be someone to appease the smallest sector of the base.
Secondly, although I am a Catholic (not an evangelical) I would imagine that the evangelicals worked very hard to drive Mike Huckabee's wins. They are devoted to him. They want -- andd frankly deserve -- a say in the party and a spot on the ticket. They have been a core, loyal sector of the base. If they don't see Huckabee on the ticket, I would imagine many of them might consider sitting it out. And trust me the lost of such a core group will do republicans far greater harm than losing Rush's gang.
"Can anyone explain why a ticket comprised of the two candidates that will win/have won the most delegates, as chosen by Republican voters, is considered an unacceptable option for… Republican voters?"
This statement is dubious. It is Romney, not Huckabee, who has the second-most delegates. And it is likely to remain that way, because Huckabee is running out of map: the evangelical, southern states to which his appeal is confined are almost all behind us now.
Huckabee didn't win the southern states he got due to anti-Mormonism. Huckabee won those states because he's a Baptist, and you cannot walk out your door around here without tripping over a Baptist Church. I'd bet that there are more Baptist Churches in Georgia and Alabama than Burger Kings and McDonalds combined.
So basically, what I am saying is: It's not anti-Mormonism, it's pro-Baptistism.
I agree in part with the article. Romney is not getting any of Huck's votes in the South, but the rest of the countryit's a completely different story. The elephant in the room is Romney's mormonism. It isn't that big of a deal except in the South. I knew a Mormon missionary that was literally run out of town when he was in Mississippi. In the early days, Missouri's governor issued an order to exterminate Mormons. I think it is really sad that the best man didn't win because of his religion.
Your article sucks, and is full of opinion. I can't wait until McCain gets spanked in the general!
I will NEVER vote for McCain! Hillary will do far less damage than he will.
Republicans for Hillary!
First, when our troops are pulled out of Iraq by a Democratic president, countless more Iraqis will die on a percentage basis than even now, plus America will almost inevitably be attacked again on our soil. Those lives lost cannot be retrieved.
I don't think it is a given that a President Clinton will pull out of Iraq. She has certainly given herself enough wiggle room to keep troops in as long as she wants.
Second, when a minimum of two pro-abortion justices are put on the Supreme Court, our present infanticide will continue for decades unabated, and perhaps interminably. Those lives lost cannot be retrieved.
You are assuming that a President McCain would be more likely to appoint Justices like Thomas and Roberts than like Souter. I don't think this is a good assumption. It depends on what is more important to McCain; "strict constructionist" justices or justices likely to uphold McCain-Feingold and a new Fairness Doctrine, because you will not get both.
Third, when our health care is nationalized, people with treatable illnesses will die waiting on the bureaucracy and health care shortages just as they presently do in Canada and Europe. Those lives cannot be retrieved.
If Clinton couldn't pass national health care in 1993, with a much more Democratic Congress than the current, what makes you so sure it could be passed now?
You obviously have no clue what a conservative is.
If you think John McCain is conservative - you are flat wrong.
He is conservative on the war - that's it; PERIOD. He is willing to sell out his conservatism on every other level.
I am a lifelong republican. If John McCain wins the nomination, by principle, I cannot vote for him. I'll vote for Ron Paul on the libertarian ticket.
The only thing you've proven is that the mass amount of voters are idiots. If John McCain is our candidate along with his lickenshpittle Huckabee then we deserve every slap in the face he'll give us in the next four years. When John McCain continues to limit free speech, open the boarders to Illegals, and appoints liberal judges to the courts to appease the Kennedy's just remember, you asked for it.
What about the countless Americans that will die fighting in Iran. Or the untold numbers that will die when all of the illegal aliens that crossed the Mexican border turning out to be a terrorists and kill half of New York? Or the untold number of people that will die because they don't have adequate health care? Or that can't get into hospitals in time because the illegal aliens are flooding the emergency rooms??
GIVE ME A BREAK!
Henry,
That's a great idea! I will vote Ron Paul in the general! Perfect!
Dave.
If you think McCain has taken been soft on illegal immigration so far, wait until he starts pandering to the hispanic vote in the general election
I want a President who feels that he will someday answer to God; I think some other people vote for Huckabee because they feel the same way. However, it seems to me that Huckabee offers nothing other than the fact that he is religious. Throughout the campaign, he has sounded like a pure idiot anytime someone has asked him a question about foreign policy or even current events in foreign countries like Pakistan. He supports the fair tax, but most of the sheep that vote for him have never bothered to read anything about the fair tax. I am all for the fair tax because I make enough money that it will benefit me (while it mugs the poor). Now, some guy will post that under the fair tax, the poor receive an offsetting check every month. When the poor are taxed 32% (the actual fair tax rate - just google it) on all goods and services they buy, that check will not offset the daily bleeding the fair tax will cause them. I just think it is interesting that people who vote for Huckabee don't seem to understand anything about him other than he can dress like goon and shoot a shotgun. Hey, I just realized that my neighbor dresses like a goon and shoots a shotgun, maybe I'll write in his name if my only choices in November are Huckabee and Hillary. The inevitable response to my accusation is that some Huckster will reply and say that "we" saw all the good things he did for Arkansas. I won't bother to detail his record as Governor - the ridiculous pardons and spending have been well documented. I will simply say that his "fair" tax wasn't an option when he was governor of one state. Fair tax will be an option if he is elected President. I don't have a problem with a person supporting the fair tax if they know something about it, and the average Huckster has no clue. I guess we can only hope that McCain wins. Then we will have a choice between a well-known liberal and a former first lady.
I think the Evangelicals have shown themselves in this election for who they are. They can be herded into rooms by their pastors and told not to vote for an evil Mormon. What's with all of this religious bigotry? I, for one, am tired of it. I know so many wonderful Mormons, and I would put their brand of Christianity up against Huckabee's (with a campaign manager that said he wanted to "kick Romney in the teeth!") any day. When will these Evangelicals decide that they can support and work shoulder to shoulder with anyone who follows Christian beliefs (and walks the walk, which the Mormons I know certainly DO!) rather than judging those who don't believe exactly as they do. It's fear that makes these churches shun Mormons. Fear that their parishoners will be converted to Mormonism. Why not simply teach your teachings, rather than teaching against another religion's teachings. Why waste your valuable time? Not very Christian! And no, Huckabee will not be on any ticket. He's proven himself to be a buffoon who can only get the vote of Evangelical lightweight voters!
I think the Evangelicals have shown themselves in this election for who they are. They can be herded into rooms by their pastors and told not to vote for an evil Mormon. What's with all of this religious bigotry? I, for one, am tired of it. I know so many wonderful Mormons, and I would put their brand of Christianity up against Huckabee's (with a campaign manager that said he wanted to "kick Romney in the teeth!") any day. When will these Evangelicals decide that they can support and work shoulder to shoulder with anyone who follows Christian beliefs (and walks the walk, which the Mormons I know certainly DO!) rather than judging those who don't believe exactly as they do. It's fear that makes these churches shun Mormons. Fear that their parishoners will be converted to Mormonism. Why not simply teach your teachings, rather than teaching against another religion's teachings. Why waste your valuable time? Not very Christian! And no, Huckabee will not be on any ticket. He's proven himself to be a buffoon who can only get the vote of Evangelical lightweight voters!
Spk2moi,
Well, you finally figured us evangelicals out. There is secret room in every church where we are gather in groups of 12 at a time by our pastor and forced to pledge to vote for the candidate they deem most acceptable. Catoonish doesn't begin to describe your view of evangelicals. I have never been told to vote for a specific party or candidate in church or by people in authority at my church ever. I challenge you to prove your assertion.
If Romney would have dropped out, Huckabee would have won Missouri and Oklahoma.
I have to disagree with Frank Turk (@21); Joe, in all honesty, your "non-political" evangelical perspectives seem to be much more grounded and well thought out than your political discourses of the last several months.
The only sure thing that I see from the Super Tuesday results is that the Republican party is becoming less conservative.
Since we're probably all experiencing number fatigue, I'll only show one example from a Republican exit poll in my state of Arizona, but similar results can be seen across the US.
The question was: "On most political matters, do you consider yourself:" Liberal, Moderate or Conservative?
Only 66% of the respondents identified themselves as "Conservative." Of the 26% that said they were "Moderate," 57% of them voted for McCain. And of the 8% who said "Liberal," a whopping 75% voted for McCain. (Full Poll)
The question keeps being asked, "Which candidate is most like Reagan?" Perhaps we should be asking, "Could Reagan even win the Republican nomination in the 21st century United States?"
It only need be said that the anti-Mormon hatred spewing out of your pastors' mouths makes it imperative that you not support a Mormon. All I'm asking is why? Why would a man of God spend his time tearing down another religion. The code words were all out there, in the media, for all to see, during this campaign. And all the anti's knew it. And they followed like sheep. Why?
Provocatove Article
McCain wasn't my first choice but we have to ask ourselves this question, do we live in a dangerous world? What are the odds of something which is a threat to our national security happening in the next 4 to 8 years? Who do you want as a Commander in Chief if that happens? A McCain / Huckabee ticket would represent the best of both worlds.
Joe:
Perfect just perfect. My vote is mine because I am a citizen of the United States of America. It will not be bought by the highest bidder, be he a professed business manager that throws a 100 million dollars in the street in his quest to BUY a JOB and that is just what Romney did.
Or a bunch of over paid loud mouths on my AM radio that should have known a good business manager doesn't just throw money into the street. Oh well it was his to throw right.
I have to wonder if Sean Hannity was paid for his non stop radio and tv ads he ran for first Rudy and then Mitt. He abused his position and his employers as far as I am concerned. He is like a Limbaugh parrot, the whole lot of them are. I use to think Alan Colmes suffered from brain damage and now have come to the conclusion he is the only player on Hannity and Colmes with the ability to form his own thoughts.
In todays tech age one of our greatest blessings is that we no longer have to turn the tuning dial to bring in a channel clearly it's just a touch of the button. Your television just a click on the remote. I see a lot of these so called pundits pushing geocory carts and wearing plastic garabe bags for raincoats if they don't wake up.
I don't spend a lot of time listening to talk radio myself but have heard Senator Mccain as a guest many times on Hannity. I hope he never again gives Sean Hannity the ability to promote his radio program a stroke his ego by announcing his dear friend Senator John Mccain will be on his show.
Sean call Hillary.
Thanks Joe for a great article well said.
Debbie
With Romney, you forgot Maine & Alaska. In the former, he won a majority of the state's caucus, not just a plurality, so lets not leave out a majority of the party activists in the vacationland. In Alaska, the weather wasn't pleasant, but he motivated those supporters to come on out.
Motivating activists does mean organization has an advantage, BUT it also means your message was strong enough to galvanize those who are more involved in politics, think about it more, and are more likely to have a coherent ideology, as opposed to those who like a quick soundbite, a little populist pandering, and some anti-Mormon bigotry like Huckabee.
Eventually, the Huckaboom will go the way of all artificialities: Booms go Bust!
It sounds like the issue is whether it would be better to vote against a Mormon (because of the dislike of the religion), than it would be to vote for someone that clearly does not share most of the values. Most of the exit polls last night seemed to indicate that both Huckabee and McCain (more for McCain) received a large portion of their votes because they liked the guy and NOT because they agreed with what he stood for. Clearly Romney's family life, ethics, religious observance is closer in harmony with the gospels than is that of McCain. Yet, that seemed to be overlooked in deciding whom to vote for.
So, at the risk of seeming totally heretical, it seems to me that the vote for McCain, which may have been based in part on fear of Mormonism, was not too dissimilar from one of long past where the people said "Give us Barabbas!"
Romney isn't winning because no one believes him. I am not a McCain supporter, but the idea that Romney is a "true conservative" is laughable. Romney's position(s) are based soley on opportunity. He has consistently shown that he will flip on a dime the moment it is expedient to do so.
I don't agree with McCain's immigration stance, and I have found myself at odds with his positions on more then one occassion. To suggest that he is like Clinton does is ridiculous and, I think, an emotional statement made by individuals who are upset that their guy lost.
News flash ... Romney lost because not enough people voted for him. Few are bigots ... anti-Mormonism is a lame excuse. The guy is not at all genuine, and that is why he lost.
As far as the concern that so many will sit out in November ... I doubt it. Emotions will settle and McCain will unite the party. Nope - Hillary will bring out the Republicans in full force to defeat her. Of this I am sure.
The economy, national defense and social issues are all important. Important but not equal. For Christians, the moral issues are foundational. I'd rather face God and explain why we didn't cut taxes than justify the death of innocent children. I'd rather face God and explain why we provided education to children of illegals than defend the destruction of the family. That's why Huckabee is my candidate. He gets an A+ on social conservatism, an A- on immigration and a B+ on economics.
What's the low-probability (but possible!)scenario by which Huckabee can win the GOP nomination?
One, let's say that McCain doesn't get the necessary number of delegates. 1100 something. Then there's a "brokered" convention. What's a "brokered" convention? Could Huckabee still win the nomination from a "brokered" convention over a front-running McCain? That would seem weird.
Two, let's say that Romney and Paul quit and ask their supporters to back Huckabee. Then suppose the conservative punditry chattering class of Rush, Hannity, Ingraham, Hewitt, et al drink their own urine, and due to their immense distaste for McCain, call for a healing support for Huckabee. Then Huckabee might have a chance.
Summary: A vote for Huckabee is a vote for Huckabee.
Quit Mitt. Quit it Mitt. Please Quit Mitt. Mitt is unfit and says he'll quit. Mitt must sit and quit. Quit Mitt.
Huckabee voters are no different than anyone else. Whereas they initially would have gone to Romney, they now support McCain, because of his long held status as the front runner (which they gave McCain by destroying Romney in Iowa and New Hampshire). The fact that Huckabee attacks Romney every chance he gets (ie profits bad), also doesn't hurt. The fact is, however, McCain will be unlike most of the more recent republican candidates in that a very large segment of republican voters absolutely hate him. His present positions (forget about his flip-flops) on carbon emissions, a doctor's pay, drug companies, guantanamo, water boarding and reduced earnings for fired workers who take lessor paying jobs, betray a democratic-liberal philosophy, which many republicans find not only annoying, but dangerous. This will not change. Thus, he is unlike any republican nominee, I've seen over the last forty years.
Interesting how the same old rhetoric keeps appearing from backers of each of the candidates, skewed to favor their "hero". There's no convincing of the hardliners of one campaign to shift to another. Its all too well programmed. Such is politics; and social behavior...
That aside, I have shifted my focus from the Presidential race to battle ground of the congress. So you don't want to vote for McCain; or Romney; or Huckabee... Fine. Regardless of who wins the oval office, the real power is in the Congress. I encourage all conservatives everywhere to fight for the open or incumbant Republican seats in the Senate and House this year. Find your candidate and make sure we can gain some ground in Congress. This is the only way we will be able to reign in a Dem president or a left leaning RINO (which all remaining viable GOP candidates can be accused of being).
Leave the Pres vote blank if you must, but PLEASE vote! Bring the Congress (real power) back!!!
Huckabee voters are no different than anyone else. Whereas they initially would have gone to Romney, they now support McCain, because of his long held status as the front runner (which they gave McCain by destroying Romney in Iowa and New Hampshire). The fact that Huckabee attacks Romney every chance he gets (ie profits bad), also doesn't hurt. The fact is, however, McCain will be unlike most of the more recent republican candidates in that a very large segment of republican voters absolutely hate him. His present positions (forget about his flip-flops) on carbon emissions, a doctor's pay, drug companies, guantanamo, water boarding and reduced earnings for fired workers who take lessor paying jobs, betray a democratic-liberal philosophy, which many republicans find not only annoying, but dangerous. This will not change. Thus, he is unlike any republican nominee, I've seen over the last thirty years.
Laying aside the sarcasm in this article, I think it makes some very good poins, and statistically confirms what I have been saying all along: that most Huckabee supporters would not go to romney if Huck drops out!
Robert
I'm always amazed at how much Joe hates Romney. But another question: Why should people who don't want to vote for McCain "quietly" vote for someone else, while Joe rails against Romney every day? It's laughable for the same guy who says "Romney can win if he can pay to organize party volunteers at a rally" and "his base of support consists of Mormons, talk radio hosts, and people who really, really, hate McCain" to also say "for heaven's sakes, stop whining, stop hyperventilating, and stop all the hyperbolic, Tony-award worthy dramatics."
You don't like Romney. A lot of us don't like McCain. Just because it doesn't look good for our guy doesn't mean we have to stop talking.
I see some big problems for the GOP to win the election this November. You can see from the polling results. Huckabee only commands good polls in the South (less than 20% outside the South). Romney commands meager polls nationally (20 - 30%) as well as conservative radio and pundits. McCain wins the nomination by attrition.
We are seeing the battle for the direction of the Republican party, stemming from the Bush presidency which is an Evangelical presidency. Huckabee would be the continuation of this type of conservatism (active in pushing religious programs, large spending programs like no child left behind, repealing of roe v wade, tax reform but increasing government to push forward evangelical ideals). That is all well and good but it becomes increasingly more difficult to defend these type of policies, which is why talk radio doesn't support McCain or Huckabee. Romney and conservative radio fits more inline with a libertarian conservatism. Its less religiously focused, more on personal and economic freedoms. The states where Romney commands the largest electorate are states in the Rockys where people don't want government messing with them. In this way they advocate less government involvement in our lives - lower taxes and smaller/more effective government. Both sides make reach out to each other, but Bush's policies has made the situation dire for the Repubs. Small government conservatives have trouble supporting these types of policies and candidates.
I don't think these two conservative branches can see eye to eye anymore. We saw in 2006 that smaller government types did not vote and Repubs lost Congress. It is hard to see them coming out and supporting Repubs this November either because the choice is more of the same (bigger government from socialists or bigger government from Evangelicals, in either case its too much government involvement for their tastes). McCain has a huge decision in front of him. Does he take Huckabee to bolster the South and lose talk radio and limited government people, or does he take a Romney type to bring in limited government people at risk of losing the South. Either proposition it is tough to believe the Repubs will energize enough people to come out and vote for them.
The Evangelical movement is what is causing the conservative movement so many problems. Much of their movement's goals are unattainable in the current political environment until conservative judges get appointed. Until then, an Evangelical administration only promises larger government which is why it will never be successful (People trust democrats with bigger government much more than Evangelicals). To achieve Evangelical aims, it will probably be wiser to appeal to limited government types until conservatives control the courts. Since everyone wants power now, it will be next to impossible for Evangelical conservatives and smaller government conservatives to work together. I see a Democrat in control of the White House this coming year because someone is going to feel left behind.
I'm a Romney supporter and I am currently inclined to sit this one out or vote third party.
The sad truth is that the Baptist dominated south would not vote for a Mormon. Now we see the result of this selfish and short-sighted bigotry. We'll have to watch the lying back-stabbing adulterer who tossed his crippled wife and three kids out like garbage for a rich trophy wife on TV sticking those ridiculous stubby little thumbs of his up in the air. All the while grinning like a corpse and thinking, 'no border fence now suckers'.
The other result we witnessed even faster on the morning news; the wrath of God sending those tornadoes down the through south as punishment for not recognizing a true Christian leader like Mitt Romney.
The only reason that money grubbing Huck is not a preacher anymore is he found a better paying job on the government teat.
Joe,
I loved the article. You said everything that needs to be said. You are stating fact and sometimes people don't like the facts and try to spin them. You are saying that the majority are voting for McCain and Huckabee, you are saying that based on fact (election results) not opinion.
I agree totally. I am tired of turning on the news channels just to hear the mediators tell me what I think or believe and how I will vote based on my demographic.
As a born again christian, I sincerely disagree with your analysis.
Sen. McCain is not a friend or an ally to christians. This has been demonstrated time and again by his own statements and actions. If Mike Huckabee is supporting Sen. McCain, then I question his judgement as a christian.
I say this because Sen. McCain supports embryonic stem cell research and though he claims to be against abortion, he has today received the endorsement of "Republicans For Choice". If McCain truly is stanchley anti-abortion, then why would they support him?
I do agree that these "pundits" that you identify were too quick to support Guiliani as a legitimate candidate. I say this because the same group above would have supported Guiliani first.
In truth, we have had no perfect candidates to choose from if you try to pick them from a Biblical World View. We therefore need to look at their history to see whether they truly fit the mold. Since none of them do, then we need divine guidence to point us to the one candidate that would be willing to be directed by God.
I think that as a born again christian, it is wrong for me to assume that a morman should never serve as president of this country. If it is required that a president be a christian, then we have been out of the will of God many times in the history of this country.
I will never forget the first time that I voted for president. it was the election of 1980 and there was much concern among my fellow christians that this country was moving towards its demise. The greatest concern of my pastor and other religious leaders was that we would soon lose our freedoms, including the freedom to worship and evangelize. Several evangelical leaders could not say that Ronald Reagan was a christian. Never did I hear any leader at that time say that it would be immoral to vote for a candidate that was not a christian. Instead we were told to use our Biblical World View to judge the candidates and vote for the one that fit it best. No matter what their party affiliation was! But the one thing that christian leaders saw in Ronald Reagan was a sincere belief that the morals within The Bible were essential in life.
So how about Sen. McCain?
RUSSERT: Do you believe that Jerry Falwell is still an agent of intolerance?
MCCAIN: No, I don’t. I think that Jerry Falwell can explain to you his views on this program when you have him on.
(Back in 2000, when McCain was asked whether he stood by his description of Falwell, he said, “I must not and will not retract anything that I said in that speech at Virginia Beach. It was carefully crafted, it was carefully thought out.” (Hardball, 3/1/00))
MCCAIN (clip, 3/5/00): Gov. Bush swung far to the right and sought out the base support of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. Those aren’t the ideas that I think are good for the Republican Party.
RUSSERT: Do you think that Jerry Falwell’s ideas are now good for the Republican Party?
MCCAIN: I believe that the “Christian Right” has a major role to play in the Republican Party. One reason is because they’re so active and their followers are. And I believe they have a right to be a part of our party. I don’t have to agree with everything they stand for, nor do I have to agree with everything that’s on the liberal side of the Republican Party. If we have to agree on every issue, we’re not a Republican Party. I believe in open and honest debate. Was I unhappy in the year 2000 that I lost the primary and there were some attacks on me that I thought was unfair? Of course.
http://tinyurl.com/3xzzaq
Where in his maya culpa above do you see a contrite or repentant heart concerning his view of born again christians? I see nothing there.
We are in danger of losing our own moral compasses and risking the future of this great country that God has given to us. It is not the responsibility of the unsaved, it is our responsibility as his stewards to preserve it.
One of the things that really grates on me is this assumption by Huckabee's evangelical supporters that he is God's candidate. In essence making support of another candidate into a form of heresy. If Huckabee is God's candidate, he will win and there is nothing anybody will be able to do stop it, but if he loses, what then? Who's the next "God candidate" that evangelicals will have to support?
One of the things that really grates on me is this assumption by Huckabee's evangelical supporters that he is God's candidate.
I'm a conservative Christian supporter of Mike Huckabee and I have NEVER said, claimed, or assumed that Huckabee is "God's candidate".
That is a broad-brush ad hominem smear on Huck's conservative Christian supporters. Please retract and apologize for such a factually wrong statement.
Evangelical Outpost?
What is it that you don't understand about the fact that it will be a cold day in hell before many conservatives will ever pull the lever for McCain or Huckabee. The only thing worse than either of them alone would be to have both of them on the ticket together.
The grumpy old man McCain will become our party's next long term senator who's turn it is to represent the party (ala Bob Dole but with none of the integrity, decency or conservative conviction that Dole possessed). And just like in 1996, McCain will be crushed in the general election, even more so because so many conservatives will stay home or vote against him as a means of sabotage.
All that aside, Huckabee stands absolutely zero chance of winning anything outside the south, because elsewhere there are an insufficient number of religious zealots and/or bigots to vote for him.
May hat's off to those evangelicals who are mature enough to realize that just because someone professes a certain religious belief doesn't necessarily make him fit to be president.
I wonder, was it Christian to turn a murderer loose to kill and maim again? Was it Christian to set up a wedding registry to receive "gifts" (political payback) commensurate with leaving office? Is it Christian to attack another based upon his own personal faith (ala Huckabee on Romney in speeches to "Christian" organizations and through innuendo in the press)? Doesn't the Bible say "by their fruits ye shall know them."
Huckabee's character aside, the only political fruit that will come from his continued candidacy is the further erosion of the conservative coalition of Ronald Reagan. Huckabee's campaign manager has unapologetically declared the death of the Reagan coalition. It is plain that the Huckabee and McCain campaigns are working together to bring about that end (if you don't believe these two are working together, just look at how a first round Romney lead in West Virginia turned into a Huckabee victory on the second ballot after the McCain campaign called delegates on the floor to instruct them to vote for Huckabee).
If McCain and Huckabee succeed in their maneuvering, the Republican Party, of which I have been a lifetime member, will be dead; and I, and I suspect millions of other conservatives, will search for a new political home.
Great notes, Joe.
But missing something -- Rep voters are sick of the Republican ELITES, telling us what's good and important and why we have to support something or other that we don't support.
Both McCain and especially Huckabee are implicitly anti-elite, and it was Romney supporting type elites who failed to cleanse out the Rep Congress and allowed the culture of corruption.
McCain - Huckabee 2008
Plus, unfortunately, far too much emphasis on the Silver Bullet, er, President, and not enough on Congress itself. All pundits do it, and media, and me too.
Sorry Southerner but being a Baptist almost automatically makes you a Mormon Basher. It has been Baptist policy since the 70's.
I just dont get it though. 70 plus percent of the country hated McCain over the Amnesty bill he tried to push and over him calling all that opposed him racist. now we are all supposed to back this A hole as our canidate and expect him to win? Only thing he has going for him is his War Hero status but even that is played out. Have any of you watched the debates? Ask McCain anything you want and he will refer to his Hero status. That isnt going to fix all the issues that face this country.
Huck is a played out fool. All this talk about him being legit is folly. Yes he won most southern states were all the bigotted baptist are and where he was supposed to get big support but look... that barely got him the wins! It has taken three of them to gang up on Romney and then they all cry because Romney runs ads displaying their records. lol This is the Parties future people.
I am tired of wolves in sheeps clothing in our party and i will no longer "hold my nose" when voting. I will instead hope for a third party to vote for or just sit this one out. Thanks, Evangelicals you are the ones to blame!
FYI the real facts:
As of this morning, McCain has earned 615 delegates and 4,220,296 votes; Romney 268 delegates and 3,497,341 votes, and Huckabee 169 delegates and 2,232,530 votes.
Can we debate for a couple more months or do we have to love McCain right now?
All that aside, Huckabee stands absolutely zero chance of winning anything outside the south, because elsewhere there are an insufficient number of religious zealots and/or bigots to vote for him. (Mofarm)
Sorry Southerner but being a Baptist almost automatically makes you a Mormon Basher. It has been Baptist policy since the 70's. ... Huck is a played out fool. All this talk about him being legit is folly. Yes he won most southern states were all the bigotted baptist are and where he was supposed to get big support but look... that barely got him the wins! ... Thanks, Evangelicals you are the ones to blame!" (Scot)
Mofarm, Scot,
You both are utterly unbelievable. How in the world do you make the sweeping generalization in castigating the South, castigating Baptists, and castigating Christians as religious zealots and bigots simply because some/many of them are voting for Huckabee in the GOP primary?
Do you both realize how deeply unintelligent that makes you look?
That is a broad-brush ad hominem smear on Huck's conservative Christian supporters. Please retract and apologize for such a factually wrong statement.
This is the statement I was responding to:
"I'd rather face God and explain why we didn't cut taxes than justify the death of innocent children. I'd rather face God and explain why we provided education to children of illegals than defend the destruction of the family. That's why Huckabee is my candidate."
I have seen many similar statements from Huckabee supporters. As such, I will stand by my statement and ignore your rather overwrought demand for an apology.
Joe-
Great analysis on the two "realities" brother.
I am troubled however that you believe your dislike for Romney's candidacy "has nothing to do with his religion". Since when did religious beliefs (or even lack thereof) become divorced from public policy decisions? Two of your major knocks against Romney were his "integrity" and "ethics", but these two issues are inseparable from his Mormon-influenced views of morality and justice in a fallen world.
How one views the proper relation of man to man, man to nature, and man to God -- in light of sin -- HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH his religion and his politics. We can't pretend that any man's decision is made in an un-spiritual vacuum, and Romney is no exception.
Joe,
I agree that Huckabee's supporters wouldn't necessarily go to Romney, but I also believe Romney supporters would not go to Huckabee. I think there is too much bad blood between the two. Unfortunately McCain is not really a good option for either candidate's supporters either. It is quite possible that many Republicans will vote third party or Democrat instead of supporting McCain.
This is a terrific column, Joe. 100% right on the money, especially the part about Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the talk radio blowhards. As a long time McCainiac, I was elated with last night's results, especially in my home state of California (which was, by the way, a closed Republican primary). But almost as sweet to me is the fact that Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, Savage, Coulter et al now have $#1t all over their faces. Their bark has been shown to be much, much worse than their actual bite. In fact, I believe that they may have actually cost Mitt Romney support with their incessant catterwauling of the past 2 months.
As a Conservative Evangelical Christian, I'm profoundly bothered by the growing sentiment among Christians that have started to take the social gospel into the government ranks. Lest we not forget to render to Caesar what is Caesar's and give to God what is God's, we must not allow ourselves, as a body of believers, to take the Great Commission given to each of us and bestow it's mandate upon government. It is through the heart, mind and spirit of individuals (through the empowerment of the Holy Spirit) that the Gospel is spread, that the hearts and minds of individuals are changed, that poverty is overcome and that needs are met.
How does one glorify God in a profoundly personal way with a loving spirit if he's relying upon taxation to supply governmental aid, to combat poverty and disease and to speak in the voice of truth?
Candidates like Mike Huckabee espouse and live this social gospel through the governmental ranks in abundance. I don't necessarily doubt his desire to love one another and to serve each other with humility, but this is a dangerous path to be taking that we as a church body need to wake up to the direction that we're starting to move.
Mike talks the good talk with the right to life and pro-marriage. The right to life and pro-marriage are important no doubt, and Mike Huckabee is solid in these area, but let's not let it cloud our minds about him that, should we find gain in them with a candidate like Huckabee, we might soften our ability to love graciously and abundantly as a church and instead our glory given to God be replaced with governmental and secular need-meeting entities.
I propose we don't keep the church out of government, but let's keep goverment out of the church.
Romney had no organization in MN? That's funny. They not only had organization, but they got access to the MN Huckabee supporters e-mail addresses and leaned on some of us. (I think I know how they got the e-mail addresses, but won't cast aspersions.) They leaned hard at the caucuses with Mitt's standard line that Huckabee can't win and we should just flip for Mitt.
The other factor in Mitt's favor was the high vote for Ron Paul. From interaction with RP supporters, we know they would vote for Huckabee (as in WV) if RP were out of the Race. RP got a large percentage compared to his normal totals, but then, this *is* the state that elected Ventura.
The good news is that it was only a beauty contest and things can and probably will at the convention. By then Mitt will (hopefully) have thrown in the towel.
I have been a big Romney supporter, contributor, etc.
I will not support McCain...ever. He has shown open hostility to the Republican and Conservative cause since he lost in 2000.
I strongly urge Mitt Romney to drop out at this point and to throw his support to Huckabee. He should uge his delagates to go to Huckabee. This would make Romney the kingmaker and allow us to have the next best conservative as an option in November. He needs to do this right away to stop McCain!
Most of the article is off center. McCain has no chance in the general election. The states that he won that gave him the big delegate lead will all go Democrat in the general election so no electoral votes. Huckabee had to see votes split 3 ways to pull off his wins in the "Bible belt". So Huckabee is done. Doubtful that he can win another state. Plus Romney suffered a Christian backlash in the "Bible belt". People don't want to reference it but he did. Perhaps McCain takes Huckster as a VP thinking he shores up the south that McCain cannot carry on his own (especially against Obama). McCain/Huckabee is a guaranteed loss if Obama is on the ticket in either slot and can only win if they can feed off the Clinton hatred with a wild card Hillary pick as VP. It is still a long shot for Republicans. I'd say 1 in 5 at best. At the end of the day a large portion of informed, conservative loyalist will stay home with McCain/Huckabee or any ticket with McCain at the top. McCain is a loser just as Dole was.
One of the things that really grates on me is this assumption by Huckabee's evangelical supporters that he is God's candidate.
Ucfengr,
The statement that you responded to doesn't give you the logical basis to make your unwarranted leap to an ad hominem generalization and attack upon Huckabee's Christian supporters.
If you don't want to apologize, don't apologize. But please know that you don't have the intellectual, nor logical, nor sound reasoning to make the assertion you did.
David writes: I have been a big Romney supporter, contributor, etc.
I will not support McCain...ever. He has shown open hostility to the Republican and Conservative cause since he lost in 2000.
I strongly urge Mitt Romney to drop out at this point and to throw his support to Huckabee. He should uge his delagates to go to Huckabee. This would make Romney the kingmaker and allow us to have the next best conservative as an option in November. He needs to do this right away to stop McCain!
This is by far the best post of the thread. All Romneyians and anti-McCain true conservatives please do what brilliant David recommends:
I strongly urge Mitt Romney to drop out at this point and to throw his support to Huckabee.
Mike,
You hit the nail on the head when you said the following:
"Candidates like Mike Huckabee espouse and live this social gospel through the governmental ranks in abundance. I don't necessarily doubt his desire to love one another and to serve each other with humility, but this is a dangerous path to be taking that we as a church body need to wake up to the direction that we're starting to move."
It is important for christians to understand that big government is the antithesis of God's plan for human governance. It also runs contrary to what our founding fathers envisioned for this nation. This is why I believe that what Mike Huckabee espouses runs contrary to God's plan for our lives.
The more we look to government to solve our problems, the less we look to God. This was my biggest opposition to Pres. Bush's "compassionate conservative" philosophy. It was not based on a Biblical World View and (I believe) was dangerous to our future. For some reason, christians have not been able to see clearly on this and other issues. This may be because our minds have become so polluted with political correctness that we are beginning to lose our way.
The statement that you responded to doesn't give you the logical basis to make your unwarranted leap to a