Erick, Editor of RedState, penned a post today in which he did not mince words regarding the 2008 GOP presidential field.? The title of Erick’s post: They All Suck.? Says Erick:
“They all suck. Let’s just admit it. Every one of the thus far announced Republican candidates for President sucks. From the lecherous adulterer to the egomaniacal nut job to the flip-flopping opportunist with the perfect hair to the guy who hates brown people to the guy we’ve never heard of to the guy who has a better chance of getting hit by a meteor while being consumed by a blue whale being struck by lightening.
They all suck. (Well, okay, Brownback doesn’t suck at all, but I perceive no viability for his candidacy.)
That is one great benefit George W. Bush has right now. Compared to these guys, W. is the BSD (ask John Derbyshire if you don’t know what that is and it has nothing to do with computers) king titan in charge. There is no one to offer inspiration, excitement, or an articulate defense of conservatism out there.
Part of me, frankly, wants Newt Gingrich to run. Don’t get me wrong (or divorced; my wife can’t stand the guy). I don’t want the former speaker to actually win. I don’t know that I’d trust him with that much power. He is the most articulate, honest defender of conservatism out there. His ideas are bold, they are conservative, and they are good. I don’t agree with him on everything, but it would really be nice for him to get out there and pull everyone else to the right, to tell them why they are wrong, and why they are cowards for standing on the shoulder of Reagan while acting like the Manneken Pis on his legacy.
Reagan’s conservative campaign was preceded by Barry Goldwater. Goldwater was caricatured by the Democrats and media as a spooky wingnut, but his ideas were honest, his defense of freedom legendary, and the simple truths of his conservatism spoke to the honest individualism of the American people. He paved the way for Ronald Reagan. That’s what Newt could do.
But who would be our Ronald Reagan, or in current political vernacular, the Republican Barack Obama? Well, I don’t expect him to appear on the Presidential scene by 2008. In fact, all things being equal, I expect no Republican will be elected President in 2008. But by 2010, I expect our Barack Obama — one who actually has a compelling story *and* qualifications — to rise onto the national scene from the Governor’s Mansion in Louisiana, where Bobby Jindal will be in his second term.
Yes, we just might have to wait that long because right now they all suck.”
Naturally, I disagree with Erick on his characterization of a few of the candidates, including the one candidate Erick believes doesn’t suck, Sam Brownback, who in my view sucks quite sufficiently.? But that is neither here nor there.? The point is, Erick is correct inasmuch as the race for the GOP nomination is free of a candidate who is an orthodox conservative with a pristine personal life?who both excites the GOP base and at least 51 percent of the country.? Such a candidate just isn’t there, and what is left is a carnival of the imperfect.
Yet despite all of that, with the loss of both houses of Congress last November, it is absolutely essential that the GOP hold the White House in 2008.? That’s why Erick’s commentary makes me a tad uneasy.? Yes, to some degree, they all suck.? But statements like, “all things being equal, I expect no Republican will be elected President in 2008″ threaten to send us down a road that I doubt Erick, or most conservatives, even want to begin to contemplate.? As such, let me help to nip it in the bud before yet more conservatives begin to flirt with the idea of losing to win in 2008.
To be sure, I don’t think that Erick is saying that he wants the GOP to lose the White House in ’08.? But his aforementioned pessimism about the GOP’s chances, stated against the backdrop of a discussion about the lack of a potential nominee to get excited about, carries with it a whiff of 1996.? Back then, many conservatives and Republicans didn’t really care so much about winning the White House.? Bob Dole was an old-school Republican who didn’t really seem to understand modern conservatism.? Bill Clinton was governing as a pragmatic centrist.? And a newly-minted GOP Congress was doing most of the heavy lifting in our nation’s capital.? Four more years of Bill Clinton certainly didn’t seem to be the worst thing that could happen to the nation.? And, arguably, those years weren’t half bad.? But this isn’t January of 1995, and 2008 won’t be 1996.
Those Republicans and conservatives ready to throw the GOP nominee to the wolves, whomever he may be, in order to hold out for a more perfect specimen in 2012 are basically prepared to sacrifice our national security, our ground in the GWOT, our economic freedom, and the Supreme Court for a generation.? And all so that they can avoid a GOP president who, let’s be frank, has slept with more women than they’re comfortable with, or who didn’t genuflect to all the right people, or who has held positions, past or present, that are anathema to certain elements of the base.? Put more simply, these superficial considerations — and yes, in the grand scheme of things, they are very superficial — are worth economy-crippling tax rates, the National Health Service, and surrender and appeasement.
Make no mistake.? The absolute worst thing Republicans and conservatives can do in 2008 is to?forget that losing means a Democratic President AND a Democratic Congress.? That means Justice Stevens will be replaced with himself.? That means taxes will go up.? That means we will abandon the Middle East.? That means federal power over your life and your children’s lives will increase.? But that’s okay.? It’s all worth it to avoid the thought of the White House being occupied by a guy?who once had a?Mistress?or a Mormon or a McCain, right?
The second worst thing that we can do in 2008 is to convince ourselves that the White House is lost, but that it’s okay, because we’ll take back Congress.? Sorry, but the chances that the GOP will take back Congress is very slim right now.? We’re defending far more seats in the Senate in 2008 than the Democrats, and 19 of the 30 House seats we lost are located in the northern states and probably aren’t coming back.? It will take more than one election cycle to regain either house of Congress.
Given the frontloading of presidential primaries, the GOP will probably have a presidential nominee in the next 13 or 14 months.? Chances are, there will be something about this nominee that you won’t like.? You may not want to go out and vote for him.? But know this: if you do anything other than support the eventual nominee, each and every policy that comes out of the eventual Democratic government will be laid at your feet.
January 24th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
Both Rudy Guiliani and Mitt Romney are many times more qualified for the job of President than George W. Bush was in 2000, and either one of them would do a better job if he wins the office.
I don’t think most of us remember what a nothing George W. Bush really was before running for President. He had done virtually nothing with his life until the age of 40. His business career was middling until he used his political connections to become an owner of the Texas Rangers. He was a one-term governor of some accomplishment, but he certainly wasn’t a trailblazer. He lacked a long record of achievement; he exhibited little intellectual energy. Let’s face it: even now, he can barely string together a coherent paragraph. I wince every time he opens his mouth extemporaneously.
We are choosing from among real people for the nomination. There’s never a perfect candidate.
January 24th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Well said DaveG. Electability has become practically my primary concern. I’m a well known Romney supporter, but if at some point I become convinced that he is unelectable, I am fully prepared to switch my support to Giuliani (I can’t visualize as of yet a scenario where “Mr. Surge” McCain is electable while Romney isn’t). And I will do everything within my power (which admittedly isn’t much) to promote that candidate and steer people away from deathtraps like Brownback, Hunter, and Tancredo.
January 24th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Agreed that Mitt and Rudy are both far more accomplished. There’s no one out there who catches every box that I’d like to see checked off, but that’s been true of every election in my whole life.
January 24th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
There’s been a lot of talk recently about revamping the primaries one way or another. Has anyone enteretained the notion of doing runoffs or multiple votes (1st, 2nd, 3rd choice)? That way would allow people to vote their conscience, yet rally to a backup concensus candidate when it comes to that. I think it is a terrible waste that so many experienced politicians and their supporters put so much effort into gaining a nomination, yet when they lose, their momentum is not carried over into the general election.
January 24th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
Well said, Dave. This could bear repeating for the next, oh, 22 months or so.
January 24th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
I for one believe McCain is the most electable candidate. He is a candidate that most centrists and Independents would be willing
to vote for. Rudy carries to much baggage, though I’d vote for him in a heartbeat, he is an easy target.
January 24th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
He’s right. Its going to be Huckabee.
January 24th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
DaveG,
Fair points and thanks. I will be supporting the nominee and I hope RedState will stay out of the way and really let the voters decide the matter without a lot of front page pile on — I’m more focused on defeating Freshman House Dems.
But, I do think there really is no exciting candidate right now. And there are a lot of people who have been making the 1996 comparison to me. I don’t think that is fair because in 1996, Dole was pretty much a foregone conclusion, even with a multi-person primary. There’s just a lot of blah out there.
I lean toward Romney, but frankly, Guiliani excites me more, but I can’t spell the man’s name right.
January 24th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
LOL. I’m sure he’d be fine with it if we all just stuck to “Rudy.”
January 24th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
I’ll try it!
January 24th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
On a un-related note, take the pledge! http://truthlaidbear.com/thenrscpledge/index.php
January 24th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
DaveG,
I wouldnt worry so much if I were you.
Democrats will do a better job on national security than the Bush administration has done – how could they do worse? They will rebulid our alliances and focus on that forgotten war, you know, the one against the people who did 9//11.
Taxes wont really go up much – probably just back to the levels that they were during the greatest economic expansion in our nations history – yielding, once again, a balanced budget. There was a time that Republicans used to care about such things, before, apparantly, their own personal greed started trumping their concern for the tax burden their children will have to endure.
Federal power will probably decrease over your lives, with the marginalization of the religous right, so your libertarian streak will be happy. Ditto for judges – you are right that Dem judges will be different than the ones Bush gave us – we will see ever more individual rights recognized in law – how can that possibly be a bad thing for anyone who loves freedom?
My advice is to go gracefully into that dark night, find your way back into communication with the American people, assimilate the progress that our society has undergone, and come back in a few years with a whole new perspective.
January 24th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
“Ditto for judges – you are right that Dem judges will be different than the ones Bush gave us – we will see ever more individual rights recognized in law – how can that possibly be a bad thing for anyone who loves freedom?”
Oh brother. One has to admire the naivety that goes into the notion that the constitution isn’t, contrary to all indications, intended to mean what it says, but is rather meant to be some sort of blank slate where judges write whatever new rights happen to strike their fancy. What in the world makes you believe that a “living constitution” is only allowed to “live” in one direction? It doesn’t work that way. Until recently, you living constitutionalists had stripped defendants of their constitutionally guaranteed right to confront their accuser (primarily in rape cases). The standards they set varied, but either the defendant could be entirely denied this right (where the judge merely had to decide that the victim’s testimony was “reliable”), or the victim could give their testimony behind a screen or on a television set. These justices apparently didn’t “value” defendants’ rights and so felt free to ignore them. Unconscionable.
January 24th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
Gee Matt, i dont really know what you are talking about.
I do think that the Constitution means what it says. I think you conservatives have a totally screwy understanding of what the constitution says, and what the entire American revolution was all about.
To be brief. The American revolution substituted the notion of an inherintly free people, granting limited power to their government, for the traditional view (going back to the cavemen) that the government (or rulers of any kind) granted (or didnt grant) rights to the people.
You understand the difference? Our freedom, our rights do not come from Government. They are inherint. Or, to use the religious phraseology – they are an endowment from the creator.
The conservative notion that a right does not exist unless it can be pointed to in the Constitution is, in essenece, a rejection of the founding principles of this country.
No. We the free people have rights inherintly. And we grant to government certain limited powers. THAT is what you need to go to the Constituion to find. You find a passage that gives the government the power to limit our rights in some area, then that limitation is ok.
You do not go to the constitution to find rights. Having rights is the default condition. That is why we have a right to travel, for instance. It is not written in the Constitution. And if Scalia and Thomas were to agree to a law that forbid you to travel, then maybe you would begin to understand.
January 24th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
As I look over the nominees from both parties, it amazes me how little real managerial experience they have.
What has Hillary Clinton ever done in the real world? Obama same deal. Edwards had the same occupation of
both Hillary and Obama. The biggest organization McCain has ever run is a Senate office.
There is one word that defines Romney and Giuliani and sets them apart from the other canidates:
COMPETENCE!!
Right now Romney takes the cake on competence. You think we have problems with terrorism. Wait until
the baby boomers start retiring and racking up trillions in Medicare expenses. That issue alone will
bankrupt America. It is goint to take some major shifts in entitlement spending to stop the problem.
Romney has the intellect to put together a plan to fix it. Name me one other canidate who has the experience
and smarts to do that.
January 24th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
Matt,
And as to your specifics, maybe you could expound a bit more.
I agree there is a right to confront accusers, and it must be respected.
I dont think that testifying by tv, or behind a screen is problematical, if it serves further security needs, and the defense can cross examine.
Maybe you could also flesh out your ideological charges against the “living constitution”. The only major case recently that I am (vaguely) aware of that touched on the confrontation clause was one that was decided for the accused, unanimously, in the SC. You have any specific beefs?
January 24th, 2007 at 10:53 pm
“What has Hillary Clinton ever done in the real world?”
?
I thought she was co-president for eight years.
January 24th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
Ben,
The biggest organization McCain has ever run is a Senate office.
Um. You do know that currently McCain is running a nationwide organization that consists of several dozen staffers…
January 25th, 2007 at 12:04 am
Tano,
You and I clearly have very different views of the constitution. You appear to be of the “Island of Power surrounded by a sea of rights” school of thought. I think you mistake not only the purpose of the American Revolution, but the purpose of the creation of the constitution itself. The Articles of Confederation were abandoned precisely because the limited power bestowed upon the government was incapable of dealing with all of the various exigencies of a Republic. Broad powers were THE central component of the constitutional debate. Madison, Hamilton, and Jay wrote scores of letters detailing this. The idea that somehow there are any number of “rights”, floating off in the ether, just waiting to be discovered by some enterprising judge, is antithetical to the very notion of broad powers. I might add, it’s also antithetical rights themselves. You cannot subscribe to the notion that “rights” can expand and contract, with the changing mores of society, and believe in rights in any real sense of the word. When everything is conceivably a right, nothing is.
Now, as to the 6th amendment in particular, here is the relevant clause “[shall enjoy the right] to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” It’s very clear. Even moreso when one examines the history of the amendment. The right to be confronted by “witnesses against him” meant just that. The right to confront your accuser, face to face. In fact, oddly enough, the definition of confrontation is “The bringing of persons face to face” (OED). It did not mean that, in certain types of cases, they could forgoe the confrontation entirely if the judge determined it justifiable. It did not mean that the accuser could deliver testimony behind a screen, or from an entirely different location over a video. In Washington v. Crawford, the Court, in an opinion written by Scalia, overruled a previous decision which had allowed a 3rd party to present testimony if the accuser was unavailable, provided the judge determined the testimony had a “idicum of reliability” or “particularized guarantees of trustworthiness”. Neither the constitution, nor common law, had anything whatever to say about these terms. They never carved out exceptions of this nature. As Scalia put it, “the only indicium of reliability sufficient to satisfy constitutional demands is the one the Constitution actually prescribes: confrontation.” And yes, you’re quite right, the result was unanimous, but the original stripping of rights had been accomplished under the auspices under what can only be termed the living constitution, which decides which rights ought to be respected, which ought to be created out of whole cloth, and which ought to be utterly ignored on the basis of the arbitrary whims of robed men. So, don’t expect that your living constitution is going to always lead to greater and greater privileges. You’ll be quite surprised one day when a extremely conservative living constitutionalist appears, and rather then insisting that the constitution doesn’t say anything about abortion, because, well, it doesn’t, that in fact, hidden in the margins, is a constitutionally protected right to life for the unborn. Or when he wants to “live” the First amendment back into the stone age, because he believes it “represents the evolving standards of decency that are the hallmark of mankind”. I honestly fall on the floor and laugh hysterically when I read new pronouncements like this “[the text should be] a sparkling vision of the supremacy of the human dignity of every individual”. They’re at once so unsupportable and fantastically useless that one has no choice but to douubt the idea that judges are meant to “say what the law is” and suspect that they ought to be writing poems instead.
January 25th, 2007 at 12:11 am
Tano,
“Democrats will do a better job on national security than the Bush administration has done – how could they do worse? They will rebulid our alliances and focus on that forgotten war, you know, the one against the people who did 9//11.”
I can’t disagree with that statement more. First, Democrats have no plan at all for national security or the war on Terror. They done nothing but play Monday morning QB. What is the plan they have with Iraq or the War on Terror? Cut & run is the only thing that I’ve heard. Where is a plan for victory. They are so eager to quit and wimp out when the bullets start flying and the going gets a little tough. Didn’t most Democrats vote for the Iraq war? They don’t support the Patriot Act to help keep us safe by taking a proactive, preemptive stance. They oppose the tracking of finances of know terrorist suspects. The oppose stronger border restrictions. They oppose, they oppose.. What is their solution? They have none.
As for rebuilding alliances that is a joke. You forget that we had 8 years of Clinton and got our three embassies in Africa bombed along with the USS Cole. Clinton did not handle Kim Jong Ill right either which is the Forgotten War (Korea) and now we have a bigger mess. Our enemies know that most Democrats would take the military option off the table while negotiating. The know we are weak and they would lie & break treaties and contracts with little repercussion.
Democrats may have the advantage over Republicans on some domestic issues, however the Republicans have the national security issue hands down.
January 25th, 2007 at 1:09 am
Matt,
I think your analysis of the 6th amendment case is a bit simplistic.
First off, and most relevant to this thread, the fact that the case was eventually resolved unanimously should calm your fears of what Democrat-appointed judges will do in matters like this. Whatever the reason for the lower court rulings, this case argues against your fear that democrats on the SC would erode this right.
Secondly – as to the dispute, and your simplistic discussion of it. The fact is that most of the interesting legal cases are complicated and difficult because they present instances in which fundamental rights are in conflict. It is of no use to point to the explicit wording of one principle if the case in question fundamentally revolves around a conflict between two principles.
That is why no right, no matter how explicit, is ever absolutely universally applied. We have free speech – it is actually enumerated in the Constitution, and is done so in as explicit and unambiguous manner possible. And yet, we do have laws that restrict speech – laws against treason, against libel and slander, and against shouting fire in a theatre (that is not in fact on fire).
In the cases of rape, there is a need at times to protect the victim. It is simply a fact of life that certain instances can arise where justice cannot be served by a face to face confrontation. Deciding the case in one way may impinge the right under the confrontation clause, but to rule the other way may lead to an inability for a victim to secure redress for a crime that they are a victim of. This is a conflict between two principles. Judges are called upon to decide such cases, and it is not in any way predictable how a judge will rule, based soley on their adherence to a “living constitution” or strict construction.
I repeat this point, to drive it home. Strict construction is not a magic bullet to resolve real world cases when the case presents elements that are directly relevant to two different principles, each of which may lead to a different conclusion. The judge must decide, which principle gets strictly constructed, and which one gets fudged. The last resort, as a standard, is a sense of justice – a notion that so many conservatives have seemed to write out of their ethical toolbox.
This is what real world legal cases are like. IF they were simple, and if each case directly related to only one underlying principle, then you could have a computer decide cases.
January 25th, 2007 at 1:15 am
Matt,
And on the question of my understanding of the Constitution, the founders, and the Revolution, I offer you the words of Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison. The issue they discuss is the question of whether there should even be a Bill of Rights – both were opposed, by the way, although Madison eventually agreed and actually ended up drafting the Bill. The discussion goes straight to my point about the inherint rights of citizxens.
Hamilton first: (from Federalist 84)
“I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it, was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.”
Madison, in a letter to Jefferson:
“It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration, and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the general government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the 4th resolution.”
What he refers to are provisions that became the ninth amendment.
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
I dont see how you can be more explicit than that, Mr. Strict Constructionist.
January 25th, 2007 at 1:36 am
cwpete,
I beg to differ.
How can you claim that the Dems would take the military option off the table? When this country was attacked the Congress voted to go to war against the Taliban and al-Q in Afghanistan. The Senate (in control of the Democrats) voted for that authorization by a vote of 99-0. In the House, it was 420-1. I dont rec all a single voice from any Democrat, in the ensuing 5 years, that has called for any withdrawl, or backing off of the effort against the people who actually attacked us.
The disputes over military action all involve the war in Iraq. As I am sure you well know, Iraq was the one country in the entire region that had the least infiltration or any sort of support for al-Qaeda. The effort we undertook there was wholly a function of the neocon fantasy, that setting up a democracy in that country was somehow going to secure the region, and thus, in some way I never quite understood, do damage to al-Q.
Most rational people now recognize how foolish an idea that was. It was an utter and complete diversion from the actual war on Islamic jihadis, and it has tied us down in a chaotic sectarian civil war. Yes, there are now al-Q elements that have moved into this chaos in order to take potshots at us, and to further tie us down – giving them relatively free rein elsewhere. Like Afghanistan, where they control to this day the southern border regions.
The desire to leave Irsq is not a function of wimpiness, but arises from an understanding that we are accomplishing nothing there, or very little, in terms of securing our own interests, and paying a very high price for it.
The lack of judgement demonstrated by the Bush administration, by defining Iraq as a central fron in a war that had nothing to do wiht Iraq, and the lack of judgement by people like you who have given blind support to that policy for almost 4 years now, means that Republicans should not be let anywhere near the levers of power for a very long time – until they are able to assimilate the lessons of this crazy endeavor.
If history is any judge, the lessons will not be learned, and we will end up with another bunch of “lost causers” (like after Vietnam), who lack the integrity to admit mistakes.
As to your snark about rebuilding alliances – I really dont know the relevance of pointing the bombing of our embassies. In what way did those incidents give insight into any failings of diplomacy, or any lack of alliances?
January 25th, 2007 at 8:35 am
Tano,
We’ll just have to agree to disagree here. I don’t for the life of me see the majority of Democrats standing up strongly strongly for our national interests. I see them as weak on the national security issue. I see them negotiating forever more till the cows fly home or till we get attacked as we did on 9/11. I see the giving up too many our our bargaining chips to thugs at the negotiating table who don’t reciprocate the good will back to us (North Korea is an excellent recent example of this).
These next few years will be interesting. Now that they have control over congress, they will actually have to take ownership of issues. One party has a plan, the other does not. One party realizes that there are terrorists that can never be negotiated with, the other does not.
I’m disappointed that most democrats want out of the Iraq War after voting with Bush to get us into Iraq. Mistakes have been made, yes. But there is far too much at stake to cut & run now. Iraq is not a total loss as it has been made out to be by the partisan media. If we fail here now, Iraq and the whole Middle East a mess for another 2 or 3 generations. If we are successful, the Middle East could change for the better. I perceive that the Democrats want is to lose big-time in Iraq for short term political purposes.
I would respect the Dems a great deal more if they offered a plan for victory verses a plan for defeat. After all, the vast majority of them agreed with Bush on Iraq and voted to allow him to go into Iraq.
January 25th, 2007 at 9:02 am
I couldn’t have said it better myself, Dave. Once liberal policies are implemented, you can’t get rid of them. That is why we still have the Great Society intact, the Dept of Education, etc. We can’t afford to give the White House away hoping for our Prince Charming to ride in. As Rummy put it (sort of) “You go into elections with the candidate that you have, not the candidate that you want.”
January 25th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Was Huckabee one of the hated candidates?
January 25th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
The worst thing we (Republicans) could do would be to nominate someone who can’t beat Hillary or Obama or even Edwards – someone like Brownback, Gingrich or Huckabee are sure fire losers and losers by a wide margin. I’m worried that GOP primary voters may follow the logic of nominating a “true” conservative to stick to their “values” even if that means losing the Whitehouse. The Democrats did this in the period from LBJ to Clinton – nominating candidates like McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis – who all went down in flames, losing 40+ states each election. Anyone who thinks the media leans left, just wait for the 2008 cycle to get going – the media is going to do EVERYTHING they can, more than they’ve done in the past, to get a Democrat in the Whitehouse. We need someone who can overcome this – a guy like Guliani is the perfect choice. Electability has to be at the top of the list of factors GOP primary voters use to decide on a candidate – that’s much more important than a candidates stance on social issues.
January 25th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Huckabee is more likely to beat Hillary than you think, the interesting thing about him is he has already beat her team when he ran in Arkansas and they all came down to run the campaign for his opponent in 2002. Bill has and Hillary have both come to Arkansas to campaign against him and he has won handily every time. This is in the state where Bill was considered to be the king. Huckabee has the ability to wow crowds and his message his strong along with his record.
I think A Huckabee vs. Hillary contest would be great for the republicans because Huckabee can win.
McCain will not be able to beat her, and neither will Mitt. Rudy, can win the nomination.
Just some thoughts, but don’t count Huckabee out just yet.
January 25th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
Running one of the big three against Hillary would be like fighting fire with fire. Going back to a REAL conservative is the BEST thing to do after eight years of the phony Bush 43. If a phony like Bush could beat a die-hard like Kerry just think of how well Huckabee will do.