This past cycle we witnessed one of the longer primary fights in recent history, as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton waged an epic contest, that was extremely close and competitive. Many in the pundit class (most firm apologists for Obama) whined at length that the long primary would hurt the party’s chances in the fall campaign, that the GOP and John McCain would benefit, and that the primary should be prematurely ended for the sake of party unity.
Of course these calls for the contest to end were without merit, and after all was said and done the long primary helped the party register thousands upon thousands of voters and caused the candidates to spend weeks, even months in some states where they otherwise would not have focused as much time or resources. This long process left McCain and the GOP struggling just to get noticed, as the press and country at large was consumed with the dramatic primary battle. Considering that the primary is nearly 2 years long while the general election is a mere 2 months following the conventions, it is the real time in which impressions about candidates and ideas are made. 2012 will be the first time in this new media era where the GOP will have an open primary and the national stage all to themselves (In 2000, Bush was an overwhelming front-runner, and that contest still predates the blog/youtube era). It will be the first and perhaps only time during his term that President Obama will be secondary in the media’s coverage. This reality will give the GOP a chance to truly rebuild grassroots efforts, raise unprecedented amounts of money, and register many new voters. It will allow us to speak to independents and blue dog democrats who otherwise may not pay attention to our primaries. I believe this longer campaign will be essential in the effort to re-brand the party, to give the public a long battle of ideas with new (well newish) faces.
The early polling indicates a 6-way race between Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal, Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, and Ron Paul( or due to his age, someone similar carrying the banner for libertarians). Others, such as Jon Huntsman, Mark Sanford, and Tim Pawlenty may join them as well. However, considering the history of the party, and the limited number of top advisers, organizers, and strategists, our nominee is going to be one of those first four and to a lesser extent the first six. I believe it is beneficial to our eventual nominee to see that 6-way race continue on in the fashion of Obama v. Clinton, minus the ad hominem attacks. The long race will allow us to dominate the coverage early on, and help us to control the debate, while uniting in attacks on the president’s record. As the race goes on and the field narrows, our candidates will grow in stature, benefiting from a war of attrition, and will be percieved as stronger than if the race had ended on Super Tuesday.
I believe these six candidates can and will give us a great debate, aided by a few others, and we as a party will benefit from all of their participation. This is not a group of Hunter’s or Tancredo’s hopelessly crowding the field. Even though many believe Speaker Gingrich and Congressman Paul can’t win the nomination, I feel they are important regardless. They are both very intelligent men with strong conservative ideas. Someone like Sarah Palin will benefit having debated the likes of these two. I don’t want to watch debates with questions like ‘what is your favorite Bible passage’ when we could be having a real debate about healthcare and education. This group will help ensure such a debate finally happens.
The time for orderly succession is over, and a battle of ideas is what we now need. May the best man (or woman) win.
February 28th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
I am for a shorter, more expedited process where conservatives can quickly unite around a frontrunner and lesser candidates can stand down and “wait their turn” and avoid the impending bloodbath and circular firing squads.
February 28th, 2009 at 9:43 pm
“They are both very intelligent men with strong conservative ideas. Someone like Sarah Palin will benefit having debated the likes of these two.’
Great, great point Max, Newt needs to run just to force the level of discourse away from the inane.
February 28th, 2009 at 9:47 pm
1
A Mitt & Mike coalition ends the race before it begins, no circular firing squads; plus it gives Bobby a chance to learn to speak and Sarah a chance to accomplish something before 2016.
February 28th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Sorry to dis-appoint many, but you must eliminate many of the current top contenders. And it is likely we will have an orderly succession, like it or not.
Mitt Romney: Top Contender
Bobby Jindel: 8-12 years away, but is part of the future
Sarah Palin: Also not ready, 8-12 years away. Regardless of what the fanatics think
Mike Huckabee: Not this time, has too many fences to mend, and hasn’t even tried
Gingrich: Great Idea man, but not a presidential candidate.
Ron Paul: Million to 1 odds, just not going to happen
Mark Sanford: Sleeper Pick, but currently not well known
Tim Pawlenty: To much of a RINO, see McCain
Others: Who knows.
History favors Romney, but Sanford has a chance.
February 28th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
Reply to Mac (3): For the Parties sake, a Mitt/Mike coalition would go a long ways to uniting the Party, and would give Huckabee a chance of being president some day.
February 28th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
[...] is telling us to hunker down for a long campaign between the top 6 finishers at CPAC: The early polling indicates a 6-way race between Mitt [...]
February 28th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
5
Thunder,
yep
February 28th, 2009 at 9:59 pm
Can anyone doubt that 2012 will be the most important election for the GOP in decades?
This party doesn’t have a leader, and 2012 will most likely decide that leader.
The stakes are incredibly high, because the election will set a tone for the future of the conservative movement. We need to nominate a quality person, a real thinker, a true leader. Even if that person loses, I want him or her to run a first-class campaign that will demonstrate that conservatives have brains, competence, ideas, heart, and passion.
2008 was probably the worst GOP campaign of my lifetime, and I don’t want us to repeat that.
I think a long and rigorous debate in 2012 will be good for the GOP; it will weed out the mediocrity.
February 28th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
Reply to 8. Flip Dixon.
Obviously, you are young and don’t remember the election of Jimmy Carter. They were saying the same things back then, and all we got out of that was Ronald Reagan. Some times its darkest before the dawn.
Obama is repeating the same mistakes (and worse) that Carter did.
February 28th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
I am not opposed to a long contest in and of itself, a long contest did in deed help the Democrats in the end. I still think it is a three and a half way race for now. People can jump up and down all they want and scream that Mrs. Palin is not ready, but as long as she can get a camp together, she is in the game. Mr. Jindal is not in the game, at least for now and Mr. Sandford has no serious path to victory in either the primary or the general election. He may be doing a good job as Governor, but he is not a charismatic speaker and does not have the demographic recipe to overcome this. Now that Mr. Romney gave a great speech at CPAC, Mr. Sandford is in even more trouble. There may be several candidates that enter the race, but only 3 or 4 are in the game.
February 28th, 2009 at 10:08 pm
“Obama is repeating the same mistakes (and worse) that Carter did.” That certainly looks to be the case so far.
February 28th, 2009 at 10:16 pm
bobby jindal finished second without even showing up and despite the hit he took this week. he is also consistently second to romney on intrade. it makes sense for jindal to run in 2012 to set up 2016. that way he doesnt have to be a governor, because like mitt and huck he will be a national figure and can operately free of the burden of office. plus jindal would be a top choice for VP, and running now will help his VP prospects.
February 28th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
In 2012, I see Mitt & Mike winning all the states that W won in 2004, plus possibly WI, MI, and PA.
February 28th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
I’ve said it before Mitt will wrap this up by Nov 2011 (unless he forgoes Iowa which would be a mistake).
February 28th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
#14 Heath,
How many times in the primary era has a non-incumbent party decided its nominee before the primary season?
Never. It’s never happened.
He very likely could win, but he won’t wrap it up before the primaries start.
February 28th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
Well said Robbie Borchik. It is nice that there are people like you who do not have their heads in the sand.
February 28th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
#4 Thunder,
Tim Pawlenty is a RINO? He may not be the absolute perfect conservative, but how is he a RINO?
February 28th, 2009 at 11:20 pm
Romney and Jindal are very similar. I think that Jindal will give it a little more time (he’s only 37 for goodness sakes), and perhaps he’ll be tapped as Mitt’s VP in 2012 in order to craft a long-term conservative run. Sanford will probably run and severely diminish Huckabee (along with Palin–although Palin won’t gain widespread traction I think).
That’s what I see shaping up. Huckabee has his weekly variety show, but has burned too many bridges in the conservative movement. Romney is mending fences and stretching out wire. His network will be vast and efficient by primary time 2012.
I’ve said it before: Romney:2012::Regan:1980.
February 28th, 2009 at 11:26 pm
[...] the CPAC Strawpoll Mean? February 28, 2009 10:26 pm Adam Graham Republicans Max is telling us to hunker down for a long campaign between the top 6 finishers at CPAC: The early polling indicates a 6-way race between Mitt Romney, [...]
February 28th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
Can you provide a past example of a Pres-VP team running together in the primaries? (That is what you’re proposing, isn’t it?)
Can you offer any reason why Huckabee would do it?
Can you offer any reason we should believe that? I’m not saying it can’t happen (for that matter, Ron Paul may be nominated and pull off a fifty-state sweep), but do you have any basis other than your wishes? Personally, I don’t have a clue what’s going to happen in 2012.
February 28th, 2009 at 11:37 pm
Just as the Dems played against the sitting president, the GOP candidate will run against the sitting congress as much as he will run against BHO’s handling of the economy, and handing out money to his leftist supporters. That may also include running against the sitting GOP members that were part of the mailaise of the past 8 years. It will be a pocket book election and one where the electorate will look for experience more than change for change’s sake.
Free and Strong will play a strong part in highlighting the foundation of the true conservatives in congress.
Interesting not to hear more about Eric Cantor.
February 28th, 2009 at 11:57 pm
22
BobH ,
Bob, thanks for asking,
Regarding your first two questions, No and (yes), but we just witnessed something unprecendented in 2008 didn’t we?
“Can you offer any reason why Huckabee would do it?”
In a word, pragmatism. Most of the folks who support Mike don’t have money to give to politicians. That makes for tough going, especially in a place like FL and doublely so with Palin out there. If he’s assured the #2, it’s a job no one turns down.
In 2012, I see Mitt & Mike winning all the states that W won in 2004, plus possibly WI, MI, and PA.
Can you offer any reason we should believe that? I’m not saying it can’t happen (for that matter, Ron Paul may be nominated and pull off a fifty-state sweep), but do you have any basis other than your wishes?
Based on the election results of 2008, and I think the newly released CNN poll reinforces this, Mike is uniquely qualified to do well in places and demographics where Mitt might struggle and vice versa for Mitt. Ron Paul won nothing but Internet polls.
Personally, I don’t have a clue what’s going to happen in 2012.
No crystal balls here, either. But I do have some evidence to substantiate my claims.
March 1st, 2009 at 12:18 am
[...] Mean? Posted by Adam Graham in : It’s Too Early for Presidential Race 2012 Max is telling us to hunker down for a long campaign between the top 6 finishers at CPAC: The early polling indicates a 6-way race between Mitt Romney, [...]
March 1st, 2009 at 12:34 am
Effectively wrap it up like Bush in 2000.
March 1st, 2009 at 12:43 am
Cool, how about we just run a 6 man ticket?
Romney – Pres. of Economics
Jindal – Pres. of Reform
Palin – Pres. of Hotness
Huckabee – Pres. of the South.
Gingrich – Pres. of Ideas.
Paul – Pres. of the Wacko Wing.
March 1st, 2009 at 12:53 am
I think we should have the longest primary race possible. It gives a nominee training for the general election campaign, and it will let a candidate organize in as many states as possible. Take Obama in IN for example. He had a well-oiled machine in place in the Hoosier State from the primaries and it really helped him turn Indiana blue in November. Imagine if we could do that in a state like ME or CT, which are just as blue as Indiana was red.
March 1st, 2009 at 1:04 am
Disagree completely Max; if this thing isn’t over by the end of the Potomac primary, I’m calling the race for Obama barring something external happening; the difference between McCain in 2008 and Obama in 2012 is that McCain was, as much as I love the guy, lazy as hell after Super Tuesday and when Obama officially clinched the nomination. Obama is not going to be lazy, in fact he’s already campaigning for re-election right now.
March 1st, 2009 at 1:28 am
Look at the track record, since when has CPAC’s strawpoll been an accurate predictor of anything? The only valuable point of interest that I got from it was that Romney’s support has eroded significantly. Thank goodness – maybe plastic-man will save his money, spare us further grief, & sit the next one out
It makes me crazy to read people talking about Romney as if he has more than a snowball’s chance. He broke Reagan’s 11th commandment repeatedly and made the primaries ugly & vicious – distracting the discussions from substance to feed the media appetite for controversy (& any opportunity to make Republicans look bad).
The man is unlikeable, uncharismatic, untrustworthy, represents everything that the average middle American voter detests right now & likely still will in 2012. He played his religion like Obama & the race card. And even though the polls showed that most Americans didn’t know he was Mormon & didn’t care, the media played that for all it was worth because they knew the polls showed Romney would get creamed by either Democrat nominee.
Go back & look at the polls during the primaries – this is not just my opinion, but that of a great many people. The more people got to know him, the more they disliked him. And his money can’t buy their love.
No, Romney’s chance has come & gone – you guys need to find someone to root for that doesn’t make the average voter have to hold their nose or squirm with embarrassment for supporting. Someone capable of articulating conservative principles in an appealing & persuasive way.
March 1st, 2009 at 2:22 am
That’s a really nice picture of Sarah!
March 1st, 2009 at 6:57 am
I think Mitch Daniels should be pictured on the left hand side.
2012 is going to be the year the moderates rule with Romney, Hunstman and Daniels – all one million times more electable than Sarah.
March 1st, 2009 at 8:44 am
Those of you who say Mitt Romney is plastic man obviously have never met or spoke with him personally. Your are so far off base it isn’t even comprehensible. Mitt Romney was raised with a successful Dad who taught him valuable life’s lessons…he is self-made and prepared himself with a desire for success. That is spelled WORK!!! He knows administration and how to do turnarounds, he is a good businessman and we should be so lucky to have him and Ann in OUR White House…….
March 1st, 2009 at 9:02 am
Have you ever seen Mitt with hair all messy bouncing grand kids 3 or 4 or more at a time playing rough and tough?? Go to his pac and check out the pictures…..He is real and just prefers to look professional…. The only one beside Rush that had USA chanted for him and many standing O’s….Mitt is quality and No One will convince me different…….
March 1st, 2009 at 11:58 am
Although I remain officially undecided as yet for 2012, it is becoming clear to me that we must get behind a front runner fast, someone who is next in line. At this point, although I like many of the other candidates, I think that it is becoming increasingly evident that it might be Mitt’s turn and he should be rewarded for being next in line and also because he will have fewer opportunities to run post 2012 due to age.
March 1st, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Okay, let me clarify – I know nothing about Romney personally & he may well be what you really see in those family pix rather than them being calculated stage props. I’m talking about what Romney projects to the public as a businessman & a politician. And it doesn’t matter how convinced you are or are not of his qualities if the majority of Americans see him differently.
He fits all the negative stereotypes about Republicans, he is not articulate or charismatic & he most certainly is not innovative – he looks at what others have done successfully & imitates. Which may work as a business model, but this is so totally NOT what America needs right now & there is nothing appealing about him to the average American.
Like I said, Romney’s electability stinks & apparently even a significant portion of CPAC’s out-of-the-loop conservatives (who are still locked into the us-vs-them mentality that may profit commentators & pundits, but is seriously tearing our country apart) have figured it out since his numbers in the straw poll are way down from last year.
Romney has the most negatives, but unless things change, Palin is in a similar boat (& unlike Romney, I actually like Palin & think she would be a good prez) — she’s likely to still be too polarizing & needs to work on her ability to articulate her positions more coherently.
And while there is much that I admire in Newt Gingrich & he has many positive qualities, I believe he would be too polarizing – and I’m not so sure that he would make a good prez (but as an advisor – top notch!).
I agree that Jindal DOES look promising, what he has done for LA has been awesome, but omigosh is he green – he’s not ready to play with all those jackals & wolves yet.
Sure you can line up behind your pet pol, but ignoring where middle America is at is what got us into this shutout (‘next in line so he should be rewarded’? Oy, Bob Dole redux. Making a mistake is not necessarily stupid — unless you refuse to learn from it. No one “deserves” the presidency, you earn it by winning over the American people)…
March 1st, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Grace,
You are obviously clueless and biased. Let me tell you something, when I spoke to Mitt he was very articulate and charismatic. He lit up the room with enthusiasm and was supremely courteous and thoughtful.
That quote right there shows me just how clueless you are about both Mitt and successful business people. Perhaps this is why Huckabee never got very much money: his supporters have no clue about how to run a successful business, and think that copycat tactics are actually successful. People who actually read the hundreds of pages of Romney’s policy statements (like myself) know how innovative and agile Mitt is.
Patently false. Romney did the best he could to not talk about religious doctrine, but values. The only time he even acknowledged his religion was when he said that part of the reason why he didn’t win Iowa was because he “didn’t have a network of pastors and congregations” working for him. Contrast that to Huckabee who would regularly play the religion card in speaking to congregations and through surrogate campaigners who attacked Romney based on wildly distorted religiously motivated defamatory assaults.
No, perhaps Mitt will or will not be the best candidate in 2012, but to perseverate in biased ignorance is simply inexcusable (even if you are a Huckabite).
March 1st, 2009 at 11:15 pm
Like I said, your personal perception means nothing unless the rest of the voters see what you see. Insulting me – insulting Huckabee – does nothing to fix Romney’s inability to project sincerity nor his blatantly calculated tactics. (Interesting display of the whole elitist thing that is precisely why the average voter finds Romney so repulsive, however)
And I’m sure that Romney’s Mormon connections had nothing to do with his winning Utah, lol! Pot – kettle – black. Bet Romney would’ve converted to evangelicalism if it could’ve won him Iowa! Look at where his “devout Mormonism” went when he was running for governor of Mass. – ‘Vote for me! I’ll be whoever you want me to be! I can be more liberal than Teddy!’
BTW, I do like Huckabee & do believe that he has way fewer negatives to overcome – again, based on polls rather than personal feelings -which is why I did not mention him in my earlier criticisms, but I’m actually looking into DeMint & some others right now – thanks for asking!
March 1st, 2009 at 11:51 pm
37 – Converting probably WOULD have won him Iowa, and he didn’t, so not the best point.
March 1st, 2009 at 11:52 pm
I meant to address 36.
March 2nd, 2009 at 1:15 am
@GetReal,
Romney is reproaching Huckabee for using his religion to win Iowa (as opposed to the vastly superior method of using obscene amounts of money & a rottweiler political machine) — and the point being made is that Romney would have used that very same avenue if it had been available to him (as was noted by his actually having done so with the Utah landslide).
Guys, look at the states of the primaries that Romney won with all that fiscally responsible spending of money to buy the presidency – how many were red states & how many were blue?
Keep liking & admiring him all you want to, but wake up to the fact that not enough other people do – we’ve got to find someone else to pull the party out of DC & back into middle America as Reagan managed to do.
Reagan can’t be channeled or distilled into some kind of success formula – we need someone who is naturally persuasive, charismatic & articulate — as well as *genuinely* committed to the principles and values of conservatives. Divided we’re just going to fall again.
March 2nd, 2009 at 9:18 am
Grace, you do make a few good points, but I would caution you against making this a religious contest. Yes, Mr. Romney did win Utah and the Mormon vote, but a few people of my religion also voted for him so we cannot fall into such a trap. Rightly or wrongly religion is a sticky subject and it must be brought up delicately. Yes Mr. Romney has some draw backs, but I not not believe his religion is one of them. If he is our candidate, I believe that most people will either support him or not based on non-religious issues thus it is largely counter-productive to throw around the religious card. If Mr. Romney is not the candidate, it would be nice to have a few Mormons and or Romney members be help the party instead of sit on their hands.
We do not like it when the extremist elements in the Romney camp trash our candidates and it does not make us feel like helping the party, so I respectfully ask you to be careful when discussing the Romney camp and religion. If you want to talk about the electoral college or delegate election processes, bringing up Utah or similar states in fair game, but bringing up Utah while talking religion could be viewed as rubbing it in their faces. Again think about how the rest of us feel when the more extreme elements of the Romney camp (trolls though they might be) rub our noses in the mud.
March 2nd, 2009 at 9:18 am
Grace, you do make a few good points, but I would caution you against making this a religious contest. Yes, Mr. Romney did win Utah and the Mormon vote, but a few people of my religion also voted for him so we cannot fall into such a trap. Rightly or wrongly religion is a sticky subject and it must be brought up delicately. Yes Mr. Romney has some draw backs, but I not not believe his religion is one of them. If he is our candidate, I believe that most people will either support him or not based on non-religious issues thus it is largely counter-productive to throw around the religious card. If Mr. Romney is not the candidate, it would be nice to have a few Mormons and or Romney members be help the party instead of sit on their hands.
We do not like it when the extremist elements in the Romney camp trash our candidates and it does not make us feel like helping the party, so I respectfully ask you to be careful when discussing the Romney camp and religion. If you want to talk about the electoral college or delegate election processes, bringing up Utah or similar states in fair game, but bringing up Utah while talking religion could be viewed as rubbing it in their faces. Again think about how the rest of us feel when the more extreme elements of the Romney camp (trolls though they might be) rub our noses in the mud.
March 2nd, 2009 at 9:19 am
Sorry for the double post, computer error.
March 2nd, 2009 at 2:20 pm
39 – Did Romney make ads in Utah referring to himself as a “Mormon Leader?” Utah always votes in huge majorities for whom they consider the most conservative candidate. Bush beat McCain by a landslide in 2000. It doesn’t hurt matters that he turned around the SLC Olympics in Utah. Have you considered it wasn’t all about religion? Even if it had been, what did Mitt do to curry that? Nothing at all. Can you asy the same for Huckabee?
March 2nd, 2009 at 2:22 pm
*say the same. Typo
March 2nd, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Good point about the SLC Olympics, GetReal. Mr. Romney did do a great job with the Winter Olympics.
March 2nd, 2009 at 3:54 pm
The point was raised by SOMEONE ELSE in these comments that Romney is complaining about Huckabee using his religion to get ahead – not me. The fact that 95% of LDS supported Romney cannot be glossed over as coincidence – Romney did not receive anything even remotely approaching that level of support from any other Bush-supporting demographic. I have discussed this on an LDS board where even the board owners acknowledged this truth.
For all Romney’s whining, Huckabee did not receive that degree of support from evangelicals. That’s because evangelical votes were more consistent with the rest of the voting population. So who was actually voting based on religious affiliation vs. political considerations? The numbers tell the story.
March 2nd, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Grace, you’re BS isn’t even worth responding to. You seem to have an aversion to the truth so it’s not surprising you support Huck.
March 2nd, 2009 at 5:46 pm
46 – Where has Romney whined about it? I didn’t catch that. Someone who supports Romney complaining about it is not the same as Romney himself complaining.
March 2nd, 2009 at 6:05 pm
P.S. The “Christian Leader” ad actually played like a resume (some of us actually watched the whole ad). When you are introducing yourself to your future employer (the voters), you are going to present your experience in the way that you believe will be the most appealing.
Now in the current political climate, what’s going to be more appealing to the voters who are looking for conservative leadership (yes, even in Iowa), ‘former pastor’ or ‘Christian leader’?
Apparently, Romney & his supporters believe that Huckabee should not have done anything to make up for his financial disadvantage & relative lack of national exposure. And yet these are the same “conservatives” that keep paying lip service to those who make every effort to come up in the world & achieve something big.
Meanwhile, had Huckabee actually played down his time served as a pastor & not talked about it, I can guarantee you – based on all the garbage about trying to find some of his old sermons – that something sinister would have been made of that instead.
No, Huckabee’s biggest political drawback is the animus of people determined to dislike him no matter what he says or does…
March 2nd, 2009 at 6:43 pm
So are you saying that Huckabee should be able to get away with doing anything “to make up for his financial disadvantage & relative lack of national exposure”? Hijacking an armored car, for example? Would that be perfectly justifiable in your opinion?
Grace, there are several things that I found troubling about Huckabee’s run. The most serious was his interjection of identity politics into the Republican Presidential race. Identity politics is at its heart “us versus them”. Vote for me because I am one of you. Not like the other guy. He is one of those “them” people.
Republicans, being the smaller party, cannot play that way. We lose nearly every time we try it. We have to be the inclusive, or we will always be out of power.
And I did actually watch the whole ad. I thought at the time it was a foolish mistake. I still do. One, it brought identity politics into the picture. Two, anything you bring up in a political ad automatically becomes fair game. Huckabee cannot brag about being a “Christian Leader” and then complain when people talk about it. He brought it up.
Them’s the rules. Deal with it.
March 2nd, 2009 at 7:03 pm
47 – Martha, classy comeback! I now feel totally humbled by your masterful dissemination of the facts!
P.S. Apparently you haven’t been paying attention – just because I don’t have any major problem with Huck doesn’t mean that I am stumping for him. You people are really coming off irrational here.
48 – Quote from earlier comment (35): “The only time he even acknowledged his religion was when he said that part of the reason why he didn’t win Iowa was because he “didn’t have a network of pastors and congregations” working for him.” Which overlooks the whole Huckabee’s a bigot game (that was bizarre) & the major religion speech, but anyway, complaining vs. whining is just the whole overweight vs. fat bantying of semantics.
March 2nd, 2009 at 7:39 pm
50 – marK, so are you suggesting that using one’s connections to get some national attention & develop recognition is on par with doing something illegal? Or just unethical? I’d really like you to explain why you believe it was wrong. (You’re entitled to your opinion that it was a bad political move – and I am actually inclined to agree with that – but to say it wasn’t right leaves me scratching my head)
As for that us vs. them part, most of us heard Huckabee saying “I have been at the bottom scraping to see the top. I know what it’s like to struggle to make ends meet. I believe I can help you because I have dealt with the same things you are dealing with & I have the background & experience to do it.” And most of us are disgusted with “trickle down economics” as they have been played out. Do you really think that Huckabee’s noting AND respecting the anger of many in the middle class over the Enron mentality in big business was *adding* to the problem? Makes me wonder which income bracket you’re in?
Listen, I’m in a lawsuit-heavy medical field. One of the most important things in keeping a situation from escalating or flat out blowing up is to 1.recognize that you made a mistake, 2.admit that you made a mistake, 3.apologize for making the mistake, & 4.do whatever you can to make up for it.
That’s basic psychology – when someone is justifiably angry (the middle class), recognizing their anger & trying to do something about it is what defuses that anger – NOT pretending it isn’t there or expecting it to go away if you ignore it which are methods guaranteed to infuriate the offended person even more. In fact, most people who file suit do so because their complaint or injury was either denied or ignored.
BTW, Huckabee was not complaining about people talking about the Christian leader thing – he was complaining that it was *all* they were talking about. He was a pastor for 2 yrs & then became a governor for just shy of 11 yrs – yet he was constantly named in the press as “former pastor” rather than “former governor”. It was radically disproportionate.
I never once saw Romney ID’d as “former LDS bishop” & he was only a one term governor. Had Romney been an evangelical pastor that lack of forthright public disclosure about his involvement with his religion would have been painted as something sinister for sure! (No, I’m not an evangelical either – just telling it like it is. Rightly or wrongly, the fact is that W has been a black eye for evangelicals)
March 2nd, 2009 at 8:05 pm
Actually, Grace, Romney did get pegged as a “former LDS bishop” more than once, but Romney didn’t push it. Neither did his followers. Most people were more concerned about his underwear.
I repeat. Anything you bring up in a political context can and will be used against you. Huckabee was the one who brought up his being a “Christian Leader”. Therefore he and his supporters cannot complain when people attempt to use that against him.
Grace. You might very well be “justifiably angry”, but identity politics — justifiable or not — seldom work for a Republican. They simply do not. We don’t have the numbers for it. You can’t start with a minority of the population, and then start dividing them into “us” versus “them” and expect to win. We will lose nearly every time.
Unfair? Perhaps, but that is simply the cold hard facts.
March 2nd, 2009 at 8:44 pm
Grace,
Do you know the difference between people voting for Obama because he’s the first black President, and those voting against him because they are racist members of the KKK?
Are you being just a tad morally dishonest in your arguments? I think so.
March 2nd, 2009 at 9:01 pm
Grace, do you ever examine your own rhetoric?
In #52, you “…wonder which income bracket [I'm] in.” I assume that this implies that I might not be able to understand you because I there is a chance that I might be one of “them”. Am I correct? On another thread, you refer to Mitt Romney as “Daddy Romney-bucks”. I guess he can’t possible understand your situation either for the same reason. Right? But Huckabee, who rails against “them” does. Is this about the size of your argument?
And you are saying that this is not a classic identity politics, “Us” versus “Them”? You are right in that it might not be Class-envy, but it certainly sounds like Class-warfare to me.
Either way, it is almost invariably a losing strategy for a Republican to use. Huckabee used in it. Huckabee lost.
March 2nd, 2009 at 9:14 pm
Totally agree, I love Palin, but she needs to prove she can go toe to toe with the likes of Jindal, Romney, and Gingrich.
It will be good for all of the candidates. That circular firing squad talk is nonsense, no one who is undecided pays attention to stuff said in primary debates.
March 2nd, 2009 at 10:57 pm
53 – marK, I saw that stuff about Romney on a few blogs, but certainly not in the MSM. That it would be used against Huckabee – sure. That’s the “game”, unfortunately, but his complaint that it was *all* they would talk about was certainly still valid. And I don’t think you are so naive as to believe that the MSM wouldn’t have pigeon-holed him as the religious fanatic candidate *anyway*.
BTW, I believe you could validly argue that Reagan used it successfully – that’s one of the reasons he was so appealing. He just managed to straddle the echelons more seamlessly – probably because of his Hollywood experience which really does bring one in regular contact with all kinds!
54 – Joseph, so you’re okay with voting for someone based on their religious beliefs, but not against them because of their religious beliefs? Is that what you’re saying?
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:49 pm
55 – no, marK, the point was that you are insisting that Huckabee’s recognition of the anger of the middle class toward corporate America was fueling it. From that I wondered how you could possibly not be aware that the anger existed long before the campaign started and has been growing since Enron. You don’t heal a wound unless you treat it – and to treat it, you have to examine it first.
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:10 am
Actually, Grace, Reagan was more “us” versus “it” (Big Government), not “us” versus “them”. He continually railed against over-regulation and over-taxation. He wanted the burdens on all businesses and people to be lightened. Not once (that I remember) did he complain about Wall Street greed. Not once did he play the class-warfare card. Well, he did argue against welfare rolls being too big, but he was more trying to get Government out of the business, and let the private sector handle it than he was against the people on the rolls.
I did see Romney’s past experience as a Mormon Bishop mentioned in the MSM. But they didn’t dwell on it. He didn’t bring it up. He didn’t run any ads anywhere, even in Utah or Nevada, where he listed his experience as a Bishop as part of his resume. Since he did not talk about it in a political context, it was not fair game. He didn’t play the religion card.
Mike Huckabee did bring it up — repeatedly. Mike Huckabee made it part of his political dialogue. You don’t remember his “loaves and fishes” comment? You don’t remember his ‘innocent’ “Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and Satan were brothers?” comment? You don’t remember him being a “guest” preacher at various churches? Romney never did any of these things.
So who made Huckabee the religion candidate, the press or Mike Huckabee?
I have no question that there was anger out there. But blaming “them” — any “them” — for that anger is not the answer. It immediately makes “them” the enemy. You can get away with that if you are a Democrat. You start with a majority. You can afford to alienate some of them. Republicans don’t have that luxury. We need as many of the “them’s” as we can get. If they try identity politics, they will almost certainly lose.
March 3rd, 2009 at 5:01 am
59 – marK, I am not an evangelical but I am a devout Catholic, and this may come as a shock to you, but many of us actually do regularly use Biblical analogies when we talk. The MSM stuff about Huckabee’s Bible “code” to his fellow evangelicals out there would have been hilarious if it didn’t reveal such tragic ignorance. Used to be those stories were common points of reference for all Americans – even those who didn’t believe.
And the question about Mormon doctrine was perhaps the most bizarre business yet. As a Catholic I have had to endure some pretty vile anti-Catholic stuff (and don’t talk to me about what the LDS endured in this country cuz Catholics were being persecuted here long before Joseph Smith was born), but I have never in my life taken offense at someone asking the old anti-Catholic canard “Don’t Catholics worship Mary?” even though it is totally & completely false.
What really boggled my mind was that Huckabee didn’t ask a question about an anti-Mormon canard – he asked about a legitimate LDS doctrine. What’s more, Huckabee asked this question as part of a conversation he had with a reporter who had initiated the discussion talking about Mormons in the first place. Notice the reporter NEVER gave the context of the conversation in which the question was raised? Yet that would have been far more revealing of where Huckabee was coming from – why would that be left out?
So, why doesn’t it occur to anyone to wonder – why did the reporter (who oddly enough knew so much about LDS that he could initiate such a detailed discussion) give this out of context? And why was it treated as scandalous to ask “Don’t Mormons believe x,y,z?” when they actually DO?
See most denominations – even mine which receives nothing but scorn or worse from the agents of tolerance – would see this as an opportunity to share their faith – to follow the Great Commission given by Jesus. And yet, instead, they were mortally offended. Asking questions about Mormonism is bigotry?
Ah, but Huckabee – despite the umpteen-million times reporters pressed & the umpteen-million times he said that Romney’s faith was his personal business – was finally played for a sucker.
Reminiscent of that Connie Chung moment with Gingrich’s mom, in an unguarded moment after a grueling day in a downtime setting where they were just chatting, Huckabee made the mistake of actually responding to the bait! And asked the question that made it clear that in his heart of hearts he despises Mormons! — Huh?
I’ll give a generous benefit of the doubt and suppose that it was about on par with saying, “Don’t Catholics believe that birth control is a mortal sin?” A doctrine that has more than a few misunderstandings dogging it by people who have no interest in actually understanding it so it does require some clarification to a point. But to be offended by the question itself? To jump up & down pointing a finger screaming ‘BIGOT!’ like quite a few were doing on their blogs. Bizarre.
So Huckabee is kind of stumped by all the furor over his question, but recognizes that for whatever reason, they are claiming that offense was given, so he manfully goes up to Romney face-to-face at the first opportunity and tells him how sorry he is for saying it & asks his forgiveness.
So Romney forgives him – and his supporters proceed to do exactly the opposite – no forgive & no forget. BTW, when did Romney in his stoic silence (that his supporters always manage to fill in for him just fine) ever call out or correct his people for that kind of stuff?
And why are you guys so blind that you can’t see when a media guy is playing two groups off each other to continue fomenting the division?
Yeah, Reagan was NOT divisive; he had an 11th Commandment. Romney had no qualms about breaking it. Surely you did not miss the way he was always standing by himself after the debates while the others were chatting?
Huckabee’s a convenient target, but the fact is that none of the other candidates had any love lost for Romney either. Same within the governor’s association – Romney just doesn’t play well with others – seems there was resentment that Romney only helped them out when it served his political career in some way.
Nope, Romney’s clearly no unifier – it’s just a different ‘us’ and a different ‘them’ but it’s division all the same…
March 3rd, 2009 at 7:59 am
#29, A followup – all those pictures at the top look pretty badass.
On the post – I agree wholeheartedly. I was under the opinion that general wisdom of a shorter primary was right – I was mistaken. A battle royale between the candidates forces them to become better candidates, more articulate speakers, and define themselves by their plans. How much stronger was Gerald Ford in 1976 when he was primaried by Reagan? He didn’t lose by a landslide despite everything going against him…it was still a close race. How well did Obama do after having a long, drawn out primary with the more policy oriented Hillary Clinton?
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Grace,
Yes, there are a number of Romney supporters who have not forgiven Huckabee for his antics during the campaign. You wouldn’t happen to know any Huckabee fans who haven’t forgiven Romney for criticizing Huckabee, would you?