Poll: Worst case scenarios--what must Huckabee or Guiliani do if nominated
By A Texan Posted in 2008 — Comments (34) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Friends,
I am increasingly worried that the nomination fight will come down to a battle between Guiliani and Huckabee that will result in a significant part of our coalition feeling pretty darn bitter going into the general election. Giuliani obviously has alot of support, and I'm sensing that Huckabee is gonna beat Romney in Iowa, and go onto win South Carolina and other states.
Many folks on here seem to think of Huckabee as I think of Guiliani--someone for whom they will vote in the general election, if they vote at all, without any enthusiasm. I for one would find it very hard to urge my many family and friends who are social conservatives--but who are indifferent at best to social-security privatization or reducing marginal tax rates for millionaires--to get out and vote for Giuliani. The Fear of Hillary will motivate, but not very much.
I'd like to take a rough poll of folks here as to the following: What should Giuiliani and Huckabee say that will enable you to not only vote for that individual if nominated, but also urge others to do the same with both a straight face and with at least the same degree of enthusiasm you had for W. in 2004.
As to Guiliani, I would say the following:
(1) State emphatically that while he believes that abortion, at least in the early months, should be generally available, that he will in no way roll back any of the existing protections under federal law for the benefit of the unborn child (not just the Hyde Amendment). And say "unborn child."
(2) Identify the names of the persons that he will involve in the judicial nominating process, and include in that group someone who not only disagrees with Roe v. Wade (I'm guessing that might include Estrada and Olson), but someone who genuinely believes that the lives of the unborn should be protected by the law. I would be happy to know that
(3) Endorse the pro-federalism AND pro-republicansim form of the Federal Marriage Amendment. State that the issue of marriage is an issue for the PEOPLE of the several states to decide and not the judicial elites in the several states.
(4) Name a genuine social conservative as your running mate, one whom I can trust to make a noisy resignation should President Giuliani break faith with social conservatives.
Here's some suggestions as to what Huckabee might say:
(1) Draw a sharp distinction between Arkansas and the federal government as to the propriety of tax increases and tax cuts.
(2) Draw a sharp distinction between the states and federal governments as to the degree to which the government should pass paternalistic legislation (though he doesn't have to use that word).
(3) Identify clearly the extent to which the tax and health-care policies he signed into law in Arkansas were reflected reluctant compromise rather than his convictions.
(4) Nominate a Club-for-Growth-style fiscal conservative who will likely resign angrily should Huckabee break faith with fiscal conservatives.
As for me, I hope we avoid either candidate. Come on, Fred. Get your act together, man!
I can't wait until Huckabee, Obama, or Edwards gets into the White House and teaches them a thing or two about how class warfare is waged.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
As much as Edwards hates to let people know, he's a multimillionaire. Just ask all the Doctors he sued, increasing everyone else's cost of health insurance.
Seriously, the guy is point blank exactly why we need SERIOUS Tort Reform in this country (didn't Bush promise that in 2000?).
As for Obama, just look at his crooked land deals in Illinois, and his Book connections that made him wealthy...
The only financially humble candidate out there's the Southern Baptist Minister turned Governor Mike Huckabee
The only financially humble candidate out there's the Southern Baptist Minister turned Governor Mike Huckabee
Is that supposed to be a reason to vote for the guy? I guess his followers have really bought into his class warfare message.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
No sane Republican would sign up for that. He'd be giving a hostile media the keys to millions of pages of material that might contain who-knows-what sound bites that could be taken out of context and used to paint Giuliani as a monster. "Man Giuliani Named as Advisor Arrested for DUI in 1955". You know they'd do it. So does Rudy.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
I agree that it will come down to Giuliani and Huckabee after Huckabee wins Iowa and Giuliani wins New Hampshire. Romney still has a good chance though. Why anyone is supporting Thompson right now is a mystery. Make your vote count and join Romney, Huckabee, or Giuliani. Ditto for McCain supporters.
If the Wicked Witch wins Iowa, it sews up her campaign. The independents could then show up en masse to re ignite McCain's campaign. Then it comes down to McCain Huck in SC, with the winner likely takign Fla as well. And if McCain wins NH, its over for Rudy, because the moderates aren't going ot back both of them. It's likely over for Romney if Huck and Hillary both win Iowa.
Chuck Norris does not vote for president of the United States. He gives the voting machine a swift roundhouse kick and Mike Huckabee wins. Pitbull of the VRWC.
If Huckabee pulls a surprise win in Iowa all bets are off. In fact, his current surprise is only a part of why Fred is experiencing a nosedive right now.
New Hampshire has every candidate competitive. Rudy, Mitt and McCain all have invested a large amount in NH, and although Huckabee hasn't as much due to his slim resources is doing a respectable job. I didn't think about Independents in NH would vote in a more sizeable margin on a Republican ballot if Hillary wins Iowa.
The problem with Mitt, and I think he realized this early on, is that if he doesn't win Iowa and/or New Hampshire, then he won't have a snowballs chance in the South. He can court Evangelical Conservatives all he wants, but right now they're looking for both a candidate that supports their values and one who can win. If he can't win Iowa or NH he's out in the South.
Fred Thompson banked on doing well in Iowa and SC and the rest of the South. He's tanking in Both.
Rudy Guiliani is focused on NH and Flordia and February 5th. If he doesn't win in Iowa, NY or SC, then he'll have a difficult time arguing that he truely is the "most electable candidate" if he can't win early primaries.
McCain and Huckabee were the only two candidates to speak at the AARP's Iowa divided-we-fail forum, and it will be interesting if they are the two R's left standing this primary.
Huck and Thompson are fading. McCain has hit a ceiling. It looking more and more like Mitt takes the trifecta
Iowa, New Hampshere, and South Carolina.
I don't think it's fair to say that Huckabee is fading already. He's just cooling off. Now that he's picked most of the low fruit, he gets a chance to show what he can do.
It's not too likely he will make it, though.
I'd like to hear what you consider the "pro-federalism" Marriage Amednment. BEcause the only amendments I've seen seriously considered are ones that include "marriage shall be defined as one man-one woman." And I don't see how that can be called "pro-federalism."
And, I don't think you will hear any of those things from either candidate. Huckabee is a statist - and everything he has said to date makes me MORE rather than LESS inclined to believe that. And Rudy has been around for a while. He has heard your advice dozens if not hundreds of times. He has been given any number of opportunities to say what you claim he "must" say. But he hasn't. And he won't.
If this race comes down to Rudy and Huckabee then we will lose in November because the race will be a civil war. It will be SoCons vs. FiscCons, and whoever loses will have a strong feeling that they have lost their influence in the party.
If either side had any sense (and on this, I think that the FiscCons are closer to sense) they would be working for a compromise. The SoCons seem to be gung-ho on Huck, even in the face of resistance, and are doing little to moving to any sort of consensus (in fact they appear to be moving AWAY from someone that has been identified as a consensus candidate - Thompson). FiscCons like Rudy, but I don't think anybody would say the FiscCons are pushing Rudy as a bloc or are pushing him above all others.
Maybe we should stop talking about the inevitability of candidates that create significant issues, and have the leaders and names in the various camps talk about who else gives them most of what they want and who they feel they could work with for the next 4 or 8 years.
That true "fiscal conservatives" support Rudy. NYC businesses and corporatations that rely on a free market economy? Yes, he absolutely has their support. In fact many of his donors are maxed out because of it. But fiscal conservatives who desire lower spending, and common sense tax cuts that affect the amount of money the Government takes from them, I'm not so sure they've been sold on a candidate yet.
First, these individuals who hate Government overregulation sided with McCain, because "he can win" and gained religion on fiscal conservatism: speaking out against Congress spending like a Drunken Sailor. His campaign fizzled when it blew out his money.
Then, fiscal conservatives split up among Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson and Rudy Guiliani. Thompson, because he was a "true conservative", Romney because he "upheld conservative values in a liberal state" and Rudy because "he's the most electable."
Yet Thompson is a stump on the stump, fails to be articulate about Conservative principles and doesn't show the stamina it takes to be elected. Romney, has spent more money on his campaign than any other, and his record in Mass. is one of selling out core conservative values on health care and spending. The only thing holding him up is the fact he's used his veto pen (hence why he's now attempting to court social conservatives). Rudy is still holding weight largely due to his electability. However many, myself included, are concerned about his ability to get a Democratic Congress pass tax cuts, establish tax reform, limit government overregulation of small business. Yes, he talks the talk with Federalism, but will he be able to get anything done as President?
Sure, businesses may have picked a horse, but many fiscal conservatives who supported Bush have not. This is a major reason why we lost the Congressional races in 2006, and why overall donations are low across the board to Republican Campaigns.
10. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
If a 3/4 majority of the states want a uniform national definition of marriage, " A marriage is one man and one woman." then the states are agreeing, under federalism, to accept a national standard on this issue. Most [all?] states don't want marriage to be redefined as something other than one man Plus one woman so this is the states voluntarily giving up their "states rights" on this issue so that no state can develop a peculiar definition of marriage, at odds with what all the other states want.
It's not a ballot issue, it's a vote of the state legislators. You could put a ballot initiative on the ballot in CA and it would pass. There's no way on God's earth you could pass it through the state legislature.
The most appropriate way to address this is with state constitutional amendments that can be passed as ballot initiatives. That's doable and it's a winner about everywhere. The FMA is a loser across the board. It will never, ever get through the Senate (let alone the House), and you'll not get 3/4 of the states to ratify it either.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Passing a federal marriage amendment is absolutely in line with federalism. It's the way it's supposed to be done. Anyone who says it's against federalism is just incorrect. Judges usurping power is against federalism. As a side note, I don't think it has a chance to pass.
There is no way it will pass. You'd never get 3/4 of the Senate, a really, really long shot in the House and you'd never get 3/4 of the states to ratify. This would be a "right-side" redux of the EPA.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
if it got out of Congress.
I remember all the state amendments to protect marriage passing - in Oregon, I think it passed by 56%, and Oregon was a Kerry State. In Mississippi I think it passed with 80%!!! of the vote. Protecting marriage is popular. On a national level the debate can also be framed as having a unified national standard.
A Federal Marriage Amendment wouldn't just prevent so-called "gay marriage". It would also prevent, nationwide, polygamy, people "marrying" animals, and other strange things that aren't marriage.
I believe it should be left as a state issue. I consistently hear the same erroneous argument that we should have a marriage amendment because of the "full faith and credit clause" and that a state would have to recognize a sister states law regarding the marriage, or civil union, of homosexuals.
This is untrue. No state has to recognize a law from another state that it deems repugnant and against the public policy of the home state. And as you noted, most states, including my home state, would consider gay marriage quite repugnant and against public policy. As such, there is no need to "standardize the law" and limit a states right to decide for itself whether to allow such destructive social experiments.
where polygamy is illegal, but he was legally married to both in the original state? What if he doesn't move there but just vacations there?
It's much better for the majoriity of states to agree on what marriage is and then say, THIS IS IT nationwide. Otherwise, I fear that the states that experiment with peculiar definitions of marriage will ultimately force the other states to accept those peculiar definitions. The traditional states did this with Utah and they did it with immigration too - even with wide open 19th century immigration there was no welcome mat for polygamists.
Federalism is fine for experimenting with things that we haven't figured out yet, but with thousands of years experience on what works and what doesn't work in terms of marriage and child rearing we don't need unelected judges to impose a frankenstein's monster of social policy on us on a state by state basis. A nationwide constitutional amendment will stop that and it will also prevent a state legislature in a renegade state from going crazy.
where polygamy is legal. That is a specious argument.
And, since you seem to think the FMA is such a good idea, just how would you propose to pass it? Where are you going to get 67 US Senators to support it? Think there's 12 state legislatures that might have a problem passing this?
FMA is a Dobson wet dream and nothing more. It will never happen, and frankly, it shouldn't.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Right now it is perfectly legal for a woman in Massachussetts to be in a "marriage" that contains two wives [herself and the other woman]. However, it is illegal for a man in Massachussetts to be part of a "marriage" that contains two wives. Sounds like sex discrimination to me.
The issue I raised in my previous post would also occur if two "married" homosexual men moved from Massachussetts to another state.
It is permitted by the constitution but that doesn't mean it is a Federalist idea or that you can't object to it on Federalist grounds. Liquor laws were once set by a constitutional amendment, but I'd hardly call that a big win for Federalism or say that nobody could raise an objection to it on the principles of Federalism.
Anyway it isn't gonna happen, as mbecker said. Not in a million years will it have the votes to get out of the Senate. Not in ten million years will it have the votes to ratify in all but 12 of the state legislatures before the clock the Senate would inevitably put in the amendment winds down. I can think of a lot more than 12 states that would never ratify this.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
that it will do the same think to the SoCon movement that the ERA did to feminism - basically drove a stake through their heart. The feminists lost virtually all of their credability with the ERA fight and I can see the same thing happening over FMA.
Do it at the state level where the battles are much easier to win.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
a Federal Marriage Amendment just formalizes the definition of marriage that we already have and keeps activist judges from throwing marriage in the garbage can.
ERA was something new and potentially radically sinister. FMA is just establishing the first 230+ years of marriage in our country on a firmer foundation.
Since it has always been quite popular for each state to protect marriage within itself, why should it be unpopular for each state to vote to protect marriage nation-wide?
And if Massachussetts, California, New York, and up to 9 other states vote against FMA ... it still passes!
1. MA
2. VT
3. RI
4. CT
5. ME
6. NY
7. CA
8. WA
9. OR
10. IL
11. MN
12. NJ
13. WI
14. MI
15. DE
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
I think Michigan, Wisconsin, and Maine would vote to protect marriage, especially if the amendment didn't say anything about civil unions one way or the other. I think some of the other states you listed would vote to protect marriage too, but even if none did and Hawaii also didn't the amendment would get ratified 40 - 10.
So I think it is very doable if the amendment gets out of Congress. Getting it out of Congress is the problem.
If we don't get an amendment I'm afraid that activist judges in state after state will redefine marriage in peculiar ways and ultimately marriage will become a meaningless term.
I think if Hillary votes against an amendment to preserve marriage it could work against her in the election. In state after state in 2004 more votes were cast in support of initiatives to preserve marriage than were cast for George Bush. Preserving marriage is a bi-partisan issue at the grassroots level.
FMA would have to be passed by the Democratically controlled legislatures. And by a 3/4 margin I believe.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
I'd like to hear what you consider the "pro-federalism" Marriage Amednment. BEcause the only amendments I've seen seriously considered are ones that include "marriage shall be defined as one man-one woman." And I don't see how that can be called "pro-federalism."
I agree the kind of amendment you describe, supported by Bush and I think Romney, would be anti-federalist. Doing it as a constitutional amendment (rather than judicial activism) would be a constitutionally legitimate way of making the Constitution less federalist.
However the kind of amendment Fred Thompson said he would support if necessary is indeed federalist. The amendment would guarantee each state the right to decide whether or not it has same sex marriage; and states that decide against same sex marriage would not be required to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.
From MSNBC:
"I would support a constitutional amendment which says some off-the-wall court decision in one state that recognizes a marriage in that state like Massachusetts, just to pick a state, cannot go to another state and have it recognized in that state. You are not bound by what another state does." Thompson added, "My amendment would also state that judges could not impose this on the federal or state level unless a state legislature signed off on it."
Like Thompson, Giuliani says he would support a Constitutional amendment if more states get same sex marriage like Massachusetts. I haven't seen quotes of Giuliani spelling out what kind of amendment, but I assume his support is also for Thompson's kind of amendment, instead of an amendment taking away states' right to decide the issue like.
I know that this is the popular rallying cry for abortion, but the legal standard as it is known today is Casey v. Planned Parenthood. I wish people would cite this case as the correct legal standard for todays law. Roe v. Wade came up with this ludicrous trimester standard of how stringent a law States could put on abortions based on an imaginary viability standard as defined by the Court.
The current Casey standard just states that you cannot place "unreasonable restrictions" on the ability of a woman to obtain an abortion. Under Roe, a state could not put any restrictions on a womans right to abortion during the early months. Now the restrictions only have to be reasonable (i.e. notification of parents for teenagers, waiting periods, etc.)
Griswold v. Connecticut is what really needs to be thrown out. That tree has borne lots of rotten fruit.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
a couple of guys real soon. Electorally, of course :>)
If Huck makes it, he needs to:
- reveal both his foreign policy and defense teams well in advance.
- assure people that his religious beliefs will not interfere with his ability to defend the national interest
- assure the public that he won't make the "reluctant compromises" on taxes and spending as in Arkansas. This will be his biggest challenge.
I have considerably more reservations about Huckabee than I do about Fred, Mitt or McCain.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”