Is This the Slow and Painful Death of the Republican Party as We Know It?
By perico Posted in Archived — Comments (60) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Former Governor Mike Huckabee is an extremely likeable fellow, and in the CNN/Youtube debate, his charm was on full display. After having a less than stellar first half, he stepped up his game during the second hour. For the first time, I think he might win the nomination, riding a wave of evangelical unity to the grand prize of GOP politics. In an election year where there is no majority support for any one candidate, this strong showing among one particular faction of the party might well be enough. Huckabee’s rise is due to the fact that he’s a strong speaker, a good campaigner, strong on some social issues, and a person who is genuine and wears his faith upon his sleeve.
There was one glaring omission from Huckabee’s performance last night: there was nothing to give limited government or movement conservatives any hope or confidence that he would be any more of a friend to us than George W. Bush has been. Huckabee was able to use the absurdity of the whole debate format to his advantage, championing his Christian credentials throughout the second hour. However, between “what would Jesus do” and talking dollar bills, there was nothing there. Zero. Zilch. Not one significant thing did he mention that would excite this member of the Federalist Society. Sure, he talked about abolishing the IRS, but that is part of his FAIR tax plan that he has tied himself to. When confronted directly by Governor Mitt Romney, Huckabee came dangerously close to showing his obnoxious other half; the “other half” that is notorious for not being able to handle criticism and shifting the blame onto others, getting the scrutiny off of his back. It’s somewhat ironic that while Romney has been unfairly criticized for his selection of a judge who freed a murderer (judges in Massachusetts must appear before a panel to be confirmed), Huckabee has so far gotten a free pass in the mainstream media for his own role in the Wayne DuMond incident, fair or not.
Today, Huckabee likes to blame former Arkansas Governor Jim Guy Tucker for DuMond’s release, but that reflects very badly on him, in this voters eyes. It shows a very worrisome trait that he seems to share with George W. Bush; an inability to handle criticism or take responsibility for mistakes that happened under his tenure, and by people that he reappointed to the parole board that helped release DuMond. Another instance where Huckabee has shown extremely thin skin is his handling of criticism directed his way from the Club for Growth. The actual report the group filed on Huckabee is pretty well balanced, and they gave him credit on a number of issues. The concluded that he had a mixed record, but one would be forgiven if they believed the group had referred to him as Lucifer, himself, if they listened to the all-out war that is going on between the two camps.
One of the governor’s biggest weaknesses is his record in Arkansas. While Huckabee did cut taxes during the early years of his tenure, the fact remains that he had a net tax increase under his watch, and the increase in Government size is terrifying. 21 tax increases went into effect, increasing tax revenue by almost $890 million under Governor Huckabee. These increases include the income tax, the sales tax, a cigarette tax, and a gas tax. Not only did he raise taxes, spending “more than doubled under Huckabee. “During Huckabee’s 10 years as governor, state spending more than doubled, from $6.6 billion to $16.1 billion in the fiscal year ending June 30, 2006.” There was an increase in state spending of over 65% during his tenure, and the size of the government increased by 20%. According to the Americans for Tax Reform, the states general obligation debt went up by “almost one billion dollars.” Arkansas state tax burden was at 9.8% when Bill Clinton left office in 1992. Under Huckabee, it was at 11.1%, reaching the rank of one of the top fifteen state tax burdens.
The blame for the rise of Mike Huckabee’s candidacy can be squarely placed on the shoulders of the purist conservatives who have let Goldwater’s legacy die a slow, painful death in their search for a “new Reagan.” Instead of a united party, the GOP is now fractured between five candidates, four of whom the elites spent the better part of the last year chiding for their shortcomings. Rudy Giuliani is still the national frontrunner, but in reality, that lead is very unstable. The contempt in which some have held him in has been sad, because whether or not he is the best candidate, and that’s debatable, he’s got a lot to offer the Republican Party. Purists have blasted John McCain, despite the mainstream respect he has, for the better part of seven years. McCain might be the best overall candidate running. He can win the independents, and is fiscally a conservative. I can name many unpopular positions taken by many great politicians over the years, but McCain has suffered more for his shortcomings than any other candidate in the race.
Mitt Romney has tried to rally the conservative wing of the party, but despite some major endorsements and fundraising, he has never been able to reach 20% in any poll, and now with his lead in Iowa possibly gone, he faces the very serious threat of blowing the enormous expectations he tried to build up there. Romney is likely never going to be the candidate that the party unifies around, but if he campaigns on his history as a problem solver instead of his history as a late bloomer, then he might have a chance to regain momentum. Romney’s taking the right positions now, and by trying to convince the public that he has the best policies to solve the problems he can regain his footing, instead of trying to convince people he speaks for “the Republican Wing,” which antagonizes those who are skeptical, but might be open to the idea of uniting around him. At the same time, the purists have viewed Romney with such skepticism that it damaged his credibility on issues he should stand out on. Romney’s record as governor of Massachusetts wasn’t as conservative as some have made it out to be, but it is undoubtedly stronger than Huckabee’s fiscally, from a conservative viewpoint.
Fred Thompson has been damaged by the superhuman expectations that were placed upon him, and the glee in which some in the media used to try and rapidly tear him to pieces. Matthew Miller probably said it best when he said that in the end, Thompson is a human, and not the superhuman that his supporters made him out to be. Like Romney, some of the fault lies with the Thompson campaign for not controlling the expectations game, waiting so long to get in the race, and for the length it took for him to become comfortable on the trail. While all the other contenders had months to hone their campaign skills, Thompson has had to get re-acclimated to the campaign trail, and the press was brutal to him. Thompson is still the candidate who could unite the wings of the party, but just like they did with Romney, the purists put his weaknesses under national scrutiny. After they criticized him for not having any idea or platform, they have been silent since he’s turned into the candidate with the policies to match. Thompson can still win, but he must prove that he has the ability to rally the party around him. I have the utmost faith in him, but I support the guy.
In the end, we now have five candidates who are imperfect, and in each case, borderline unacceptable to a certain faction of the party. Instead of rallying to one, they have put unrealistic expectations on all of them, and there is a chance it could cost the party the election because they have weakened our strongest candidates, and will likely do the same to Huckabee. Huckabee, like the other candidates, has something to give to the party and some admirable strength’s as a candidate and a person, but he is no more of a true conservative than anyone else running. Now, with little over a month to go, they will probably do the same to Huckabee that they have done to everyone else. However, it might be too late, and by demanding perfection, they could end up shifting the fiscal policies of the Republican Party for the next generation.
crossposted at http://race42008.com/2007/11/29/the-slow-painful-disintegration-of-the-republican-coalition/
I am inclined to think Rudy the less distressing. Harriet Miers helped us in showing that the grassroots judicial conservatives have influence. Even an Anthony Kennedy nomination will not "unite" Democrats if it came from a Republican. So, as long as we continue to believe that our Republican Senators will listen when we speak, I still believe that we can push for our own in terms of a SCOTUS nomination. If we can gather up the better part of the Republican caucus against a "squish" there is probably little chance of confirming that nomination.
Face it, even Giuliani will be counting on getting the votes from the Republican caucus to confirm his pick.
Huck, on the other hand, will have plenty of mushy Republicans that will go along with Democrats to pass statist fiscal policies. And Democrats will know that Huckabee doesn't stand up to fiscal liberalism from his days in Arkansas and will constantly push him to veto liberal legislation. And frankly, I don't trust him to do it.
Right now, with Democrats set to keep control of Congress, we'd be better off with a social liberal who we can pressure on judges and who is unlikely to buck the Party on what little social legislation is possible at the federal level, than picking a fiscal liberal who may very well sell us out ala Bill Clinton signing welfare reform.
Not their position, but the fact they are willing to follow their candidate no matter were, and are unwilling to consider the greater party.
Ron Paul supporters are anti-war, and nothing else matters.
Huckabee supporters are Pro-life, and nothing else matters.
But not stupid.
If you think about it, is he all that off-base. What exactly does Huckabee have other than the strident pro-life position? Really what it comes down to is that Huckabee is riding a wave from a constituency that believes that the HLA is the only thing worth considering. Except for Giuliani, our field is pro-life (I will accept doubt about Romney), and is in favor of many socially conservative positions. But some require absolute fealty to a couple of positions (FMA and HLA) that don't even garner majority support, and which turn off even a chunk of Republicans. So we should all bow down to a guy who believes in those positions but is also a barely concealed liberal.
And if you do get Huck, and he does win in 2008, I will predict (and I will take wagers on this - I am that certain that I am right), that you will get neither the HLA nor the FMA (they will not even get majority support in Congress) and you will have any number of new taxes, new regulations, new entitlements and new spending that you will be quick to complain about.
Mike Huckabee might actually believe his own rhetoric, but in the face of Democrats passing feel-good populist legislation to expand government and the welfare state, Mike Huckabee will be a non-entity. I'd be surprised if he even bothered to have a veto pen in the drawer. He;d be more than happy to sign liberal legislation and then try to blame it on the Democrats.
I recommended this diary and that's a great analysis also, and one which I don't think applies to Romney: he's not going to sign liberal legislation and try to blame it on Democrats. I really do believe that Romney "gets it" on fiscal conservatism. Coming out of Massachusetts that's a tough sell, but I firmly believe that without Romney here in MA the state would have been *worse* off. I think he did his best here against the most lobsided state legislature in the country, and I think he'll do an even better job as President.
I look at the growth in Arkansas government under Huckabee and I just can't see, on the numbers, how anyone can be excited about him as President. Because that's what the President *does* -- proposes the budget and wields the veto pen. You can have all the support in the world from people on life issues, but if you cannot hold the line on spending and growth in government as the CEO of the country, what does it matter?
That sounds too familiar to the last 7 years. Can we say George W. Bush.
I am pro-life and will not vote for a pro-abortion candidate. I am a social conservative. But I could never vote for Mike Huckabee, who in his compassion would tax me to death to provide for the children. He made that clear in the last debate. And to spend others money and redistribute it IS a moral issue!
Illegal alien children no problem
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Your generalizations are way too broad. Yes, there are a number of Paul supporters for whom the war is all that matters. There are also others among us who garner less attention because we don't accuse the Bush administration of being behind the terrorist attacks or say that Rudy made a fortune off of them. We simply think that the government has grown way too large and that the GOP establishment has abandoned the limited government principles with which the Party has traditionally been associated.
As to Huckabee, I do not wish to plug his candidacy, but I will say that yes, abortion is a foundational issue for many people. We've had tens of millions of deaths in this country over the last several decades, and for many people, that's kind of important. He's wrong on so many other things, and I would much prefer a limited government, pro-life conservative, but I will also refrain from attacking those who are not convinced that the other four leaders are not serious about doing something about that tragedy.
Balanced and pretty darn spot-on across the board.
Highly recommended.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
Regardless of who wins the nomination we should all be glad that we have 8 candidates that all have something to bring to the table.
Sure Huckabee may not come across as the big tax cut federalist that many of you here at redstate desire; however, think about it: He talks about minority issues. Is that a bad thing? He talks about faith...which will bring MANY people to vote Republican. He talks about the value of human life in a way that NO ONE ELSE even come close on.
I will admit, I like Huckabee a lot. But, regardless of whether he wins, that does not matter to me. The fact that he is talking about scraping the IRS, valuing life, looking to those who are the least amoung us, valuing the individual, working one's way through school (and not having stuff just handing to you). That is conservatism.
The other candidates do bring something to the table, something different and that is great. But, if the Republican party shrinks to an all white and male, then the Republican Party will disappear.
That would be worse than a current Republican candidate winning the Presidency in 2008.
Is not really so much that Huckabee "may not come across as the big tax cut federalist" some of us may want. His record is what it is - and in spite of Huck's characterization of the organization as the "Club for Greed", their assessment (as Tommy points out) is actually pretty balanced.
But therein lies the problem - Huck is evidently pretty alergic to criticism. Worse than that, he has chosen to pick a very public fight on some of his weakest ground with a pretty important leg of the party (FisCons in general) and to use rhetoric during said fight that is indistinguishable from what we would expect from Johnny Brek Girl - you know, Mr. Two Americas.
And I can tell you that this paleo-FisCon ain't gonna forget that anytime soon.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
Huck could have just declared a "mea culpa" for his past. He could have said - I did some stupid stuff as governor but that's not what I'm going to do in the future. But he didn't - he decided to attack a group that had remarkable success in getting their candidates elected in the last cycle and a group that most FiscCons respect. And not only did he attack them, but he did so with rhetoric and vitriol that, if it had come from Hillary Clinton or John Edwards, this board would have unanimously condemned.
Huckabee can't have it both ways. He can't be both a fiscal conservative and try to play to some economic populism platform that calls for more government regulation and programs to "help people."
I don't much care for Romney, but at least he's trying to address his issues without trying to portray the source of the criticism as some un-American satanic cult. Maybe Huckabee should show a little more "Christian charity" to his critics than he has offered to date.
and the solution IS NOT yet another government program. As soon as you give a handout, you TAKE AWAY freedom and the ability to rise above the current situation.
It's a bunch of crap to say fiscal conservatives don't care about minorities, women and children. The fact is, IT IS WE who really care.
This is the problem with "compassionate conservativism". It uses religion (usually Christianity) to paint a happy face on liberal ideas. It doesn't make them any better. Whether you like it or not, Huckabee actually hurts the conservative message because he agrees with the liberals. All they have to do is say, "see, there's a conservative that gets it" and our message is drowned out.
==== 13 ====
except for Huckabee (and RP, of course). The only scenario in which I see myself casting a vote for Huckabee is if he happens to be competing with John Edwards next fall.
...............................
"Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do and how you do it."
--Rudy Giuliani
I am really tired of the condescending 'RP exception'. The votes of every fiscal conservative will be needed to elect a fiscal conservative candidate. Is there really value in parading an attitude that will turn away potential voters?
I don't know who I will vote for. I disagree with RP on the Iraq issue - I want to finish the job - but agree with him on the general American Empire issues. I agree with him on most matters of economics and limited government. I agree with his social liberalism. So, if Red State Republican's want my vote and donations when push comes to shove, show some respect for those who agree with you some, but not all, of the time.
...............................
"Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do and how you do it."
--Rudy Giuliani
I especially appreciate the way you addressed the serious issues raised and advanced the discussion. I shall remember to give your future posts all the consideration that your response above demonstrates they deserve.
Giuliani will keep taxes low, appoint "original intent" justices, promote adoption, keep the pressure on terrorists, and attempt to get through the formidable immigration lobbyists. He did many of these things, in some form, as mayor. There is no reason to think he won't as President. True test of a candidate: how much does the New York Times hate you? They HATED the former mayor.
Tommy Oliver
www.race42008.com
Looks like the "cross-post" link at the bottom of your story is broken.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
"[McCain] can win the independents, and is fiscally a conservative."
McCain was one of only two Republicans to vote against the first Bush tax cut. Where was he on Social Security privatization? McCain is a fiscal moderate who is a hawk on wasteful spending. He's not even a hawk on entitlement spending and he's definitely not a small government conservative. He still feels more at home among the Washington press corp than among conservatives.
Huckabee of course is much worse. $6 billion in spending to $16 billion!? This guy is a fiscal conservative's worst nightmare! We all know that if Huckabee is elected he will be able to "compromise" with the Democrats on hundreds of social programs. He'll be able to get them past the Senate because many Republicans will support the Republican president whereas a Democratic president would be fillibustered by united Republicans.
And yet social conservatives are lining up against a very fiscally conservative Giuliani almost solely on the abortion issue - an issue where he obeyed the law (allowing abortions) while promoting adoptions when he was mayor.
The actual report the group filed on Huckabee is pretty well balanced
They had a personal agenda against Huck. Their report did not use the same metrics to gauge all candidates.
CfG allowed itself to become a passthrough where personal enemies can attack Huck in anonymity.
If party A believes Huck is bad, and party B finances party A's efforts for personal reasons, that doesn't impugn party A's motives or integrity.
That's just politics.
...if A and B are independent entities. Stephens Jr. I believe is not only one of CfG's main donors but he was also a chairman of CfG. I think he holds significant sway over CfG. Thus, B is an influential subset of A.
For someone who's guy has a serious credibility problem with FisCons (rightly or wrongly - perception is reality, after all) - I find it interesting that a good number of his supporters sure do go a good long way to hack-off self-same FisCons - you know, about 30-40 percent of Republican primary voters.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
Fred Thompson has been damaged by the superhuman expectations that were placed upon him, and the glee in which some in the media used to try and rapidly tear him to pieces.
Fred faltered due to several major blunders right after he jumped into the race:
1) Refusing to support FMA after giving Arlington Group leaders the impression that he would support it.
2) Skipping the New Hampshire Debate and allowing the "Fred is lazy" narrative to develop.
3) Saying that he does not attend church (credit him for at least being honest).
1) I have no answer for that because I could care less. I only saw the messages that some doorknob sent saying Fred's not a Christian or whatever. That's totally gay and immature to boot. I don't take too much stock in what any of those types say, they are "holier-than-thou" to the nth degree.
2) He announced his campaign that night and actually got a lot more coverage than if he had shown up to the debate. Frankly, I had forgotten all about that and hadn't seen anything about it since about a week after it happened.
3) Here's my HUGE sticking point. Who gives a rat's behind if he goes to church? Why is that important? Reagan didn't go to church. As a matter of fact up until recently, it didn't matter for any candidate for the Presidency whether they went to church or what their faith was.
Why did the huckster leave his congregation and pursue a life of politics? Personally, I think that is much more telling than whether someone goes to church. I'm serious, tell my why. Jimmy Carter did that because he left the baptist convention over idealogical differences (Mormons being Christains). Why did huck do so? From his website it seems he was quite successful as a leader of the baptist church in Arkansas.
You and your type are way off base. You can't see the forest for the trees, or should I say shrubs. You are the same as libs, basing your beliefs on emotion as opposed to logic.
Let me rephrase my last sentence.
You are the same as libs, basing your reasons for more and methods of government on emotion as opposed to logic.
You may not care if Thompson goes to church. While I would rather he did, that wouldn't (won't) keep me from voting for him because he is correct on the issues. Just because it isn't important for you, though, doesn't mean that it is not a major issue for other people, and exactly who are you to tell them that it shouldn't be?
If you really think that it never mattered in the past what a president's faith was or if he went to church, just check out Jefferson's races and JFK. Those are only two where the issue was very important.
As for why Huckabee left his position in the SBC, I don't know why, but nothing has been reported as a problem. Sometimes, God leads people to different areas than before. Why is this such a concern of yours? If you know of a problem that forced his entrance into politics, then bring it forth.
I happen to be a very logical type of thinker/personality. I have trouble reasoning why people think emotionally. I have no problem with the huckster not being a preacher anymore, doesn't bother me a whit except to think of other people who were or are preachers who are also politicions (the Rev. Al Sharpton, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, the Rev. Jimmy Carter).
I was making the point that if going to church is so important to people, those people should take a hard look at the person they are supporting and why he left the pulpit. It's a legitimate point.
That being said, I will end this tangent.
1) Many people do not want pols the play with the constitution to score political points
2) Skipping the NH debate showed Fred was crazy, not lazy. He could have built more momentum by announcing a couple of days earlier and then showing up for the free publicity (oxygen in any campaign) of the debate
3) Millions of Americans believe in God and don't go to church, for reasons that have more to do with churchgoers than God. In terms of votes, this is a gold mine. And Fred's generic poll #'s are good; he just sucks in the early primary states.
I asked this question yesterday thanks for picking up the ball and running with it. So, what this means is that Karl Rove is basically right about the average Rep. We want lower taxes, but not spending, and we want conservative judges, to overturn Roe and outlaw abortion. Oh, and we want the boarder secure, but we also like cheap labor.
Guys and girls, we're in a mess and need a messenger to get back to the basics of Conservatism. No, we don't need another Reagan cause there will never be one, but we do need one who can speak clearly and passionatly about Conservative principles.
As an Evangelical, I am amazed that we chastise the liberals for wanted to solve all problems ie the Nanny state, but that is exactly what we want when Huckabee et al, demands a HLA, knowing that right now it has no chance of passing.And please I do support the HLA, anyone that is Pro-life must. But please it's pandering at its worst to stand there and demand it when we know it doesn't have the votes, so we want the judges to do the work for us. What ever happened to go ye and make disciples of all men?
Pam
IF this races comes down to Huckabee v. Giuliani. Then it will be fiscal cons. v. social cons. attacking one another something unmerciful.
And yes, in that case, I will be firmly in the Huckabee camp.
That's why we NEED to rally to McCain, Romney, or Thompson before the Florida primary at the latest.
By the way, Huckabee is powerful not just because he's pro-life or evangelical. Nope--he's just too damn good at the debates and campaigning. It's obvious that he's a very decent man. Problem is he does not appear to be a fiscal conservative, so he won't rally the conservative coalition and will lose badly to Clinton (and the same goes for Giuliani).
"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke
....throughout December. Romney and Fred will be attempting to take him down because Huck is an obstacle to both. The Club for Growth will continue and step-up its campaign - scratch that, CRUSADE - to derail Huckabee, and finally, NumbersUSA will be trashing Huck on immigration.
December will be the gauntlet for Huck. Don't tell me negative ads will backfire either. I think that is true sometimes, however only when the negative attacks are directed personally at the individual. Attacks on one's record do not elicit the same backlash.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
works out very well for Rudy.
You know he's got to be enjoying himself watching the second placers tear each other to shreds.
PS...Anyone who says, "I won't vote for Candidate X in the general", is, in my opinion, not a Republican. The general is a choice between the candidates of each party. If you aren't willing to support your party's choice, maybe it's time you consider leaving the party.
I agree with some of your assessment on Mitt Romney, but you need to be corrected on this:
"he has never been able to reach 20% in any poll"
New Hampshire - 34% (Rasmussen)
New Hampshire - 35% (CBS News/NY Times)
New Hampshire - 32% (Boston Globe)
Here on 11/30.
Iowa - 25% (Rasmussen)
Iowa - 28% (ABC/Wash Post)
Iowa - 28% (American Res. Group)
Here on 11/30. Yes, Huck is surging, but either way Romney got 1st or 2nd.
South Carolina - 21% (Rasmussen)
South Caroline - 21% (Americna Res. Group)
Here on 11/30.
National - 21% (American Res. Group) - yeah outlier, I know
Here on 11/30.
My point is that although you'd like to say that Romney has no colminated support among conservatives, I'd say with the greater than 21% polls I see here, he is doing quite well for the number of candidates in the race.
I'll vote for him if he's the nominee, but I'll get ready for the thrash and lack of progress that will happen over the Fair Tax and that spending will not be controlled. I almost suspect he'll be worse on spending than Bush.
Jim,
I agree it's way over due, but for the Fair Tax to be successful, they need to repeal the 16th Amendment. I believe the FMA will be successful before the 16th Amendment repeal. I don't believe the 16th Amendment repeal will happen. Thus, he will thrash and spend tons of political capital on doing the repeal to no avail and what do we get for that? It will be a repeat of Bush's Social Security attempts. No progress, imho. It would be better for him to get the FMA past which he does support than waste it all on a pipe dream.
They did nothing about this. If we do not force Washington to do something, they will not ever do something. Why would they?
Look at the 70+ Congressmen who support HR25 and then look at the list of those who do not? Do you see anything striking?
If Huckabee was not endorsing FairTax, Fred Thompson would not have come up with his plan either. Of course his plan is a bandaid fix but at least he knows he addressed it.
Good for Fred, he's my second choice.
Ronald Reagan said that the tax code was cause for a revolution. He was right. The American people have just got to get it through there heads that it can be done. They have been brainwashed into thinking we need to pass this off to our kids just like it was passed to us by our parents.
This current tax code is destoying our country and way to many people in Washington just do not care. They just screw us and we let them.
Jim Tomasik
I knew about ARG, but that's ARG which I've even done research on their whacky polls.
Tommy Oliver
www.race42008.com
I agree that Romney's national numbers stink. But national is always a popularity test. The problem with that is overlooking Romney's technique of advertising. When Romney focuses on an area, he improves. S. Carolina is a good example. No one ever thought Romney could catch on there.
Once it's time to focus on national, I have no doubt that Romney could improve the numbers. Right now it's an issue of focus and strategy. So I agree with you on national, but I think it overlooks his strategy and the success he's had at executing the stategy. Remember, Huck's up in Iowa, but it hasn't been because Romney is coming down.
I am starting to get the feeling that supporters of certain candidates will claim the end of the Republican party with the election of certain other candidates. This happened to Rudy and now to Huckabee. You know I don't know what has happened to us this year but we seem to have a whole lot of people running for President that will literally end the party as we know it. Either that or certain elements of the party want others to believe that so that their candidate gets a new angle.
The simple fact of the matter is that none of the candidates will end the party and anyone claiming it is exhibiting demagoguery and I for one am disgusted by it.
Always tell the truth, George; it's the easiest thing to remember.
the party won't end, so to speak, but the current president has already done a fine job (although he had help) of mostly dismantling the entire conservative movement. Throwing us in despair, and putting us at odds with each other.
The wrong candidate can sure do a lot of damage.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
That was my whole point. The party won't die, but the direction of the party will.
Tommy Oliver
www.race42008.com
As a liberal, you can imagine how happy I am with congress right now, and my personal favorite candidate would have to be DK.
I don't know anything about Obama, and Edwards comes off as Polyanna to me. "Just elect me, I'll fix everything" doesn't work for me.
Logic says Clinton will win the nomination and I can actually live with that. With that said, does it sound like the Democrats are fielding a runaway victory?
Huck and Giuliani. Huck is likely to disregard fiscal conservatism in office, which is a HUGE problem since fiscal issues are the ones he will face the most. On the other hand, Giuliani seems to be really weak on social issues, but then social issues don't really come up very often (the rare Supreme Court justice nomination and, if the Republicans ever regained control of Congress, maybe a few laws related to social issues). Of course, if Giuliani flubbed a SC nomination, the consequences would be felt for decades.