Redstate

I've frankly never understood why Huckabee was playing so nicely with McCain and Giuliani, but campaigning so aggressively against Romney. Given that he is running in large part as the real social conservative, I would expect him to take potshots at his more liberal opponents in order to position himself as their moral alternative. Instead, he's not only left them alone, but often gone out of his way to speak well of both McCain and Giuliani.

Some of this can be chalked up to politics. Huckabee's focus is still primarily on Iowa, where McCain and Romney have very little presence. But even among Iowa voters, aggressively criticizing Giuliani's lack of "family values" credentials in a national debate could prove rewarding for him.

It honestly seems as if he is still hedging his bets at this point in the game. Romney has alienated himself from McCain and Giuliani with his slash-and-burn style of politicking. If either of them are the nominee, there is no way that Romney ends up on the VP ticket. Huckabee, on the other hand, has been playing very nice with everybody but Romney. If we nominate Giuliani or McCain, neither the darling of evangelicals and other social conservatives, Huckabee has positioned himself to be the perfect ticket-balancing running mate.

...but McCain/Huckabee is the only ticket that scares a guy like me.

Though I suppose that would be the nightmare scenario for those who think illegal immigration is a top issue.

As a Reagan conservative with libertarian leanings

I have also considered myself the same, which is why I think that having Huckabee on the ticket anywhere will be a desarster. He is the oposite of a libertarian or a conservative, he is in fact a Liberal. So putting two Liberals on the ticket is a really bad idea. All the true conservatives will walk away. Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney are the only two who are actually running as Conservatives. Granted, Huckabee is running as a social Conservative, but liberal on everything else (including class warefare). Frankly, I think Huckabee has shot any chance he had as a VP.

But there is another interesting point to your blog. Romney is the only candidate fight for both New Hampshire and Iowa. No other candidate is even close.

Romney should probably start lumping these two together and pointing out what RINO's they are.
.
_____________________________________________________
American First, Conservative Second, Republican Third

Hugh's written several Mitt's Rising posts, which I've never agreed with. When I read that the Manchester Union Leader ridiculed Gov. Romney this morning, I couldn't resist writing a post called "Romney's Sinking.

With ARTLA's ad running statewide in Iowa about Romney's differing statements on the life issue through the caucuses, coupled with McCain's resurgence in NH, it's difficult to picture a scenario where Romney could recover from that.

Huckabee's wife's maiden name was McCain, so McCain-Huckabee does seem to have some precedent...

But not among their voters. Most of the Huckabee supporters I know personally (and about half of those on Redstate) name McCain as their #2 choice, or even #1 if he would just get his momentum back.

Personally, McCain/Huckabee is my dream ticket, and not only because it would beat Clinton. Two strong social conservatives who understand the terrorist threat, and the budget hawk has the veto pen.

www.mikehuckabee.com

I don't always agree with McCain but at least he'll fight and win this war. I'm not of fan of his immigration stance or Mccain-Feingold (that is far down my list of issues). I do like he is tough againt terrorist, is good on budget issues and i agree with his social stands for the most part.

Go Dawgs, Sic em' Woof Woof

Interesting hypothesis, but if it comes to play out it will much more likely be a Huckabee/McCain ticket rather than the other way around.

BSR

Huck has shot up within weeks and is getting a pass fromt the MSM (aside from pieces where they worry about his religiosity . . . which only solidifies Huck's Iowa/SC evangelical base).

Everyone should be thanking ROmney for actually bringing to light Huck's worrisome record before he became the nominee by luck/timing and then faced a REAL vetting once the MSM unleashes on him.

McCain's been hiding in the woodwork for months and all the media still feel sorry for the "fallen frontrunner" . . . it's time for a reminding of just why conservatives don't like McCain.

It's called politics.

I have yet to meet the politician who doesn't want to win. They all spin (positively for themselves and negatively toward others).

If Romney survives this "two front assault" and wins Iowa and NH then he will have earned the nomination.

Jeff Fuller
http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/
See my disclaimer of Romney Support at my blogsite line above (essentially I'm an unpaid grassroots supporter/blogger).

I don't want either of these men leading our party. Huckabee is a liberal - I don't need to get into that, it's been done ad nauseum around here....and McCain, well, he's stabbed conservatives in the back way too many times for me to support him for president, as well as the de facto head of the conservative movement. Does anybody still remember McCain-Feingold and McCain-Kennedy Immigration reform? Are these bills disqualifiers to anyone else but me?

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

The level of antipathy for Mitt Romney by some never ceases to amaze me. Here we have Mark basically saying, "wouldn't it be exciting if someone who hates the Republican base almost as much as he hates free speech and a murderer-paroling socialist teamed up to beat Romney?"

Amazing.

His ethics, pardons, fiscal, etc. record is too messy. If he helps McCain win the nomination, McCain can say thank you and pick whomever he wants. Pawlenty or Fred would add way more to a McCain ticket. Rudy and Romney also would look elsewhere.

The main point of the blog, that Romney runs the risk of collapsing as a result of cooperation between McCain and Huckabee, is on target.

Until candidates start withdrawing, we're in a small plurality game. Because Romney might be a lot of folks' third choice, he isn't getting the breakout he desperately needs.

If, after spending $10 million plus, Romney does not win both Iowa and New Hampshire, he looks like a loser.

This is where McCain, Huckabee, and Rudy all want him.

The irony in all this is that Giuliani is trying the "late game" strategy that almost worked for Reagan in 1976. But instead of looking to the South as Reagan did, Giuliani is looking for the blue parts of red state Florida to ignite a blue state tsunami on Feb 5th.

The Republican primary is becoming an Iranian Firing Squad. All the Republican candidates please create a full circle around Mitt and fire!!!

First unintended casualty = Rudy
Second unintended casualty = Fred
Next unintended casualty = ????

Huckabee is going down, so I don't know why McCain would form any sort of alliance with him. Romney has hit some sort of ceiling, so I don't see where a "hand up" from Huckabee will help McCain, and I don't see why McCain would do anything to help Huckabee, a man who is about to free-fall. McCain has the potential for upward movement in both Iowa and New Hampshire, without the help of other candidates. Fred Thompson is McCain's most direct opponent, and Fred hasn't moved much.

Former Senator Fred Thompson is the only real conservative in the race for the Republican nomination, and the only candidate who can unite all three pillars of the Republican Party, namely, fiscal conservatives; national security and defense conservatives; and religious conservatives. The Republican party, given that the nation is divided, cannot afford to alienate any of these pillars, or they will lose in the general election, as a sufficient number of the alienated pillar’s constituents will simply not cast a vote for president when they vote. This is not an attempt to intimidate Republican voters, but merely a recognition that there are certain conservative voters who simply will not violate their own principles and vote for someone they have fundamental disagreements with, or do not trust. For example, Governor Romney, has not provided a satisfactory answer in the minds of many religious conservatives in his efforts to explain the change from pro-choice to pro-life. They want to know the motivation, and need to be convinced that it was not political. This matter remains unresolved, and thus alienates a proportion of religious conservatives who would otherwise support him as the party’s nominee - regardless of his own religious persuasion. Mayor Guiliani also has a similar problem with religious conservatives, given his personal position on abortion; and promising to appoint strict constructionist judges will not vitiate the conflict with pro-life constituents. Religious conservatives will not vote for a pro-choice Republican nominee - even if it means electing Senator Clinton president. They will not violate a moral conviction. They will simply adopt the attitude - God’s will be done, and maintain their conviction. Governor Huckabee alienates fiscal conservatives as a result of his tax and spend policies during his tenure in Arkansas. Senator McCain, terminally severed his relationship with a proportion of national security conservatives through his aggressive support of the proposed comprehensive immigration agreement, which failed as a result of a citizens’ uprising against this legislation; his opposition to the tax cut policy of the Bush Administration; and his opposition to aggressive interrogation techniques on high value captured terrorists.
Senator Thompson has none of the foregoing problems. He is strong on defense of the nation during a time of war, and has already committed to a substantial increase in the size of our military to fight the enemy threatening our survival; will seal the border, and reverse illegal immigration through attrition; will maintain the current tax policy, and reduce taxes by instituting his proposed voluntary flat tax system with only two rates, one at 10% with no deductions; and the other 25% maximum with current deductions maintained. He will also lower the corporate tax rate to ensure US Corporations are operating at the same tax rates as foreign corporations. Moreover, Mr. Thompson is the only candidate to assemble a plan to address the impending social security system crisis - the “third rail” of American politics. The Senator is acceptable to religious conservatives as well, given his strong and long-standing pro-life position, which explains why he was endorsed by the National Right to Life organization, and many similar state organizations. As to the “fire in the belly” complaint , which is preferable, “Fire in the belly;” or the following leadership characteristics? Personal integrity; moral conviction; courage; perseverance; boldness; humility; analytical intelligence; calm and deliberate; decisiveness; understands historical context and timing; commitment; and vision. In short, the Senator will show more than adequate “fire in the belly” when he demonstrates to those attempting to destroy our beloved nation a backbone of iron and the fury of an adversary who will unleash a conflagration, if necessary, to preserve our sacred liberty. One must guard against being deceived by cliché terms such as “fire in the belly,” in the middle of a media driven political campaign, when there are substantially more important, and higher priority characteristics needed in the President of the United States, and leader of the free world.
For Republicans to win the White House, they must be united and have a large voter turnout among all three of their voting pillars, that is fiscal conservatives; national security conservatives; and religious conservatives. Senator Thompson, is the only candidate not alienating any of these voting pillars, and thus can galvanize their support. Accordingly, he is the best hope for Republicans in the 2008 national election. Indeed Senator Thompson can win the general election, and rest assured the other party knows it for the same reasons articulated herein; to wit: he unites the Republican constituencies and assures a large conservative voter turnout in the 2008 election.