Although his analysis is mixed, Terry Eastland doesn’t really think so. Republicans are depressed, turnout in Iowa will be down, and surely Huck’s supporters are less depressed than most. Christmas civility will probably mute attacks on his selectively big-government Arkansas record.
The main danger for Huckabee: His three-tickets-get-punched-in-Iowa theory no longer applies to him. His surge has been so successful than he won’t be able to spin placing or showing into winning. The main danger for Republicans: He may do so well that he’ll emerge as the only alternative to Rudy, and without being adequately vetted in a variety of ways. One mega-disadvantage of "frontloading" is that it makes buyer’s remorse more likely than ever. What if, a month from now, both Rudy and Huck seem like disastrous choices? Does the system allow for the emergence of another possibility?
Related question: Is Romney through, should we stick a fork in him?
And has Romney already enjoyed his best campaign moment, {the first GOP debate}, and it's all downhill from here.
Rudy has been vetted. There won't be any buyer's remorse concerning him.
The rank and file knows the party is in a bad way, and that we don't have a Conservative candidate that can handle Hillary. That being the case, we're going with the best possible option, which is Giuliani.
So there will be no buyer's remorse about Rudy, if however we were to select another, such as the aging non-executive Thompson, the Southern Pastor, Huckabee, the Mormon and flip-flopper, were we to do that, ........... you bet your a#@ we'll see buyer's remorse.
There will be no buyers remorse over Rudy, if the GOP has decided to knowingly endorse liberalism.
If, as seems more likely, most Republicans still dislike liberalism, the buyers remorse over Giuliani will the worst you've ever seen.
A striking thing about Rudy backers such as Dan is that they never, ever, make a positive case for the man. Everything hinges on selling him as an inevitable winner. At all costs, people must be dissuaded from looking at his record too closely.
Where would he be if people noticed that he was a bigger flip-flopper than Romney, and a lot more liberal to boot?
Since Rudy hasn't engaged in the ritual deception that other candidates have, there will be no buyer's remorse, because he hasn't lied to anyone.
He hasn't pulled a Bush, {father and son} and deceived the party about their true stance on abortion. He hasn't gone off and invented some trip to Damascus experience for himself, where the light suddenly struck him at some Harvard seminar {an interesting place to be sure, to think the light descended} as another candidate we all know.
Rudy's been refreshingly honest with the party, while simultaneously pledging not to wage a jihad against the GOP platform. I much prefer his approach than that of Romney, who insults our intelligence.
And as for not making a positive case for the man, I've done so often on the threads. I've gone over what he accomplished in New York City, I've gone over his resume, I've gone over how his manner and style is EXACTLY what we need in Washington, where the departments and agencies are in open revolt against the duly elected representatives of the American people.
I know exactly what he's done for New York, and that's exactly what I want done in Washington. I want him to go down there and conduct purges throughout the Federal government.
So yes, there IS a positive case to be made for the man, and just because I don't dwell constantly thereon, shouldn't be interpreted as that case not existing.
Doesn't mean that I wouldn't support someone else if he or she were in the race. But Margaret Thatcher isn't jumping into our GOP primary battle. So of the real contenders for the nomination, I consider Rudy FAR AND AWAY the better nominee.
Rudy's been refreshingly honest with the party
So has Hillary Clinton.
I know exactly what he's done for New York, and that's exactly what I want done in Washington.
I know exactly what he's done for New York, and that's exactly what I don't want done in Washington. I don't want the obliteration of the Republican party as a political force in America, as has happened in NY.
You've conflated the fortunes of the Republican Party in NYC with that of the wider Empire State. That was unwise.
Giuliani delivered the Mayor's office to the man that his party selected, Bloomberg.
As for the Empire State, you need to focus your ire on a fellow named PATAKI. Perhaps you've heard of him, he's been a nightmare. Giuliani saved New York City, and restored Republican credibility in the city. Pataki damaged the party elsewhere in the state, and Giuliani was one of the few Republicans trying to stave off the damage, men like him and Rep. Peter King.
And you've taken NO cognizance of WIDER CULTURAL TRENDS North of the Mason-Dixon Line. Those areas are trending strongly BLUE. NOT RED.
Republicans are fighting for their lives in the Mid-Atlantic states. That's how bad it is. And Giuliani shone like the North Star throughout that period of somber gloom.