Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Huck Closing on Romney

...in Iowa. I’m not saying this is good news. And for me the real story is that a strong majority of voters in that state will probably choose either Romney or Huckabee.

Discussions - 14 Comments

Sooner or later you guys are going to have to embrace Huckabee, so you might as well save yourself the embarassment and make it sooner. The intellectual and moneyied establishments usually miss the boat because they have faith in their own wisdom and/or wealth rather than where it should be place. Huckabee isn't part of them, he's one of the people with a grounded and sensible outlook on life and politics. Win lose or draw, Huckabee, and the forces that support him will be powerful in American politics for a long time. I just hope that the GOP is smart enough to keep these forces on their side.

If he gets the nomination, I'll support him. However, I think all he'll do is take votes away from Romney in the early states, thus ensuring a Rudy nomination. Florida's primary follows closely on the heels of the other early primary states, and I don't see how the Huckabee machine can pull off a win without having spent any time or money in any state but Iowa.

Here's a story out of Arkansas which offers an alternate view to the heartability of the former governor.

File under Bad News/Good News: Don't recall where I saw it (on the internet, so it must be true . . .), but it was a poll showing current favorites among voters, as well as the level of familiarity with the candidates. Huckabee is still unknown to many voters, close to 50% or so, and yet he is still polling pretty well. I infer that this leaves much room for him to continue his surge in the pre-caucus/pre-primary polls, which should translate into stronger actual support at the polls that count.

The ethics allegations are very weak, and the Huckabee campaign has been very proactive about addressing them. I mean if "ethics problems" of this level bar someone from the Presidency I think we should throw out the whole field. Should we really worry that Huckabee was given a $350 KitchenAid mixer as a house warming gift? Come on people. The $45,000 he paid himself out of his senate campaign was to reimburse himself because he took a second mortgage out on his house to pay for the use of a plane.

I mean Rudy's old police commissioner just got indicted and his ruined marriages. Thompson was a lobbyist. He may have been ethical but the very word sets people off. Romney is clean, but has a whole slew of policy flip-flops that make you wonder how genuine he is. Edwards was paid millions not $42,000 by his “non-profit” group that was formed to fight poverty. There are encyclopedias full of Op-research on Hillary.

If this is the worst they have, I say he’s pretty squeaky clean.

Huckabee isn't part of them, he's one of the people with a grounded and sensible outlook on life and politics.

His open borders stance on immigration puts him right in the middle of the "intellectual and moneyied establishment".

John, you're missing the feelings of the people here. I live in a farm community, and while like Huckabee they don't support illegal immigration, they certainly, as ordinary people, want to give as many people as possible a chance. Intellectuals break both ways on immigration, but so do the people. The fact that illegal immigration has not proved a huge campaign issue (see JD Hayworth, AZ-08, and all the places the GOP lost running one issue anti-illegal campaigns in 2006) just goes to show that there is no firm opinion anywhere on what to do about our problem. Except for controlling the border, which Huckabee supports.

Hey, best of luck to Huckabee - I just don't want to hear everyone bitchin' and moanin' and declaring the death of the GOP when Rudy gets the nomination.

Lucas Morel does raise a good point about Rudy's name recognition, but I ask: in a primary season with several states (I believe we're up to five now) voting on January 5th, and the rest of the ones that matter voting on Super Tuesday in February, isn't superior name recognition going to be a powerful advantage? I'm not saying this is a good thing, and we probably have the new 12-man debates to thank for the lack of meatier coverage, but it is an obstacle I doubt Huckabee can surmount.

Well, no one knows, but I think the quickened schedule could make the bounce from winning the early states even more important, and Giuliani is not in the best position there. The only polls that matter are election day. When people see who other people have actually voted for, their opinions change quickly. I've also seen estimates that the media bounce out of Iowa is worth $70 million; an amount Huckabee could make good use of.

Hugh Hewitt is in a full blown panic. It's hilarious to follow. He keeps pushing the line that a vote for Huckabee is a vote taken away from Romney, which means it's a vote for Giuliani. Well now Huckabee is in a position to turn that one around on the Romney camp. A vote for Romney is a vote for Giuliani, for only Huckabee can take on Giuliani. Huckabee now can say that Romney's continued efforts are a distraction, which detracts attention from the real candidate who can take on Giuliani.

Romney has spent a fortune in Iowa, and all he's got to show for it is Huckabee overtaking him.

I don't think Huckabee is going to do it, but if he gets the nomination I'll support him.

The guy that I don't see how I could support is Romney.

Agreed with Dan that Romney is by far the least appealing of the GOP. A man with principles that are for sale to the highest bidder/quickest path to power. He's also extremely fake, unelectable...the list could go on a long time. I might hire him to run a business, but never to run the country.

I'm not a Giuliani fan either, but I'd rather the election go to Rudy than Mitt. H. Hewitt is a joke, and the election will probably come down to a Rudy-Huck show.

The thing is, Romney has proven effectiveness. I'd place Romney in charge of FEMA, might place him in charge of Homeland Security. But I'd NEVER allow him to dictate policy.

There IS something so squalid about a man in his early 60s, STILL changing positions this way and that, all to pander so that he can continue to climb onward and upwards.

It's degeneracy, it's textbook degeneracy.

Sure, he's affable, he looks agreeable, doesn't appear mean-spirited, or anything like that.

BUT IT'S STILL DEGENERACY.

And after 12 years of the Bush family at the helm, I'VE HAD IT WITH DEGENERATES. I've had it with creatures who could think, let alone utter: "See you at the signing ceremony."

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/11412