Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Huck Hanging Tough Against Hillary

According to Rasmussen, he’s within the margin of error. (Thanks to Lucas Morel.)

Discussions - 14 Comments

Peter,

are you throwing that link out there to be provocative, to get the political juices flowing, or are you seriously suggesting that the GOP go with Huckabee?

are you seriously suggesting that the GOP go with Huckabee?

I'm no fan of Huckabee myself, but if we're going to make the decision of who to nominate based on polls, why wouldn't we pick Huck?

The GOP hasn't gone with a small state Governor since like Coolidge.

Let's run back our nominees:

GW, Texas Governor,

Bob Dole, Kansas Senator, Majority/Minority Leader,

George H.W.B., Vice President,

RR, Former Governor of California,

Gerald Ford, incumbent President,

Nixon, incumbent President, previously Vice President,

Barry Goldwater, Senator,

Nixon, Vice President,

Eisenhower, SHAEF,

Dewey, {wasn't he former Gov of New York?},

There's some guy in '44 who I can't recall,

Wendell Wilkie, 1940 {forgot who he was}.

So that's going back far enough. The last time we went with a guy with a lack of credentials was Goldwater, and that didn't end too well.

Democrats go with small state, unknown Governors, such as Dukakis, Carter, Clinton. That's their style, not ours.

The GOP hasn't gone with a small state Governor since like Coolidge.

The other candidates are a Senator, three Congressmen, a mayor, and a former governor of another small state, Massachussetts. The GOP has not gone successfully with a senator in the last hundred years. It has never ever gone with a mayor. And I believe the last GOP congressman to become president was Lincoln.

So I'm sorry, but I don't see that your argument is persuasive. It means that we need to scrap the entire list of candidates we have at present and start from scratch. Is that what you are suggesting?

Democrats go with small state, unknown Governors, such as Dukakis, Carter, Clinton. That's their style, not ours.


Looking at the candidates we have this time shows that nominating small state governors would be an upgrade in quality for us. Who wouldn't prefer somebody like Matt Blunt to the current contenders?

Huckabee's problem is not that he is the governor of a small state. It's that he is poor on a number of issues.

Hugh Hewitt convincingly argues that a vote for Huck turns out to be a vote for Rudy, because in these earlier races it irreversibly weakens the only social conservative who can actually wrest the nomination from Rudy, which is Hugh's man Romney. Romney's my man, too, but I'm mighty nervous about his election-winning capacity. Hugh has a track record of being too convincing for his own good, but check out this particular argument.

I'd read that post, too, Carl, and any Huckabee fans ought to at least give it a once over. Hugh Hewitt is a very level-headed moderate conservative, but you're right about him being in Romney's corner (though, like many moderate conservatives, Hugh says he'll back whoever the GOP nominates - even if Huckabee manages to pull off the impossible).

Dick Morris says Huckabee can win.

There's a reason of course we haven't gone with a Mayor, for the simple reason we've never had a hero/Mayor like Rudy Giuliani.

That's pretty straight forward.

I don't think it's wise to go with anyone from Capitol Hill. There are too many votes on record, too many positions where one had to take a position, yea or nay. That's why Hussein Obama has got to get that nomination now, or his Presidential aspirations are done, finis, kaput. Likewise Hillary of Borg. She either wins now, not just the nomination, the general, or it's over. Another 4 years of votes in the Senate are but 4 more years where she proves definitively how much of a radical she is.

Giuliani isn't seen merely as a Mayor. He's seen as a national hero, which enables him to cross over somewhat into that territory held by men like Grant, TR and Eisenhower. Of course those that prefer Romney or Huckabee deride Giuliani's hero status. But that's mere envy. If their candidate had such a background, we'd be hearing about it day and night.

Thompson has no record, except in the Senate, he wasn't a leader, nor a whip. And the one commission he headed up, looking at the Chinese money problem, he blew.

Of course Romney has a record, of assuming "positions" most hospitable to his latest political hankerings. That's nothing to rave over. And as for McCain, he's a Greek tragedy. A guy perfectly suited for the candidacy, except that he courted the love of those that hate the party, hate conservatism, and mock and deride everything we hold dear. And if that's hyperbole, it's not by very much.

There's a reason of course we haven't gone with a Mayor, for the simple reason we've never had a hero/Mayor like Rudy Giuliani.

You'll have to jog my memory here, Dan. What heroic actions has Rudy Giuliani peformed? And of course, you have abandoned your earlier position, that we had to be slaves to history.

Of course Romney has a record, of assuming "positions" most hospitable to his latest political hankerings.

As opposed to the "heroic" Giuliani, who has backtracked on every issue in an effort to get elected?

And as for McCain, he's a Greek tragedy. A guy perfectly suited for the candidacy, except that he courted the love of those that hate the party, hate conservatism, and mock and deride everything we hold dear.

You have just described Giuliani, not McCain. Courted the love of those that hate the Republican party? Yup. The love of those who hate conservatism? Indeed. The love of those who mock and deride everything we hold dear? Of course.


It was not John McCain who endorsed Mario Cuomo for governor. It was not John McCain who supported Roe V Wade. It was not John MCain who voted for George McGovern. It was not John McCain who gutted the contract with America. It was not John McCain who called the NRA "extremsts" and joined with Bill Clinton to pass the assualt weapons ban. It was not John McCain who took the Federal government to court to defend NY's sanctuary city policy. It was not John McCain who was endorsed by the NY Liberal party. It was not John McCain who opposed the greatest achievment of the GOP in the ninties, passing welfare reform. It was not John McCain who described himself as a Rockefeller Republican. It was not John McCain who said that "most of Bill Clintons policies are pretty close to most of mine." It was not John McCain who opposed the tax cutting measures of the GOP Congress.

No, it took a "hero" like Rudy Giuliani to do these things.

What heroic actions has Rudy Giuliani peformed?

He had the guts to enter the GOP primaries after dressing in drag and living with a queer. It's a good bet that anyone with cojones like that wouldn't be afraid of no Arabs.

I didn't abandon a former position. You misrepresented my position to place me in some cozy little box. We haven't chosen small state Governors, we haven't chosen candidates with little name recognition before the nomination process. The exception to that rule is the one for national heroes. Just because you may consider Giuliani a non-hero, doesn't mean that your fellow Americans share your jaundiced view of the former Mayor.

Without 9/11, Giuliani never would have had a prayer for the nomination. But how he handled himself during that brutal event, and the aftermath, sent his popularity into the stratosphere. So much so that he has the inside straight for the nomination.

If you want to share Al Sharpton's view of Giuliani's performance during 9/11, feel free, knock yourself out.

But if you do so, you'll be somewhat puzzled why Giuliani gained the GOP nomination.

Huckabee is a happy face candidate without any strong recognition amongst the wider electorate. Most Americans aren't closely following the debates, which is reflected in the ratings.

The GOP hasn't selected no-names in quite some time. Huckabee's nomination would mark a dramatic departure from the norm.

Romney's name became known during the Olympics, when he did a sensational job turning a scandal into a success. Thompson is an actor.

I mean I know that many are bitter about Giuliani closing in on the nomination. That's too bad. Difficult for me really to sympathize though.

And as for his dressing in drag, have any of you given a thought that Giuliani in drag is still more of a man than most of the leadership of our Party, especially our President.

Giuliani is the answer to Hillary's unbridled quest for power.

Reconcile yourselves to his nomination.

Stop the delusion that the GOP is going to turn to Huckabee. Or Thompson for that matter.

"Huckabee is a happy face candidate without any strong recognition amongst the wider electorate. Most Americans aren't closely following the debates, which is reflected in the ratings."

So there you have it... if americans/conservatives paid attention they would choose Huckabee...but Guiliani is a "hero"...i.e. he has name recognition...

It is as if Dan is saying:listen up folks the american people don't pay attention to politics because they don't have time to do so. The American people know that Guiliani is a hero because that is the residual narrative of September 11th. This sort of majority narrative furnishes americans with ready made opinions, that they need not question, and Guiliani is the answer for the aggregate majority. Quit probbing and asking thoughtfull questions of the ready made majority opinion, accept that which you are given and get ready to join hands with Guiliani to defend america from the greatest evil since Grendel (Bill)...Because Hillary Clinton is Grindel's mother and Guiliani is the heroic Beowulf!

The bad thing about it is that Dan might be right because de Toqueville was closer to being half right than half wrong.

What I mean is that it does seem awfully predetermined: Guiliani vs. Hillary...and that is annoying for someone who likes Ron Paul. At what point is the irritation of the predetermined going to be great enough to culminate in people saying look I am going to vote for the "other" option?

What happens if Huckabee picks up the coalition of the disafected? I think this could happen if Guiliani supporters keep stressing the "reality" of the situation.

Not quite, good try though.......Huckabee's name recognition is a PRODUCT of his past, his policy decisions, to wit, he's a small Southern Governor, who did nothing, who rattled no cages, who made no name for himself. Huckabee took on no sacred cows. Had he done so, we would have heard of him. He had his chance, and he played it safe. We're not interested in men who play it safe. We've far too many of them as is.

Giuliani rattled cages from the day he arrived, actually BEFORE he arrived.

There seems to be this fantasy afoot that if only Fundamentalists and social Conservatives rallied to Huckabee, all problems would be solved, and the GOP could go on its merry way to victory against Hillary.

But it isn't a matter of rallying behind one, it's a matter of selecting the proper candidate that can reach out beyond the Red states. Huckabee only offers a repetition of the 2000 and '04 election campaigns. But the electorate has changed, partly because of ferocious detestation of what Washington's been doing of late, but largely because of the tin ear and incompetence on daily display from this administration. A Republican candidate can't offer what Bush offered, but with more of a happy face. That isn't going to cut it. Many in the South in particular, can't get their mind around that sombre fact. But that's the case.

We need to embark on a bold path if we're to prevail. And there's only one guy who can do that, while keeping Conservatives on the ranch, and that's Giuliani. Just several years ago, many of us thought that McCain would be able to make a similar claim. But McCain's own actions placed the golden ring beyond his grasp.

WE allowed the GOP leadership to betray us, to betray the Platform of the Party, and now we're in a bind. Had we insisted on changes years ago, had we demanded the ouster of Karen Hughes, Andy Card, and a host of lesser offenders, we wouldn't be in this boat now.

You can't see your Party leadership try to deliver ports over to the creepy leaders of Dubai without damaging your party. You can't seriously suggest Gonzales and Meirs for the high court without damaging your party. You can't campaign on the slogan "Help is on the way," and cut procurement, maintain existing troop levels, mismanage the care of troops wounded in action.

Bush has been a disgrace in many ways. There are many in our ranks absolutely furious with him, with Cheney for standing idle while all this crap was going down, and with the sycophantic enablers around him.

Our Party is in deep trouble, we're up the creek, and it's not the time nor the place to mull over another happy faced Southerner. That means NO to Huckabee, and that means NO to Thompson.

And Romney, albeit not a Southerner, has too much of a happy face for my likings as well. But I find it difficult to take Romney seriously. The guy is over 60, and is STILL forming opinions on some of the most serious social causes that have torn our country over the last several decades.

Our country needs smart, savvy tough men in leadership. Romney, Huckabee and Thompson don't fit the bill.

There are three guys who do, McCain, Hunter and Giuliani. Hunter falls because he's from the House, he lacks name recognition, and thus he even has less of a leg to stand on than small state Governors. McCain was out there pushing for tens of millions of Mexicans, and tens of millions more, to come to our country, and change the fabric of our nation forever. He's out.

Which leaves Giuliani.

The guy I preferred was Gingrich. He's smart and tough. But he declined, precisely because he knew he wouldn't win the nomination, and he knew that if he did his record and agenda would be wildly misrepresented by a foaming at the mouth media.

Which leaves us with no choice but Giuliani.

Who I will support. Doesn't mean that I agree with him on everything. BUT on the foremost issue of our time, the war to the death against the dark vision of muslim supremacists, which is a life issue by the by, Giuliani and I see eye to eye.

Bush came in telling us he wasn't going to "kick the can down the road." He scoffed at those who declared themselves handcuffed because they couldn't get the UN to go along with sanctions or stiffer actions against dirtball regimes.

But now? He's kicking the problem of Iranians and nuclear weapons down the road, he's kicking the problem of energy policy down the road, he's kicking the problem of $100/barrel down the road, and of course, he's offering the weak defense that Clinton offered, "they can't do anything because they can't get the UN to go along."

Bush is pathetic, Condi is pathetic, the plans for Annapolis are squalid and sordid.

And to clean up for this mess of of intellectual, moral and strategic bankruptcy, it's going to take more than some happy face like Huckabee, some actor who affects a thoughtfulness like Thompson, or some guy who has taken every position under the Sun to advance his political career, and has promised to "call in the lawyers" before he does anything about that satanic regime in Tehran.

We need Giuliani. We need him to clean house at home, and kick ass abroad.

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/11363