Monday, December 24, 2007
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Partly because despite his devotees' insistence to the contrary, he would be crushed in November 2008.
Mainly, however, because we don't need one Ron Paul in the White House. What we need is about 218 of them in the House of Representatives. Fifty-one in the Senate would be nice, too. We need serious, dedicated Constitutionalists in Congress. Right now, we have a handful. If we accept that a candidate could not get the endorsement of the Liberty Caucus without being mostly right on the Constitution, we have about 20 members of the House of Representatives who fit the bill.
The Ron Paulites remind me quite a bit of the Constitution Party folks. They want the White House, but they would be better off working toward electing candidates to lower offices. That would lay the groundwork for a President down the road.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
on electability, see my blog posts where i analyze voter trends back into the 80s, and conclude that Huckabee would get 50.4% of the vote, in a pure head-to-head race against an undetermined Democrat.
Let me be clear, I'm not conceding the prevailing opinion that Huckabee is less electable than, say Giuliani. In fact, Rasmussen's latest Head-to-heads show Huckabee doing better against Clinton than anyone other than McCain.
Of course, National polls are meaningless. Not just now, but always in Presidential Politics. Thanks to the Electoral College system, the Presidential election is really a series of 50 State races rather than a national race. It's nice to garner the Majority (or even a plurality as Bill Clinton demonstrated), but it's not necessary, as George W. Bush proved in 2000.
However, perhaps even more telling for Huckabee, his Favorable rating is higher than all the Republican candidates other than McCain, and his negatives are the lowest of the main Republican contenders. Duncan Hunter is lower in unfavorables, but I'm certain that's because nobody knows who he is. Given his low recognition, his Unfavorable rating is actually pretty high.
If Huckabee can win the Republican Nomination, his chance of winning in November 2008 is as good as any other Republican's, and better than some.
I feared that 2008 would be a mirror image. Only this time, it would be Republicans trying to GOTV with appeals to the scariness of Hillary Clinton (and make no mistake about it, she is plenty scary). This strategy is a loser. It's also why I never jumped on the electability bandwagon. In the Republican race so far, "electability" has most often been defined as "somebody who can beat Hillary." Yes, several people would be inspired to come out to vote against Hillary, but firming up that support is much easier if the Republican is someone the people want to vote for.
Mike Huckabee is the kind of candidate that many people will want to vote for, even if they don't agree with him on every issue. I've only voted "against" somebody once in my life. That was in 1996. I wasn't particularly thrilled with Bob Dole, but I knew he was preferable to Bill Clinton.
I'm excited to have a candidate I can vote for in 2008.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
My "late to the party" support of Mike Huckabee for President in 2008 isn't the first time I've latched onto a so-called Dark Horse Candidate. In 1996, I made my first ever political contribution to Alan Keyes. I even drove from Waco to Denton to hear him speak in person. Maybe it was that Quixotic support that cause me to hold back so long on Huckabee. I didn't want to pick a candidate with absolutely no shot at getting the nomination. Now, as I examine the polls, I think there's good reason to think that this race has become Huckabee's to lose.
First, the attacks aren't sticking. Reagan was called the Teflon President. Huckabee may very well be 2008's Teflon Candidate.
Second, Fred Thompson has to drop out sooner or later. I'd prefer it be before South Carolina, but even if he waits until after South Carolina, as long as he exits before February 5th, this can only help Huckabee. There's no way to know for sure, but once Thompson drops out, the most logical place for his supporters to go is to Huckabee. Except, if McCain is still in the race, Thompson might endorse McCain.
Third, except for Thompson, there's really no other viable choice for Christian Republicans. I'm not knocking my friends who have chosen for various reasons to support Giuliani, but I just don't buy the "Rudy is the only one who can beat Hillary" argument. Duncan Hunter may be a fine man and would likely be a good President, but barring some sort of miracle, he's dead. Maybe he'll realize it after Iowa and New Hampshire.
Friday, December 07, 2007
After Mitt Romney gave his "Mormon Speech" yesterday (which wasn't really a "Mormon Speech" at all), some pundits criticized him for giving credence to those who would let religion affect their voting decisions. First, Romney was being far more realistic about the issue than his critics. Second, his critics are wrong. Third, many of his critics are hypocrits.
Romney is more realistic because a large percentage of Republican Primary voters do care about religion, and among those, a large percentage have serious concerns about voting for a Mormon. His critics are wrong because of the reasons I mentioned in the first paragraph. A personal Religious Test is neither unconstitutional, nor unreasonable. The hypocrisy of the critics can be found in the fact that many of them believe that a candidate who accepts the Bible as authoritative and believes that his faith should guide his actions should be disqualified from being President. In short, they apply a sort of anti-Religious Test.
I am not writing this to defend Romney. I have decided to support Mike Huckabee.
I think something he said in the speech was very significant.
Some believe that such a confession of my faith will sink my candidacy. If they are right, so be it. But I think they underestimate the American people. Americans do not respect believers of convenience.
Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world.
Romney jettisoned his supposed pro-life beliefs in order to become Governor of Massachusetts. Now, he has jettisoned his supposed pro-choice beliefs in an effort to secure the Republican nomination. Republicans should reject him because of this, not because he is a Mormon.
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
I need to get rid of the excess baggage.
Here's the new "BEFORE" pic: