Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Romney as Bush... no, not that one
It occurs to me that the reason Romney may have trouble catching on is that he is a milquetoast, gee-whiz northerner from a rich political family, whose very persona bespeaks a wimpy sort of moderation. In other words, he's like George H. W. Bush. Republicans tried that brand once and found it lacking. They seem much more into fiery New Yorkers, southwestern soldiers, and rural Ozarks preacher-types this campaign season. We'll see how that goes.
Where do we go from here?
First of all, congratulations to Senator McCain on last night's victory in the New Hampshire primary. Considering he was supposed to be DOA a while ago, it was hard for me not to smile as I saw this American patriot make a victory speech. If nothing else, he will always have New Hampshire.
Also, Hillary is still alive and kicking. It was frankly both a baldly political moment and a very humanizing one to see Hillary cry. Is this what propelled her over the top, or were all the polls simply wrong? I don't know... what I do know is, this is one campaign cycle for the ages.
Which brings us back to Governor Huckabee. I know he didn't break too high above the double-digit threshold, but then, no one expected him to in New Hampshire. What's amazing is that he turned out 20,000 voters and got as small a percentage as he did. The independents must really like McCain. (Is this a validation of the surge strategy? I'd like to believe so.)
Frankly, last night's McCain victory may actually be a boost to Huckabee... Romney lost yet again, despite home court advantage, lots of money, and the lead in the polls for months that was yet again blown. Romney has trouble closing the deal; we've seen this twice in two contests so far. Romney is not that electable- he lost his 1994 Senate race to Ted Kennedy and then won one election to be governor. Most pundits predict he would not win again if he ran for re-election. To be fair, this is Massachusetts we're talking about, where Republican voters are outnumbered. Still, in contrast to Gov. Huckabee, Romney seems to have burnt bridges. His electoral inexperience is a liability, whereas Huckabee's experience against Clinton is a definite net plus.
So from here, it's on to Michigan and then South Carolina. Michigan is the X factor; I actually think Huckabee's message could sell very well here. Will he sell it? We'll see. If Romney doesn't win here, he's toast.
South Carolina will be ugly. If Huckabee wins, he's in great stead for Florida. A double win in SC and FL will pretty much make the Gov a sure-shot for the nomination.
Here's an article from the American Spectator, calling the conservative elites on their anti-Huck bias. That's all!
Also, Hillary is still alive and kicking. It was frankly both a baldly political moment and a very humanizing one to see Hillary cry. Is this what propelled her over the top, or were all the polls simply wrong? I don't know... what I do know is, this is one campaign cycle for the ages.
Which brings us back to Governor Huckabee. I know he didn't break too high above the double-digit threshold, but then, no one expected him to in New Hampshire. What's amazing is that he turned out 20,000 voters and got as small a percentage as he did. The independents must really like McCain. (Is this a validation of the surge strategy? I'd like to believe so.)
Frankly, last night's McCain victory may actually be a boost to Huckabee... Romney lost yet again, despite home court advantage, lots of money, and the lead in the polls for months that was yet again blown. Romney has trouble closing the deal; we've seen this twice in two contests so far. Romney is not that electable- he lost his 1994 Senate race to Ted Kennedy and then won one election to be governor. Most pundits predict he would not win again if he ran for re-election. To be fair, this is Massachusetts we're talking about, where Republican voters are outnumbered. Still, in contrast to Gov. Huckabee, Romney seems to have burnt bridges. His electoral inexperience is a liability, whereas Huckabee's experience against Clinton is a definite net plus.
So from here, it's on to Michigan and then South Carolina. Michigan is the X factor; I actually think Huckabee's message could sell very well here. Will he sell it? We'll see. If Romney doesn't win here, he's toast.
South Carolina will be ugly. If Huckabee wins, he's in great stead for Florida. A double win in SC and FL will pretty much make the Gov a sure-shot for the nomination.
Here's an article from the American Spectator, calling the conservative elites on their anti-Huck bias. That's all!
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Post-Iowa...
Well, Gov. Huckabee obviously succeeded in doing what all Mitt's money never could: persuading people to vote for him.
How will New Hampshire go? I predict 14-20% of the vote will be Governor Huckabee's.
The debates this weekend didn't help Mike much, I don't reckon. (Though they may have helped Fred Thompson).
But onward he goes. Also, congrats to Barack Obama. I didn't think he'd make it a victory over Hillary so quickly. Watch for him to mop the floor with Hillary tonight in NH, and then go on and win in SC. (He's not eligible in MI).
For anyone interested in learning more about Obama, I found this informative.
There's a great post by a fellow blogger for Huckabee about what true conservatism is, and a lively philosophical discussion followed...
And I dunno, it might just be coincidence or an instance of a man who likes to see himself on TV, but this bearded guy who decided during Sunday's debate that he liked Romney has been used in a focus group... by the same pollster... in the same election season! Interesting, at least... though there's no proof that this is anything more than that... but would anyone put it past Governor Willard to get one (or more) of his own into that room to try and sway viewers? Because unless Romney wins decisively in NH tonight, there is no way that room was representative. Interesting, if nothing else...
Paid Romneybots, please refrain from wasting your time by making outlandish claims about comparing your party's base to Hitler-era Germans, it really isn't flattering for anyone involved, not to mention recklessly untrue.
How will New Hampshire go? I predict 14-20% of the vote will be Governor Huckabee's.
The debates this weekend didn't help Mike much, I don't reckon. (Though they may have helped Fred Thompson).
But onward he goes. Also, congrats to Barack Obama. I didn't think he'd make it a victory over Hillary so quickly. Watch for him to mop the floor with Hillary tonight in NH, and then go on and win in SC. (He's not eligible in MI).
For anyone interested in learning more about Obama, I found this informative.
There's a great post by a fellow blogger for Huckabee about what true conservatism is, and a lively philosophical discussion followed...
And I dunno, it might just be coincidence or an instance of a man who likes to see himself on TV, but this bearded guy who decided during Sunday's debate that he liked Romney has been used in a focus group... by the same pollster... in the same election season! Interesting, at least... though there's no proof that this is anything more than that... but would anyone put it past Governor Willard to get one (or more) of his own into that room to try and sway viewers? Because unless Romney wins decisively in NH tonight, there is no way that room was representative. Interesting, if nothing else...
Paid Romneybots, please refrain from wasting your time by making outlandish claims about comparing your party's base to Hitler-era Germans, it really isn't flattering for anyone involved, not to mention recklessly untrue.
Sunday, December 23, 2007
"Arrogant bunker mentality"
(Disclaimer: Don't read while eating)
Governor Huckabee has accused the Bush administration of having an "arrogant bunker mentality"; he stated this a while ago.
Mitt Romney, of all people, actually said that this statement showed Huckabee was "disloyal" to the president. Now, excuse me for a moment while I go pull out my hair, throw up, and laugh myself silly all at once. (Maybe two moments, since cleaning up and recovering from the first moment may take a while.)
Ok, back. Where to begin?
1) This is a democracy. I hope we are still allowed to express "disloyalty" to our leaders, Governor Ken Doll.
2) Whatever President Bush has earned from traditional conservatives (the word gratitude perhaps comes to mind), he certainly has NOT earned our loyalty. FEMA director Brown, anyone? Harriet Miers nomination, anyone? How about approving RU-486 (the morning after pill) for over-the-counter sales? "Comprehensive immigration reform"? Entitlement expansion? Out-of-control spending? Any of this ringing a bell? Thank goodness Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Manuel Miranda, and others have been "disloyal" to the president on these issues.
If there is a lesson conservatives should have learned from the Bush presidency, it's that you can't refrain from making and accepting criticism when it's due, even if it may temporarily harm your "team". "Good" people, on the "right side", wearing white hats are capable of misguided and even black (hatted) deeds, and must from time to time be opposed. (Or, to quote J. K. Rowling via Sirius Black, "The world isn't split into good people and Death Eaters".) It's better to take the hit in the short run than to let a long-term liability snowball to an unbearable size. (But enough about social security.)
Case in point: Senator John McCain. Now, McCain isn't a 100% conservative. Probably has never claimed to be. So, he probably wasn't at the top of President Bush's speed-dial when it came time to plan the war in Iraq. So when the aftermath of the war didn't go nearly as well as the President had planned, the anti-war left and the Michael Moores of the world (could the world actually contain more than one?) were able to drag the President's (and by extension, the Republican party's) image through the mud and turn public opinion against the war. I believe as early as 2003 Senator McCain tried to tell President Bush more troops were needed. Did the President listen? No. (Full disclosure: I favored invading Iraq, still favor staying there as long as need be, and have never faltered on this. I also voted for Bush in 2004, and given the same choice again, would do so, though perhaps not as enthusiastically.)
Election '04 came and went, and the President and his party did well. But the war continued to worsen after a time. Again came the calls to change strategy and deploy more troops. Bush ignored this advice, coming from an interested member of his own party. Bush again rebuffed the advice. Then the party lost control of both houses of congress in 2006. NOW the President was suddenly in a mood to admit he was wrong. This should never have happened. Bush should have sacked then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld BEFORE the election, not after. This alone may have saved the Republicans from losing congress and facing the specter of a Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid. (Although, in Bush's defense, it's still hard to type those words with a straight face. Who'd have thunkit?)
But most importantly, we paid the cost for Bush's foolishness in human lives. This is why it matters, more than any political agenda.
Now Senator McCain has been vindicated on the surge strategy, no thanks to King George's "arrogant bunker mentality". But on all of the above debacles, the evidence shows time and again that Bush refused to listen to those who were not his 100% ideological allies, often to his own detriment. The public has noticed this, while in a most curious phenomenon, many Republicans have not.
Either Mitt Romney has buried his head in the sand on this one, or he is condescending enough that even though he knows Huckabee to be right, he is pretending to disagree in a desperate attempt to appeal to primary voters. The fact is, President Bush has surrounded himself with yes-men and he and others have paid the price for it. This is the quintessence of an "arrogant bunker mentality".
3) If Mr. Romney think Republican voters should punish Governor Huckabee for being "disloyal" to the President because he dared point out Bush's obvious flaws, Governor Romney deserves the guillotine for the multitude of issues on which he disagreed with President Bush during his time as Massachusetts governor. I think the word "audacity" comes to mind when I hear Romney criticizing anyone for being either a) too liberal or b) not a big enough fan of George Bush.
(Case in point: watch the faces at debates when Romney starts lecturing all the life-long conservatives about what a conservative is.)
Prediction: Neither Rudy nor McCain nor Huckabee will endorse Romney over any of the others in a tight contest.
4) EVEN IF Huckabee is wrong about the President, and to my knowledge he has been very measured and precise in what he means by all this, you'll notice how none of the Republican candidates are exactly gushing over President Bush, and for good reason: he's about as popular as Michael Jackson. So it'll be interesting to see if pleas for loyalty to the President translate to general election votes. (If Romney can beat the Democrats, they should be probably throw in the towel.) Yes, "popularity" is superficial and fluid, but to be frank, it matters a great deal in a winner-take-all system in which the people decide.
That's all for now... somehow these always end up being longer than I expect them to be.
Governor Huckabee has accused the Bush administration of having an "arrogant bunker mentality"; he stated this a while ago.
Mitt Romney, of all people, actually said that this statement showed Huckabee was "disloyal" to the president. Now, excuse me for a moment while I go pull out my hair, throw up, and laugh myself silly all at once. (Maybe two moments, since cleaning up and recovering from the first moment may take a while.)
Ok, back. Where to begin?
1) This is a democracy. I hope we are still allowed to express "disloyalty" to our leaders, Governor Ken Doll.
2) Whatever President Bush has earned from traditional conservatives (the word gratitude perhaps comes to mind), he certainly has NOT earned our loyalty. FEMA director Brown, anyone? Harriet Miers nomination, anyone? How about approving RU-486 (the morning after pill) for over-the-counter sales? "Comprehensive immigration reform"? Entitlement expansion? Out-of-control spending? Any of this ringing a bell? Thank goodness Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Manuel Miranda, and others have been "disloyal" to the president on these issues.
If there is a lesson conservatives should have learned from the Bush presidency, it's that you can't refrain from making and accepting criticism when it's due, even if it may temporarily harm your "team". "Good" people, on the "right side", wearing white hats are capable of misguided and even black (hatted) deeds, and must from time to time be opposed. (Or, to quote J. K. Rowling via Sirius Black, "The world isn't split into good people and Death Eaters".) It's better to take the hit in the short run than to let a long-term liability snowball to an unbearable size. (But enough about social security.)
Case in point: Senator John McCain. Now, McCain isn't a 100% conservative. Probably has never claimed to be. So, he probably wasn't at the top of President Bush's speed-dial when it came time to plan the war in Iraq. So when the aftermath of the war didn't go nearly as well as the President had planned, the anti-war left and the Michael Moores of the world (could the world actually contain more than one?) were able to drag the President's (and by extension, the Republican party's) image through the mud and turn public opinion against the war. I believe as early as 2003 Senator McCain tried to tell President Bush more troops were needed. Did the President listen? No. (Full disclosure: I favored invading Iraq, still favor staying there as long as need be, and have never faltered on this. I also voted for Bush in 2004, and given the same choice again, would do so, though perhaps not as enthusiastically.)
Election '04 came and went, and the President and his party did well. But the war continued to worsen after a time. Again came the calls to change strategy and deploy more troops. Bush ignored this advice, coming from an interested member of his own party. Bush again rebuffed the advice. Then the party lost control of both houses of congress in 2006. NOW the President was suddenly in a mood to admit he was wrong. This should never have happened. Bush should have sacked then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld BEFORE the election, not after. This alone may have saved the Republicans from losing congress and facing the specter of a Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid. (Although, in Bush's defense, it's still hard to type those words with a straight face. Who'd have thunkit?)
But most importantly, we paid the cost for Bush's foolishness in human lives. This is why it matters, more than any political agenda.
Now Senator McCain has been vindicated on the surge strategy, no thanks to King George's "arrogant bunker mentality". But on all of the above debacles, the evidence shows time and again that Bush refused to listen to those who were not his 100% ideological allies, often to his own detriment. The public has noticed this, while in a most curious phenomenon, many Republicans have not.
Either Mitt Romney has buried his head in the sand on this one, or he is condescending enough that even though he knows Huckabee to be right, he is pretending to disagree in a desperate attempt to appeal to primary voters. The fact is, President Bush has surrounded himself with yes-men and he and others have paid the price for it. This is the quintessence of an "arrogant bunker mentality".
3) If Mr. Romney think Republican voters should punish Governor Huckabee for being "disloyal" to the President because he dared point out Bush's obvious flaws, Governor Romney deserves the guillotine for the multitude of issues on which he disagreed with President Bush during his time as Massachusetts governor. I think the word "audacity" comes to mind when I hear Romney criticizing anyone for being either a) too liberal or b) not a big enough fan of George Bush.
(Case in point: watch the faces at debates when Romney starts lecturing all the life-long conservatives about what a conservative is.)
Prediction: Neither Rudy nor McCain nor Huckabee will endorse Romney over any of the others in a tight contest.
4) EVEN IF Huckabee is wrong about the President, and to my knowledge he has been very measured and precise in what he means by all this, you'll notice how none of the Republican candidates are exactly gushing over President Bush, and for good reason: he's about as popular as Michael Jackson. So it'll be interesting to see if pleas for loyalty to the President translate to general election votes. (If Romney can beat the Democrats, they should be probably throw in the towel.) Yes, "popularity" is superficial and fluid, but to be frank, it matters a great deal in a winner-take-all system in which the people decide.
That's all for now... somehow these always end up being longer than I expect them to be.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Huck and judges
The man who launched the conservative movement's successful campaign against Harriet Miers for SCOTUS has endorsed Mike Huckabee over Mitt Romney for president:
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/29883.html
Enjoy!
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/29883.html
Enjoy!
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Romney and Drudge
It's a widely-publicized fact that Mitt Romney's campaign chief practically has a private line to the Drudge Report page. So this morning, when Drudge splashed the latest headline designed to make Governor Huckabee look ignorant, it was not TOO surprising, although one wonders if any of Drudge's readers haven't caught on yet to the fact that he's shilling for Romney bigtime.
Also conveniently enough, Romney's response to Huckabee's criticism of President Bush's "bunker mentality" gets a spot right underneath, along with an article meant to make Mitt look tough.
And now, apparently all that wasn't good enough, so Romney's people had Drudge paint the headline red, as if it were reporting something that hasn't been said before. Huckabee has been critical of Bush's mentality from the start.
It'll be interesting to see how much more "dirt" wafting out of Camp Ken Doll finds its way onto Mr. Drudge's page. Ugh. Is this how the so-called "conservative" media has always worked? No thank you.
Also conveniently enough, Romney's response to Huckabee's criticism of President Bush's "bunker mentality" gets a spot right underneath, along with an article meant to make Mitt look tough.
And now, apparently all that wasn't good enough, so Romney's people had Drudge paint the headline red, as if it were reporting something that hasn't been said before. Huckabee has been critical of Bush's mentality from the start.
It'll be interesting to see how much more "dirt" wafting out of Camp Ken Doll finds its way onto Mr. Drudge's page. Ugh. Is this how the so-called "conservative" media has always worked? No thank you.
Friday, December 14, 2007
They don't get it (And should probably either start trying or just stop altogether).
Rich Lowry, Jonah Goldberg, Peggy Noonan, even Rush Limbaugh.
When did they all start sounding so much like the New York Times editorial board?
It is painfully obvious that faith is not something that makes them comfortable. How dare this Huckabee character (who spent much of his adult life in the ministry) talk about faith?
To anyone who has been paying attention, Huckabee has a LOT more to say than only his faith, although that shouldn't be a problem. Since when is it off-base to ask what a candidate believes, and how it affects them? On this, the elite of the GOP are singing a song woefully off-key. You'd think they would notice when the polls keep showing how many people disagree with them. It has never been more apparent that they don't consider themselves leaders of a popular movement, but elites bound on re-shaping the public in their image.
The fact is that Mormonism is seen as a sect by most Christians (at least, those who don't hold to a flimsy, evolving definition of what Christianity is). No matter how loudly Romney's backers shout that Mormons are Christians just like the rest of you ignorant hicks (and what's your problem, anyway?), we are smarter than they think. We know that Mormonism is an entirely different religion, no more like Christianity than Islam or Judaism. Now, that doesn't mean we couldn't vote for Romney, it just means that those proclaiming him the Messiah of the GOP are starting off with a strike against them. How could the most important thing to at LEAST a quarter of the base be deemed irrelevant? There is no surer recipe for disaster than to make evangelicals into slaves of the GOP. Most of us are smarter than that, and we'll just take our votes and efforts and determination elsewhere or stay home. We have seen what the Democrats have done to blacks over the years, and we won't fall for it. Sorry.
I am in no way saying there are not legitimate criticisms to be made of Mr. Huckabee. But it sounds as though it is merely who he is that is not acceptable to these elites, and nothing will change that. When did we suddenly accept the narrative of the drive-by media? It is a foregone conclusion that someone who is a man of the people, who is not a career politician or rich, who has a brilliant gift for communicating (not that our current president doesn't... oh wait, nevermind), over a decade of executive experience, and serious crossover appeal to moderates in the other party, has no chance of getting the nomination. Sorry, it would be nice, but he's not one of US, say the leaders.
My reply? That's nice. Shut up. Isn't there a self-serving cocktail party in Washington for like-minded persons you should be attending?
Huckabee '08.
When did they all start sounding so much like the New York Times editorial board?
It is painfully obvious that faith is not something that makes them comfortable. How dare this Huckabee character (who spent much of his adult life in the ministry) talk about faith?
To anyone who has been paying attention, Huckabee has a LOT more to say than only his faith, although that shouldn't be a problem. Since when is it off-base to ask what a candidate believes, and how it affects them? On this, the elite of the GOP are singing a song woefully off-key. You'd think they would notice when the polls keep showing how many people disagree with them. It has never been more apparent that they don't consider themselves leaders of a popular movement, but elites bound on re-shaping the public in their image.
The fact is that Mormonism is seen as a sect by most Christians (at least, those who don't hold to a flimsy, evolving definition of what Christianity is). No matter how loudly Romney's backers shout that Mormons are Christians just like the rest of you ignorant hicks (and what's your problem, anyway?), we are smarter than they think. We know that Mormonism is an entirely different religion, no more like Christianity than Islam or Judaism. Now, that doesn't mean we couldn't vote for Romney, it just means that those proclaiming him the Messiah of the GOP are starting off with a strike against them. How could the most important thing to at LEAST a quarter of the base be deemed irrelevant? There is no surer recipe for disaster than to make evangelicals into slaves of the GOP. Most of us are smarter than that, and we'll just take our votes and efforts and determination elsewhere or stay home. We have seen what the Democrats have done to blacks over the years, and we won't fall for it. Sorry.
I am in no way saying there are not legitimate criticisms to be made of Mr. Huckabee. But it sounds as though it is merely who he is that is not acceptable to these elites, and nothing will change that. When did we suddenly accept the narrative of the drive-by media? It is a foregone conclusion that someone who is a man of the people, who is not a career politician or rich, who has a brilliant gift for communicating (not that our current president doesn't... oh wait, nevermind), over a decade of executive experience, and serious crossover appeal to moderates in the other party, has no chance of getting the nomination. Sorry, it would be nice, but he's not one of US, say the leaders.
My reply? That's nice. Shut up. Isn't there a self-serving cocktail party in Washington for like-minded persons you should be attending?
Huckabee '08.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
