Is Maverick the only man who can save the GOP from Huckamania?
posted at 12:18 pm on January 4, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
A smart, horrifying post from Rich Lowry makes the case. It’s fitting that this should come from the editor of NR since, although they’d never admit it, part of their motive in endorsing Mitt was surely the fact that he used to be the Only Man Who Can Save the GOP from Huckamania. That’s by the boards now and McCain’s poised to finish him off on Tuesday, so who’s left? Like Lowry says, it’s hard to imagine Fred coming all the way back and Rudy’s off the grid entirely until Florida, by which time the Huckabee express may be barreling at him at full speed.
If Huck surprises in Michigan next week, it’s going to throw every non-evangelical in the party into a panic and looking for the anti-Huck to step up and stop him. Giuliani’s too much of a gamble at this point, especially since he can’t unite non-evangelical social cons, so Maverick’s the default choice. Which brings us to two fascinating possibilities: A Rudy resurgence among conservatives starting January 20 if Huck smites McCain in SC, and a call for Fred to get out and start campaigning for McCain if Huckabee wins Michigan and starts to contend seriously for the nomination.
Stay tuned now for both Huck and McCain to tack right and try to stockpile as many non-evangelicals as they can for the coming battle. In the meantime, this much seems certain: The only guy guaranteed to still be in the race on February 5, i.e. Super Ultra Mega Tuesday, is Giuliani. If it does come down to him versus Huck, with Rudy the only thing standing in the way of Huck’s nomination, that’ll be mighty interesting.
Update: Ah, what does it matter?
Update: Slublog notes McCain’s problems in New Hampshire right now with independents, who are likely to split three ways between him, Obama, and Ron Paul. If Romney squeaks past him there, then his status as the Only Man Who Can Save the GOP from Huckamania is restored and he ends up in a death match with Huck in Michigan.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
LagunaDave on January 4, 2008 at 5:51 PM
Good points all. “Arms” in the constitution could be short for armament or firearms. The armament today might not have been envisioned 250 years ago. I wish I had all the answers, but I dont. You have given me somethings to digest. Forgive me, I get a little defensive when gov’t tells me what is safe and what is not, e.g. firearms, incandecent bulbs, smoking etc.
infidel on January 4, 2008 at 6:04 PM
They are restricted. You have the extra change to cough up for a tactical nuke? Me neither. Cruise missle? Me neither. Shotgun and pistol? Me too.
Spirit of 1776 on January 4, 2008 at 6:12 PM
Obviously you don’t support Second Amendment rights, or you wouldn’t be an apologist for a policy that was not aimed at taking “illegal” handguns off “the streets”, but rather taking all handguns out of the hands of everybody, be it on the street or in their own homes.
Hollowpoint on January 4, 2008 at 6:12 PM
I don’t support Second Amendment rights to the exclusion of all other considerations, no.
Nor First Amendment rights. For instance, I don’t think “freedom of the press” means I can take somebody else’s (copyrighted) work and sell it as my own. By your standard, anyone who doesn’t oppose copyright laws “doesn’t support the First Amendment”.
When 2000 people per year were being murdered by handguns in NYC, I think it would be insane to suggest that making handguns more readily available was the thing to do.
In NYC, when Rudy became mayor, violent crime was the single most important issue for him to solve, and he solved it.
I ask myself, of all the problems in America *today* is restricted access to guns the most important? Is it one of the most important? Is it even in the top 20? I don’t think any rational person could claim that it is.
Even if I believed, as some apparently do, that there is no such thing as a reasonable restriction on the Second Amendment, I would look around me and surmise that there is about as much reason to pick a candidate because they favor slightly more or slightly fewer such restrictions as there is to choose them based on their astrological sign. Rudy is a law-and-order guy, and I think most law-abiding gun owners want the same thing as him.
It is illegality and crime, obviously, which make guns a danger. Thanks, in part, to Rudy’s success in fighting crime in NYC, there is scant popular sentiment, and nothing even remotely approaching a consensus, for significantly stricter gun control.
LagunaDave on January 4, 2008 at 6:38 PM
The good news is, love is still blind. But it will be like this:
El amor todavía está oculto.
Entelechy on January 4, 2008 at 6:38 PM
Everyone who has actualy statisticly studied it has concluded that restricting gun ownership LEADS TO MORE CRIME! Every stinkin study. Every place that they have restricted gun ownership CRIME HAS INCREASED!
http://www.kc3.com/editorial/guns_the_untold_story.htm
Good synopsis, though by a partisan group… but then, I don’t think you’ll find non partsan groups on this subject.
You give Rudy credit for decreasing crime in New York City when CRIME WAS GOING DOWN NATIONALY! It was going DOWN before he was even in office! It continued to go down AFTER HE LEFT OFFICE.
Please point me out a place that shows somthing Rudi did really changed above and beyond the National trends at the time?
sorry… yer drinkin the Rudi coolaid…
Romeo13 on January 4, 2008 at 6:57 PM
New York City homicides:
1988 2,244
1989 2,246
1990 2,605
1991 2,571
1992 2,397
1993 2,420 ——- Rudy elected mayor
1994 2,016
1995 1,550
1996 1,353
1997 1,093
1998 924
1999 903
2000 952
2001 960
2002 909 ——- Rudy leaves office
2003 934
2004 889
2005 874
2006 921
I guess I am not seeing the NYC murder rate going down before Rudy was in office, or after he left office. Statistically, the rate for the years immediately before he became mayor are indistinguishable, as are the rates after he left office. So your claims about NYC’s murder rates are totally false.
What about nationally?
1988 20,680
1989 21,500
1990 23,440
1991 24,700
1992 23,760
1993 24,530
1994 23,330
1995 21,610
1996 19,650
1997 18,208
1998 16,914
1999 15,522
2000 15,586
2001 16,037
2002 16,229
2003 16,528
2004 16,148
2005 16,740
2006 17,034
Again, no evidence of a falling trend before Rudy became mayor, and no hint of any decrease in the years since 2001.
Of course, NYC’s murders are included in the national total. If we them, the number of murders *outside* NYC dropped from 22,110 in 1993 to 15,320 in 2002 – a decline of 31%. In NYC, during the same period, the number of murders fell by 62%.
Another way to look at it is that when Rudy took office, one out of every 10.6 murders in the US happened in NYC. By the time he left office, that was down to one out of every 17.6.
We could also ask how more people would be dead if NYC had tracked the smaller, nationwide decrease instead of Rudy’s much more impressive attack on crime – in other words, if NYC remained steady at 1 in 10.6? That works out to just under 9000 lives saved in the years since 1993.
One should not discount the extent to which Giuliani’s war on crime in NYC (of which gun control was a relatively minor part) served as a model for other cities, either.
Done.
LagunaDave on January 4, 2008 at 8:08 PM
NH – Reuters / C-SPAN / Zogby 1/4/08
McCain 34%
Romney 30%
Huckabee 10%
Giuliani 9%
Paul 7%
Thompson 2%
http://www.johnmccain.com/pathtovictory/
bnelson44 on January 4, 2008 at 8:50 PM
Bwahahahahaha!!!!
csdeven on January 4, 2008 at 8:55 PM
The top Democrat in America’s biggest battleground state says he has little worry about taking on Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, or Mike Huckabee in Florida. None of them, says, Bill Nelson, is presidential enough to win the state.
But John McCain is another matter. “He’s the toughest of the crop,” said Nelson. “The only one of the Republican candidates that really can win in November, that has a chance to win in November, is John McCain.”
Click here to read the blog post.
bnelson44 on January 4, 2008 at 8:58 PM
http://www.spectator.org/blogger.asp?BlogID=10220
American Spectatorʼs AmSpec Blog: McCain Blogger Call
bnelson44 on January 4, 2008 at 9:01 PM
Here is why I think the evangelicals who answered the exit polls that they voted for Huck because of his religion are NOT conservatives.
The constitution say there is not religious test. These people applied a religious test. Conservatives are for the most part adhere to the constitution. Now I realize that part of the constitution is probably referring to the government not having a religious test for allowing candidates to run, but isn’t the spirit of the concept true for voters to? Especially conservatives?
csdeven on January 4, 2008 at 9:01 PM
What about a gatling gun?
What about a rail gun?
MB4 on January 4, 2008 at 9:21 PM
Ok. If this won’t convince you NOTHING WILL.
Rightwingsparkle on January 4, 2008 at 9:26 PM
A for effort. I read that and thought of Rudy. So let me flip this around on you. You said if something like that happened I would forget CFR or Amnesty. Why do you prefer McCain over Rudy? Is it about abortion? If so, if we got hit with another terror attack wouldn’t you similarly “forget” about that?
Spirit of 1776 on January 4, 2008 at 9:33 PM
McCain looked like a cool dude as a 20 something. Damn brave individual and someone we can all look up to regardless of his moderate political leanings. And actually the only chance the republicans have this election is to somehow make nice with hispanics to try and cancel the black vote. That’s pretty critical to the outcome I think. If you lose the conservative Hispanic plank because of being dissed by the eventual nominee, it’s curtains. McCain is fairly evenly dispersed on the issue. Not an easy issue among many. I tell you who doesn’t like this one little bit, the investor.
pc on January 4, 2008 at 9:34 PM
Spirit of 1776,
Years ago,long before McCain ran for President or was even that well known, National Review ran a story about him. I was amazed at his story and his past. I remember one line in the article and it has never left me. It said “God, do we even make men like this anymore?”
Rudy may be a good leader, but he never faced what McCain did. He never lived through that. He never came back from something like that to serve his country.
That’s the difference my friend. That’s the difference.
Rightwingsparkle on January 4, 2008 at 9:43 PM
Would you want a “maverick” who left the southern border wide open over which the jihadists brought the dirty bomb into the country – justified by his fear of $50/hour lettuce pickers?
Because of the 2100 mile wide hole in McVain’s national security plan (and believe me, despite what he says, he as absolutely no intention of securing our southern border), we are just as vulnerable under him (if not more) as we are under any of those you listed, RWS.
But like Spirit of 1776, I’ll give you an A for effort. Unfortunately, it won’t count for much when McVain’s beloved open border leaves a US city in a smoldering, radioactive waste.
thirteen28 on January 4, 2008 at 9:46 PM
Give me a break! Who will close the borders? I will tell you who….NO ONE. The best we can hope for is stronger border enforcement and even that’s a big if.
We all have our problems with the border, but we all know that isn’t where our fear lies when it comes to terrorists. If that were the case they would have long ago gone that route and we all know it.
The border is about illegal mexicans and let’s not pretend it’s about anything else. Please.
Rightwingsparkle on January 4, 2008 at 9:56 PM
RWS, thanks for the answer. Please consider this response:
Adams once said our Constitution could be torn by ambitious men, just as a whale tears a net. Lincoln once said that all governments has less power than a single man and are malleable to a man with ambition. He continued to say that it is the responsibility of the citizenry to maintain the fabric of the proverbial net.
McCain is an extremely impressive man. He has done great service to his country. So did Caesar. So did Napolean. However, he has disregard for the laws of the nation when he thinks he knows better. So did Caesar. So did Napolean. I don’t put those names there to hyperbolize, but to ask you to consider personality…in the field of great men to whom is he most comparable? And in the end who left not only a legacy in history, but their country stronger as well?
Spirit of 1776 on January 4, 2008 at 9:57 PM
It takes ego and a personality bigger than most to even run for President, much less be one.
Great men rise to our expectations of them. None of these men are perfect. We all agree on that.
But we really have no idea how any of them would react to a national crisis or attack. Except McCain. I think we know.
You compare him to Ceasar or Napolean. But what of Churchill or even George Washington? A man who fills the room can also be a man who leads a great country.
Rightwingsparkle on January 4, 2008 at 10:13 PM
Give me a break! Who will close the borders? I will tell you who….NO ONE. The best we can hope for is stronger border enforcement and even that’s a big if.
Give you a break?? HA!! You got your break when I gave you an ‘A’ for effort.
Your arguments can basically be summed up as this:
1) Nobody else will enforce the borders either, so why should McVain; and
2) Since no terrorist attackers have come from across our southern borders so far, none will.
Color me uninspired.
You yourself cited a failure of imagination of our leaders to anticipate 9/11 and airplanes flying into buildings, and now you want to us to suspend our imaginations by contending that we can continue to leave the backdoor wide open with a welcome sign. And after all of his open hostility to border enforcement, rewarding McVain with the presidency will only encourage him to continue leaving the borders unenforced. If you expect that response to be a reason to support his candidacy, or a defense of one of his biggest weakness, you aren’t doing him any favors at all.
Nobody on the Republican side, NOBODY, has been more openly hostile to border enforcement than McVain (Go f*** yourself, Sen. Cornyn!!!! – McVain during the last amnesty battle), nobody.
BTW, you do know that, while they didn’t come across the southern border, the 9/11 hijackers were here illegally, thanks to the unenforced immigration laws that McVain has shown so much hostility to, don’t you?
thirteen28 on January 4, 2008 at 10:16 PM
You don’t have to convince me of border enforcement. But we are fooling ourselves here if we think McCain, Thompson, Romney, Rudy, or Huckabee will do much on this issue. It goes far beyond the issue of a border. It goes to economics, Mexico relations, small and big business. Why do you think nothing has been done for decades???? This isn’t a recent problem you know? Be mad at McCain about it, but Bush and the rest of the candidates are no better. So if that is your issue then you are out of luck my friend.
Rightwingsparkle on January 4, 2008 at 10:27 PM
RWS: Ironically, I had referenced Washington in there because that was the comparision I was asking you to make: more Washington or more Napolean. I must have cut him out in editing for space.
I have no problems whatsoever with men who fill the room, with men whose presence is bigger then themselves. Washington said he would give his last drop of blood to see the system of government created succeed even though he personally was pessimistic that it would be effective enough. Compare that to McCain, who has sought, at least twice, to modify the government for purposes not of principle but of efficacy. The whole purpose of extra power, such as taken by Napolean and Ceasar are that in some extremes efficacy overrides principle. But what do we make a man who does it in situations that are not extremes?
“Great men rise to our expectations of them.”
I disagree. Great men elevate the people around them. And time sifts these men by their motives. History is unkind to those who fool people into believing they have common cause and betray that trust, though in the height of their power they had all the acclaim imaginable.
Spirit of 1776 on January 4, 2008 at 10:27 PM
All that telling me “nothing has been done for decades” is doing is reminding me that our federal government is failing at one of it’s most fundamental duties – and inexcusably so.
If you’re expecting me to support the biggest apologist in the race for said failure, well, this time, you’re the one out of luck.
thirteen28 on January 4, 2008 at 10:31 PM
Show me a man who hasn’t betrayed a trust in politics and I’ll show you a virgin in a whorehouse.
I don’t believe in perfect. I don’t even believe in trust. Give me leadership. Give me strength. Give me bravery.
I’ll take just that.
Rightwingsparkle on January 4, 2008 at 10:33 PM
Ah. I believe in trust because I believe in things bigger than self. I believe strength should be used to help others. I believe bravery should be used to inspire others. I do not think strength and bravery should be used to advance one’s own goals at the cost of those who believe and/or trust in [you].
This is our impasse. Thanks for your time and energy. I appreciated the conversation, as I always wondered why you supported him so stalwartly.
Spirit of 1776 on January 4, 2008 at 10:40 PM
I’ll ditto what he said, RWS. I admire you sticking to your guns, but they just are not the same guns I could or even would want to stick to.
thirteen28 on January 4, 2008 at 11:06 PM
Correctomundo.
It’s late and my brain is not functioning at an optimal level, so perhaps that explains why I don’t understand the analysis here from the page you linked to at Palmetto Press:
Although Mitt Romney denied that last night’s disastrous showing in Iowa would slow down his bid for the White House, it appears that his South Carolina campaign is preparing for the worst. Sources tell me that for the last week, Luke Byars, Sen. Jim DeMint’s state director, has been working full time out of the Romney campaign’s SC headquarters.
Is this a sign that Romney’s state operation is in trouble? Absolutely.
This is a clear sign that DeMint, who really went out on a limb to support Romney, is concerned about how the campaign is being run in the Palmetto State. Either that, or he just has a lot of free time on his hands.
Huh? So the people who are running the SC campaign are working full time to get Romney elected? Is that supposed to be a shocking sign of doom, or is that what’s expected of them as we get closer to SC primary day?
Yep, there’s indisputable proof that Allah is a sellout for the Romney campaign because he declared that Romney’s an “awful candidate”.
Buy Danish on January 5, 2008 at 12:12 AM
I respect your opinion, but the only one who we know (from experience) will react to a national crisis or attack with decisive, effective leadership is Rudy Giuliani. Because he’s been there and done that.
McCain doesn’t really trouble me so much in that scenario (and he is the only one besides Rudy I can say that about). But in spite of his service, which I totally respect, I think McCain is too much of a compromiser and too fond of media worship to make the tough choices and stay on offense in the terrorists’ War on Us.
I am very skeptical that when the chips were down in Iraq, and the politically easy thing to do would have been to strike a deal of some kind with the surrender lobby, McCain would have stood alone against the storm and done the right thing like GWB did.
I am very, very confident Rudy would have, and not only that, he would have fought back against Democrats’ slanders and lies far more effectively than GWB. Rudy is a fighter, and in a time of war, that’s what we need in our Commander-in-Chief.
McCain’s opposition to the Bush tax cuts and his leading role in the most egregious assault on the First Amendment in my lifetime also trouble me greatly.
If he is the nominee, I will support him. If he is the only alternative to Huckabee or Romney, I will support him. Otherwise, I’m with Rudy because I think he is more electable, has a better, more positive message and a proven track record of effective executive leadership.
LagunaDave on January 5, 2008 at 4:46 AM
I’m with ya on Rudy. McCain’s position on water boarding drives me crazy, and his desire to close Gitmo is of great concern, as do the other issues you cited. I do think McCain would have remained a stalwart on the war, despite the surrender lobby. This is where the PaulNuts can give McCain some trouble, but it’s probably the only thing that saves him for conservatives.
I diverge completely from you with Romney though and like his executive/leadership abilities. Granted he is untested in a National Security crisis, but I trust his decision-making abilities, and unlike McCain he wouldn’t be worried about our image in the world if we were under threat of a nuclear attack. I also don’t think he’s sell our economy down the river to appease the climate change loons, and he’s have an effective energy policy.
Buy Danish on January 5, 2008 at 9:11 AM
I do not agree that Rudy went out of his way to make his city a sanctuary city, even though that’s what the consequence of his actions were.
He was asked about his policies towards illegal aliens during a debate and what I got out of his answer was a practical matter: Since the federal government wouldn’t take the illegals, and Rudy didn’t want to spend city revenue incarcerating large numbers of illegal aliens, he decided on a general basis to ignore arresting illegal aliens except for the violent ones. He gave a reasonable answer.
Weebork on January 5, 2008 at 12:42 PM
We all have our problems with the border, but we all know that isn’t where our fear lies when it comes to terrorists.
At least one person here knows with certainty who is coming accross our border. I will welcome any race that comes here legally.
infidel on January 5, 2008 at 1:02 PM
If Obama gets the dim nom and either The High Reverend Huckster or Juan Plantation McShamnasty gets the rep nom, bar an attractive third party candidate, I am voting for Obama.
Rudy might still be able to win me over, maybe.
MB4 on January 5, 2008 at 4:21 PM
Something at the site to which that text link leads tried to load the Downloader trojan horse onto my PC from a third-party web site. I recommend you remove the link, notify the site’s administrator, and make a note to avoid linking to that site.
Kralizec on January 5, 2008 at 5:10 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3