Fox News, AP call it for McCain; Update: Huck blames Fred for loss?
posted at 9:19 pm on January 19, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
He’s the presumptive nominee now, especially with Rudy fading. How do you feel?
Update (Bryan): I feel like it’s hard to see either McCain or Huckabee winning the nomination. Huckabee can’t win in South Carolina, a southern state with a heavy evangelical contingent. McCain won overall but doesn’t appear to have won among conservatives, again. So the top two finishers in SC carry very limited appeal.
The question is, who can unify these voters under the conservative party’s banner?
Update: The good news: Huckabee’s basically done. The breakdown:
He can’t win among non-evangelicals. This makes Florida essentially a three-man race between McCain, Mitt, and Rudy, with Huckabee still around to pull votes from Romney among social cons.
Update: Huckabee’s at the podium now taking veiled digs at Mitt by congratulating McCain on not doing any negative campaigning.
Update: Have a look at the recent Florida polls. What do you think they’ll look like this week? To put it another way, is this the end for Rudy?
Update: A noble defeat:
It’s clear who Huckabee camp is blaming for its squeaker of a loss in South Carolina: Fred Thompson.
After Huckabee’s gracious concession speech — in which he had nothing but kind words for John McCain who he said showed great “civility” — former SC Gov. David Beasley, a Huckabee surrogate, railed against Thompson.
“Fred hurt us in South Carolina,” Beasley began. “He had one goal and one goal only — to distort Mike Huckabee’s record so John McCain could pull it out. No ifs, ands or buts about it….
“One thing about Fred; I love Fred, but Fred’s not stupid….I don’t think he had any intention in South Carolina but to hurt Mike Huckabee…. Had Fred Thompson not been in the race, this would have been an overwhelming, dynamic victory for Mike Huckabee.”
McCain’s team also thinks Fred was the difference.
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 ... 3 4 5
Shirotayama–
I’m barely old enough to remember much of the pre-Reagan era. And my point wasn’t meant to be a depressing one, quite to the contrary, it’s meant to be a pragmatic & hopeful one. Conservatives (believers of all 3 legs of the stool, with a specific emphasis on shrinking the fed govt) have always been a minority. Even during the great Reagan years. Realize that a lot of Reagan’s support came from people who just liked him as a person, his charismatic appeal, his hopefulness, etc…
He (Reagan) offered true conservatism, but he wrapped it in a quite pretty package, and that is what we’re missing at this time. People aren’t that much stupidier than they were in 1980 or 86– the conservatives just haven’t put forth quite as shiny an object for them to see this time around.
Everyone should stop freaking out– kind of like after 9/11– islamofascism was already a threat, we just became acutely aware of it on 9/11/01. Stupid voters, even on “our side” have always been a part of the equation. It appears some of you are just now aware of it (and yes, if you support huckabee and consider yourself a “true conservative”, you ARE stupid).
Security Mom on January 20, 2008 at 1:24 PM
For now, I agree with this great HA commenter.
Clarification – TSR, and a few others who’ve referred to my January 20, 2008 at 12:14 AM post – I really like NemoParticularis’ comments, and appreciate that particular analysis of the conservative party’s current state; however, I had missed the Thompson triangulation sentence – let’s be realistic and not bet on a horse which might/might not be in the race any longer.
Entelechy on January 20, 2008 at 2:03 PM
Sorry, that first sentence s/b a part of the first quote.
Entelechy on January 20, 2008 at 2:04 PM
Hey Shiro- I crashed before seeing your replies. I just got back from attending my local “building” (as Madison would refer to it) and I’m getting ready to sit down with my wife and kids and watch some FOOTBALL.
You may have already seen this article on Townhall that is Huck’s response to a pastor’s open letter about some of his positions and apparent inconsistencies with conservatism. Some of the issues are the same objections you mentioned so i’d be interested in what you think. Of course, if you simply believe that Huck is actually Satan’s Spawn incarnate, then his words probably won’t mean that much to you – and I’LL never convince you. But I’m all for dialogue.
I’ll check in after the games…later (I’m going to throw some more wood in my stove before turning the channel to Lambeau Field!)
HERMES on January 20, 2008 at 2:16 PM
Huck is just about dead and Fred was never alive… (told ya)
Time to back McCain.
Opinionnation on January 20, 2008 at 3:27 PM
The above is some of the most condescending comments I have seen to date, and that’s saying something.
The above is some of the most defeatist comments I’ve ever seen, and that’s saying something.
You obviously don’t listen to Rush Limbaugh much or you don’t care for him much, because you sure don’t put to practice the optimism exuded by the Rushbo OR Ronald Reagan.
And your message to Shirotayama is the most convoluted comment I’ve ever seen:
..in other words, you’re still wet behind the ears.
Have you ever taken prescription anti-depressants? Might not be a bad idea. Because your whole schtick here reeks of despondency and defeat.
I guess you’re not old enough to remember 1994… Contract With America.. Newt Gingerich, the Republican majority in the legislature and this was not even during the Reagan era.
Like I said, “you’re wet behind the ears.”
Yeah, I.. we.. totally missed that Christmas present, what year was that? Is the rain check still good?
You’re scary.. you can’t even spell stupider, next time do spell check, O.K.?
Yeah.. that shiny object is definitely not you.
You freak me out. BOOOO! Did I scare you?
No kidding!
Right. People like you for sure. You don’t even start Huckabee’s name with a capitol letter.
NOW THAT’S DAMN SCARY!
Mcguyver on January 20, 2008 at 3:31 PM
Why? Because you like Amnesty?
Igor R. on January 20, 2008 at 3:47 PM
The idea that anyone has to back McLiar is a big leap.
He will get my vote slightly after never. He is just as dangerous as a Dim and I want no part of inflicting either on this nation.
If Mitt can convince me between now and March 4th, he will get my vote. If not, I know how to write in a vote.
SimplyKimberly on January 20, 2008 at 4:01 PM
As the only GOP candidate who can definitely win against Clinton and/or Obama… Yes, I support him.
But here’s my position on Immigration:
I don’t mind giving amnesty to illegal immigrants who are already in this country but they must register within 90 days of any such announcement. I don’t mind allowing these people to stay, not only because they have been here and likely have children who were born in this country, but because it is logistically impossible to deport 20 million people. Although, any amnesty given to any illegal alien must only come when the southern border of the United States is completely secured and a very stringent screening process is in place. After a wall is constructed in strategic places and the Border Patrol agency is significantly increased; and a screening process or guest worker program is operational, any illegal alien caught thereafter must be jailed and immediately deported… no questions and no exceptions.
Opinionnation on January 20, 2008 at 4:35 PM
The good news is we don’t have to. All we have to do is start enforcing existing laws, and make sure that employers who are hiring illegals will suffer serious consequences for doing so. Once employers get the message that they are not going to save money by hiring illegals, they will stop hiring them. Once the illegals realize that they cannot get jobs here, they will voluntarily go home. It’s already happening here in Arizona. That’s why a delegation from Sonora, Mexico, came here recently to lobby the Arizona legislature not to enforce our state law that penalizes employers who hire illegals. Sonoran officials are worried about the impact of all the Mexicans who are leaving Arizona and showing up in Sonora, overwhelming their schools, social services, etc. (Now they know how we have felt for years!)
Don’t fall for that “we either have to give them all amnesty or we have to deport them all (which we can’t do)” crap. It’s a false dichotomy, created by liberals who want to impose their solution (amnesty for all illegal aliens) on the rest of us. The real solution is to secure the border and enforce our laws. The only illegals remaining here after that is done will be the criminals — and we can take care of them the same way we take care of other criminals.
AZCoyote on January 20, 2008 at 5:04 PM
That is somewhat amusing and probably true; Fred is doing serious harm to Huckabee, to the probable benefit of McCain (who is- despite their political differences- a good friend of Thompson’s).
Am I seeing a McCain/Thompson ticket in the offing here? It would keep me from soiling my ballot in November, just barely.
michaelo on January 20, 2008 at 5:16 PM
To Security Mom on January 20, 2008 at 2:41 AM
I appreciated your analysis, I’m one of those that wasn’t aware just how much of a minority we true conservatives really are, until these primaries that is. I am quickly becoming educated. Thank you for the thoughtful articulation of your take on the matter.
JustTruth101 on January 20, 2008 at 6:20 PM
McGuyver,
It’s responses like yours, in my opinion, are doing much harm to the conservative movement. For whatever reason, you’ve choosen to personally attack me & waste bandwith on such on attack, when in all likelihood, we have common goals in mind for what is good for our country. This I believe is one of the unfortunate results of the internet; were you & I together chatting about these things in person, I’m certain you’d be a little less hostile to me.
I’ll address your comments about my earlier posts– forgive my inability to quote you in the fashion you did my posts, I’m “wet behind the ears” and thus do not know how to do the block quoting (or even how to separate my paragraphs!). Sorry.
My first comment about people not realizing that “true conservatism” is a minority position certainly did sound condesending. I did not mean it to be, sometimes things when emailed or written down, do not convey the intended meaning. I’m not a professional writer. What I was trying to tell people who seem to thing all is lost & that the conservative movement is doomed is that it’s really not all that different than it has been in the past. Most of my political pals are relatively new to the scene, and I find that they freak out with the natural left & right swings of politics, but because I was brought up in a politically active family, I’m used to it. I’m also used to the fact that quite a lot of people who call themselves republicans, or even call themselves conservatives, don’t really believe in the complete conservative package. That’s unfortunate, but it’s just reality and it’s why we’ve formed coalitions over the years to attempt to get our common goals achieved.
You are quite wrong about Rush & Reagan & I listen to Rush daily and seriously am concerned about how I’m going to function when he eventually has to retire in about 40 years (giving cloning a second thought)… I have a photo of Reagan displayed in my house and my daughter is named after him. And yes, their optimism is part of what makes (made) them wonderful, I’ve never claimed to be an optimist, I’m a pragmatist.
About 1994 and the Contract with America, yes, I’m old enough to remember, incidently, Newt is one of the politicians I attribute my strong conservatism to, after meeting with him in a small setting (I’m from his district)and hearing the ideas he put forth, I knew he was a man to watch & a man I greatly admire to this day and I lend great credence to things he has to say. I don’t know if what you’re trying to say is that since there was a republican sweep in 94, and you’re attributing that sweep to the Contract with America, and thus, making the leap that this proves that conservatism is a majority position, I disagree. Most voters (according to polling done at the time) had not even heard of the Contract, and even then, it was almost evenly divided as to whether they supported it or not. I think you can get most rational people to agree with the statement “The Federal government is too big”, but when you say, “okay, let’s eliminate/ decrease the funding to xxxxx department” they shriek. The people who recognize the need to shrink government, and who are willing to actually ACCEPT when their pet projects are cut are few & far between. I think 94 was a lot more backlash against Clinton, as well as an envigorated conservative (small govt) segment of the base.
As far as making a typo & not capitalising letters, I’m not even going to address, as ad hominem attacks serve no use but to make the attacker look petty. I’m usually posting while 3 children under the age of 5 are climbing about me, so you’ll just have to accept my failings in this regard, or ignore my posts if you wish.
It’s funny though how badly I must be conveying my thoughts on the matter, because basically I’m trying to tell fellow conservatives to keep their chins up, because things aren’t really that bad. We’ve overcome obstacles like this in the past, and I’m sure we will again, I just hope people view things realistically. I also think we got off to a BAD start this primary season by kicking it off with everyone deciding who to hate as a candidate, and not who they were going to support and supporting that candidate vocally & attempting to convince people to join them, as opposed to tearing down opposition candidates and attacking their supporters. That’s not the way Rush does it. But clearly, I did not explain myself well.
Have a nice day!
Security Mom on January 20, 2008 at 6:33 PM
McCain can win? The man is a media golem, a straw man prepared for the burning come November. Those that are convinced he could win a general, do you think all his peccadilloes (nasty temperament, Keating five, marriages, etc.) aren’t going to become issue number one should he become the candidate?
We have not seen a media vivisection until McCain becomes the candidate. The man is going to be torn apart, and unlike Bob Dole (who was about as equally electable), chances are, he’ll break and lash out. That will be ugly.
spmat on January 20, 2008 at 6:37 PM
AZCoyote, that was one of the most simpleminded comments I’ve ever read on the subject.
Opinionnation on January 20, 2008 at 7:32 PM
That you are not an optimist, sticks out like a sore thumb in your prior posting and the reason for my response was simply a feedback so that you can try to avoid interjecting us with such defeatism in the future. Because that too, is part of the problem.
Ronald Reagan was a great communicator of what true conservativeness is.
Ronald Reagan was the package!
There never will be such a package again, ever, therefore no rain checks are valid.
Even Ronald Reagan wouldn’t have been able to sell “the package” if it wasn’t for the fact that a majority wanted lower taxes, rule of law, less intrusive and smaller government, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.
So for you to say that all this is in the minority is pure poppycock! You obviously haven’t heard or understood Rush in this or you wouldn’t be saying this!
The problem has been we have allowed Congress – on a massive scale – to bulldoze us over in the name of and for the sake of “peace” and non-partisanship and for such stupid ideas as,”support-George W. Bush-because-he-is-a-born-again-Christian” poppycock ideology, which has brought us to where we are now, staring an eyebrow-twitching-fool like Mike Huckabee in the eye, which has been brought on by religious demagogues such as James Dobson, Tim Lahaye, etc.
This all started when James Dobson, for the first time ever in his entire life, supported a candidate for President – George W. Bush/2004 – AND, subsequently was given a pass by virtually every conservative talking head far too many times!
Proof of this was evident the day AFTER we lost the mid-term -06 elections.
Rush came on the air the day after and said very emphatically, ” I WILL NEVER AGAIN CARRY THE WATER FOR ANYBODY!”
The conclusion here is, we have allowed ourselves to be so sensitive of criticism, of each other and of our elected peers.
The truth hurts in any form and is offensive to the recipient, which is the beauty of the Freedom of Speech clause, which allows us to criticize (otherwise known as “tear down”) our elected peers.
I simply cannot overstate again that this has all been wrought on us at large, by our own unwillingness to “tear down” George W. Bush.
When the conservative movement in general and especially those who identify themselves as evangelicals, handicapped themselves from properly “tearing down” their “brother-in-Christ” George W. Bush, he became arrogant, condescending, belittling, and otherwise a jackass… especially after the 2004 elections, which led to the mishandling of Iraq, among other things.
Now if we can go forward and not be so damn sensitive of criticizing each other/our peers and get you pragmatists to liven up a bit and quit being so damn “practical” and truly try to live in the current reality, which is that we are not in the minority, regardless of what you feel your local personal experience may be at this time, then we will be just fine going forward.
Mcguyver on January 20, 2008 at 7:40 PM
Security Mom: Please keep posting, I’m a law student who was raised by hippies (who are quite disappointed that I am an evangelical Christian conservative, but hey, I’m their kid, they have to accept me, ha!) so while I, too was raised in a “political family” I have grown up to figure out that what I was taught as a child was SERIOUSLY twisted.
I’m an adult now, free thinking, and older than most of my law school classmates, but have only been interested in and following politics for about the last 5 years or so, which is why I decided to go to law school to try to change things from inside the power base.
Here and on other sites I find a lot of commenters state what they think for just the moment rather than giving a view of the issue being discussed in light of the big picture. While I certainly know that I need to articulate my thoughts more clearly, I’ve seen a few mature, thoughtful articulate posters get excoriated by some nastier commenters and then vanish…please don’t vanish on me! I have an open mind and want to hear all sides.
JustTruth101 on January 20, 2008 at 7:46 PM
Obviously you are one of those “smart” condescending jackasses that support McJackass Senator of AZ as well as arrogant jackasses like W. Bush and the rest of his ilk.
That you consider yourself smarter than us, but that you (and others) haven’t been able to intelligently explain and engage us, your peers, on the wisdom of your plan just shows how utterly, stupid, you are!
If your plan is so damn brilliant and you are, as you imply, so damn smart, than why haven’t you been able to engage us into an intelligent discussion without calling us bigots, and simpletons?
And before you attack me for calling you names.. touche!
Mcguyver on January 20, 2008 at 7:51 PM
I agree with you, here in MO we
havehad TONS of illegals doing construction jobs, but when one of our cities passed legislation to fine the employers and landlords who don’t check citizenship, they just started disappearing. The ACLU (of course) came in and got a restraining order, and I don’t know what happened to the case, but it’s only been in the last 6 months or so that the illegals started coming back, but when the legislation first passed two years ago, it made a huge impact quickly.And here’s the best part: it was NEVER even enforced! Just the THREAT of it made the illegals leave. Can you imagine how powerful it would have been if it had actually been allowed to be enforced? My husband’s best bud is a cop, so I’m not providing second hand anecdotes…I got this straight from the horse’s mouth on the front line.
JustTruth101 on January 20, 2008 at 7:56 PM
[laughing]
Your sarcasm at 6:20 PM was so veiled that I don’t think Security Mom even got it!
Mcguyver on January 20, 2008 at 8:04 PM
Thanks for the firsthand report.
I’m sure the stupid condescending jackass AZCoyote will be around anytime, since after all he is a “coyote”. So obviously he “benefits” from the trade, if you know what I mean.
Mcguyver on January 20, 2008 at 8:08 PM
To Mcguyver on January 20, 2008 at 8:04 PM
I am so glad this is anonymous, because I wasn’t being sarcastic…I have a feeling that if this was high school, you would probably be the guy spitting in my face and laughing at me for trying really hard to get good grades and stay out of trouble. I admit I’m naive to politics, I’ve only been paying attention for a few years.
JustTruth101 on January 20, 2008 at 8:34 PM
JustTruth101,
Your handle is a good screencap:
out of trouble. I admit I’m naive
JustTruth101
I kid, I kid… that was sarcastic you see?
This place is so loaded with sarcasm it’s sometimes very hard to differentiate it from seriousness.
Because I so didn’t get any meaningful education, for me, from Security Mom, you sounded sarcastic, like.. “your defeatist tone is very informative” ..ha ha..
I wouldn’t do to you what you surmise at all. I’m glad you’re paying attention to politics and trying to understand it better now… that is really very great.
Because people don’t know you in here and they simply read it at face value and respond accordingly, one simply has to “roll with the punches” and enter at your own risk.
Because anyone’s reality, for example like Security Mom, is subject to criticism galore, especially, if like she did, is come in here, wax intelligent on conservative issues and then admit she is barely old enough to remember Ronald Reagan.
Then further, like she, attempts to preach to us what a given reality is that ends up being extremely condescending of our collective wisdom as a whole, of course she will be subject to criticism that is unpleasant!
The misspells I pointed out to her were simply icing on the cake from someone that “waxed intelligent”.
I hope you stay here as well! I’m sure it’ll be fun!
ciao,
P.S. some very handy sources/tools for you to remember is http://www.dictionary.com for words that escape you, http://thesaurus.reference.com/ when you can’t think of the right word and http://www.abbreviations.com for acronyms that you are unfamiliar with.
P.P.S. Don’t feel ashamed of what you might’ve missed in school because actually, it comes in handy for all of us.
P.P.P.S. See I’m pretty nice guy am I not? I know you already thought that, right?
:)
Mcguyver on January 20, 2008 at 9:37 PM
Mcguyver on January 20, 2008 at 9:37 PM
I believe I understand your latest post as you intend for me to. Thanks for the clarification.
JustTruth101 on January 20, 2008 at 10:18 PM
Very well then.
Mcguyver on January 20, 2008 at 11:08 PM
I will give it a try. Most estimate the illegal population to be 12 to 20 million. Some say as high as 30 million people. If you count dependents that may or may not be American citizens, the number could be higher. That is massive population. Think 2 to 5 times the entire population of AZ. If we were to use deportation and/or economic coercion to force this entire population back on the near failed Mexican state it will fail, resulting in economic chaos, extreme poverty, even mass starvation. Our economy is so strong that we can absorb this wave of humanity without significant negative consequences, but sending them all back over any reasonable time frame would be devastating and destabilizing for Mexico. Millions could die. Not only will we lose our nannies and gardeners, but we will earn a reputation similar to the Turks in the Armenian genocide. Plus, a chaotic economically crushed Mexico will destabilize our Southern border unless we turn that part of our country into a police state.
We could have closed our border and forced Mexico to deal with its population and economic problems, but we did not. We allowed our porous border to serve as a pressure valve for Mexico’s surging population. The wave of immigrants is so huge, massive beyond comprehension almost, that it is like the genie that cannot be put back into the bottle without unspeakable cruelty.
tommylotto on January 21, 2008 at 8:31 AM
Hermes,
Sorry I missed ya. My router blew and I needed to get it fixed, so I couldn’t log on.
Oh, rats…seems I missed a whole smackdown between Security Mom and McGuyver!
This thread’s probably gonna die within the next day or so as more recent news takes over. Will see you for further debate in other threads as the campaign presses on.
Shirotayama on January 21, 2008 at 9:35 AM
on Drudge
FLASH: RASMUSSEN Florida poll to be released: Romney 25, McCain 20, Giuliani 19… Developing…
windansea on January 21, 2008 at 10:21 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 3 4 5