Anyhoo..

highhopes on February 11, 2008 at 11:12 AM

VAST LEFT-er..LEFT-RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY!

Update: Easy, but cute.

Very clever…….and cute.

In a brokered convention all bets are off.

David in ATL on February 11, 2008 at 5:28 PM

It’s not going to a brokered convention.

How does Romney get from something under 200 (remember, take away the ones that he “won” in Maine, Nevada and Iowa; they don’t get locked in until their respective state conventions) to 1,191?

steveegg on February 11, 2008 at 5:04 PM

In a brokered convention all bets are off.

If the Huckster can force a brokered convention …… I say Romney wins, he isn’t releasing his delegates for a very good reson.

David in ATL on February 11, 2008 at 4:19 PM

How does Romney get from something under 200 (remember, take away the ones that he “won” in Maine, Nevada and Iowa; they don’t get locked in until their respective state conventions) to 1,191?

Exit question: Remind me again, when exactly did the guy who couldn’t beat two RINOs with a huge financial advantage become the great hope of the GOP?

Exit answer; The Republicans always, but always pick the next guy in line. That’s defined as (a) the sitting President if Constitutionally-eligible, (b) the sitting Vice President, (c) the person who came in second in delegates the last hotly-contested time aroun, (d) an ex-VP, or (e) an immediate blood relative of an ex-President.

Not so coincidentally, that is why Huckabee is still running. He wants to be #2 this time around so he will be the nominee to get waxed by President Hillbama come 2012 (thanks for the name, Rick Moran).

I’m ready for Romney now!

4shoes on February 11, 2008 at 4:13 PM

If the Huckster can force a brokered convention …… I say Romney wins, he isn’t releasing his delegates for a very good reson.

OK, so we are talking about ‘conservative’ here right? Conservatives are supposed to be efficient, right? Why don’t we take a look at the ‘efficiency quotient’ when suggesting that these numbers actually mean something. Look at the cost for each delegate between the two candidates. . . then tell me who won and who is ‘conservative’.

Has anyone read Freakonomics?

The economists that wrote it theorized (and backed up with some data, though, as a pleasure read, I didn’t bother to delve into the numbers) that spending more money in an election does not buy a candidate a significant number of votes.

In the case of Romney, I’d say that spending more money had the effect of increasing his votes only inasmuch as it exposed him to more people who agreed with what he was saying.

For 2012 (assuming he decides to run again), he will already have the exposure of having been a top-tier candidate in 2008. Additionally, he’ll have (hopefully) had 4 more years worth of exposure in some other prominent role. I imagine he’ll be able to spend much less on his candidacy the second time around.

Huckabee had the same issue as well of not being nationally known. I think he got a good boost from existing networks of Evangelical churches as well as some high profile celeb endorsements (the Chuck/Huck things may have been silly, but, Americans love their celebrities). Assuming he doesn’t win the nomination and the presidency this time around, he’ll also benefit from a raised profile in 2012.

As far as a “real conservative” appearing to save us all….I don’t see it happening. Most conservatives have become more worried about being liked than being right. It’s one thing to talk about shrinking the government and expenditures at a speech to the Heritage Foundation. Where are the Republicans that are brave enough to go to the NAACP and tell them that what’s needed is not more government programs but more personal responsibility? Where’s the conservative that’s going to go to a meeting of the Teacher’s Union and make a case for school choice?

Beyond that, where’s the conservative leader who, like Reagan, can go to those hostile audiences, have everyone disagree with every word he said, but still come out liking him and thinking that maybe they should take another look at what he’s been saying?

As long as we are only (on the whole, I’m sure there are exceptions) preaching to the choir in front of friendly audiences, we will never convince people of the merit of our ideas. We’ll just continue to be able to pat each other on the back, secure in the knowledge that our ideas would work better if they were ever given the chance.

Don’t get me wrong. I could have supported Romney even with his flaws. But the exit question is dead on. . . if Romney is the standard bearer for conservatives moving forward, there is no conservative movement in America.

ThackerAgency on February 11, 2008 at 11:50 AM

I think he was a better standard bearer than the remaining two. I do agree a better bearer would be preferable….and hopefully we will find one. I plan on spamming JC Watts for the next 2 years. ;)

The bigger picture – I don’t understand how folks on our side can continue to claim Romney lost to the Huckster. Romney has plenty of resources to wait another 4 years so he exited stage right; Huckster doesn’t have a job so he is still in the race working for meals.

I concur that identity politics is a poor way of electing someone. However, as a Jew, you should know that nobody is more staunchly pro-Israel as the Protestant Christian (predominately Southern) community. We’ll stand for Israel if they put us in the gas chambers along side of the Jews.

I don’t think that a Protestant Christian is the enemy of the Jews (the tiny minority ‘Christian’ KKK notwithstanding).

ThackerAgency on February 11, 2008 at 12:58 PM

I do know that, and feel very blessed to live in a country founded on Judeo-Christian values….my problem with Huck is that he is an Evangelical Christian first and foremost and I do not believe he can govern as a conservative.

In a word: NO!

Hillary as VEEP?? Yeah, right; her and Bill. I wouldn’t take out an insurance policy on Barak if that were the case.

Slimey; your analogy is faulty. You might actually survive the jump from 4 floors.

We need a leadee…an alpha dog, not a poodle.

We have a “leadee” McCain does whatever the Dems want him to.

What we need is another Reagan whose conservative ideology was carefully thought about and refined over decades before he ever took office. Juan McCain’s ideology is nothing more than the same short-sighted poll-centric dogma that the Clintons practice. Truth be told, McCain wouldn’t even be a Republican if he weren’t from Arizona.

Huckabee will win re-election in 2012. I know you don’t believe me. Watch and see.

And the Little Rock Chamber of Commerce will have made the right choice.

ITookTheRedPill on February 11, 2008 at 1:00 PM

hmmm dont matter WHAT pill yer taking its something causing you halucinations… Huck wont win.

-Wasteland Man.

Huckabee will win re-election in 2012. I know you don’t believe me. Watch and see.

In Arkansas, I don’t doubt it. We already seen the wisdom of that state a couple times now.

P.S. Just remember that any nasty replies now will have to be eaten later, so keep your words nice and sweet, not bitter.

Also, as a jew, I don’t really like the Evangelical aspect of Huck being the reason to vote for him. That is identity politics as well and has no place in electing a person to a public office.

ihasurnominashun on February 11, 2008 at 12:10 PM

I concur that identity politics is a poor way of electing someone. However, as a Jew, you should know that nobody is more staunchly pro-Israel as the Protestant Christian (predominately Southern) community. We’ll stand for Israel if they put us in the gas chambers along side of the Jews.

I don’t think that a Protestant Christian is the enemy of the Jews (the tiny minority ‘Christian’ KKK notwithstanding).