AP: You know who’s looking like a GOP frontrunner right now? Mike Huckabee
posted at 8:26 pm on July 14, 2009 by Allahpundit
What color is the sky in your world, AP?
Huckabee’s value as a presidential candidate, however, has gotten a boost primarily from the downfall of others within the Republican Party. Admissions of affairs by Nevada Sen. John Ensign and South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, both considered at one time potential GOP contenders, have helped Huckabee.
In other words, the Baptist minister with a covenant marriage is starting look a lot better by comparison.
Huckabee may also get some help from Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s surprise announcement that she’ll step down as governor, midway through her first term, later this month. It’s unclear whether the former Republican vice presidential nominee’s announcement is a prelude to a 2012 bid, or an exit from politics entirely.
Huckabee says he’s still a fan of Palin, but questioned the Alaska governor’s move.
“Well, it’s a risky strategy, and nobody knows whether it’s going to pay off or not,” Huckabee said on “Fox News Sunday” earlier this month. “And even if she did get out, primarily because of a feeling of being chased, that’s not going to stop if she continues in politics. The only way that stops is for her to completely exit the stage and the spotlight.”
I like to goof with you guys about him being the nominee because I know it (inexplicably) torments you, but seriously: Assuming Romney runs, which is a near certainty, give me a scenario in which Huck tops him for the nomination. He’ll have his strongholds — Iowa, South Carolina, plenty of other southern states — but Romney will have the coasts, the northeast, lots of the midwest, most of the party bigwigs, all of talk radio, and a huge war chest on his side. He’ll also be seen as the “economy” candidate while Huck is pigeonholed as the social con. And needless to say, if Palin runs and pulls evangelicals away from him, Huck will be lucky to win a single primary. So I repeat the question. How does Huck win the nomination?
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 6 Next »
No, Bradky just goes after those who won’t buy into his “Palin is an ignorant slut” thing.
ddrintn on July 14, 2009 at 11:35 PM
High unemployment in deep blue states MIGHT create an opening for a GOP candidate with strong economic credentials, but I don’t see how it would create an opportunity for Palin.
FWIW, if I had to pick a character in The Stand that most reminds me of Huckabee, I’d have to go with the scheming fat kid who couldn’t be trusted.
Infidoll on July 14, 2009 at 11:35 PM
You miss the point entirely. It’s “screw the party if it’s Dem Lite”.
ddrintn on July 14, 2009 at 11:37 PM
Well I have to admit, it does appear to be that way to me also.
Cindy Munford on July 14, 2009 at 11:38 PM
So, will picking up Connecticut, Vermont and New Hampshire offset losing Georgia, Tennessee, South Carolina, Arkansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana and Texas?
ddrintn on July 14, 2009 at 11:40 PM
What is inaccurate about it? I simply stated that Mitt doesn’t have the requisite “umph” to outplay a moderate like McCain. If he couldn’t outplay McCain – he will not outplay Obama – who is a helluva lot more than charismatic than McCain. I mean – that’s just fact.
It’s very doubtful in my mind that Gerald Ford would have beaten Carter in 1980. It took a guy with charisma – it took Reagan. By the way – I voted for John Anderson (third party) in 1980 – didn’t like Reagan – thought he was a war monger, thought he was stupid, thought he had a simplistic outlook on the world and foriegn affairs, voodoo economics …
Sound familiar?
Yet he won in a landslide in spite of every major press outlet being against him and PROMISING us that we’d get a nuclear war if we elected him.
Anyone who says Palin doesn’t have a chance wasn’t paying attention (or wasn’t alive) in 1980.
HondaV65 on July 14, 2009 at 11:41 PM
Sorry but the party hasn’t been speaking for me for quite a while so I am not moved by that argument. And I still don’t understand how denigrating people for their enthusiasm is going to win friends and influence people. If Gov. Palin should decide not to run how are you personally going to come back to this site and rally the group for the chosen candidate?
Cindy Munford on July 14, 2009 at 11:42 PM
Honda, the Reagan of the late 70′s and early 80′s would be considered a RINO by guys like you. Hell, he’d be considered to the left of Sen. McCain. The fundamentalist takeover of the GOP has come to fruition and total Dem control is the result.
dakine on July 14, 2009 at 11:44 PM
personally, I think each of the three has some very good qualities. Each one of them is human and has flaws, but certainly we’d be better governed by any of the three.
I LOVE Palin but strongly believe her destiny lies outside of elected office for the next decade. I like Romney a lot and don’t agree with the “Plastic” labels; my concerns about him are his apparent flip flops. Huckabee is my least favorite of the three, based on what I’ve read here mainly. What’s great about these three is that any one of them would clearly be a huge upgrade from where we are now as a nation.
Red State State of Mind on July 14, 2009 at 11:49 PM
Total crap. Reagan is the one who courted the Christian Right. He worked the social and fiscal conservatives to perfection. Which party is it that campaigns in churches on a regular basis? It’s not the Republicans.
Cindy Munford on July 14, 2009 at 11:49 PM
guntotinglibertarian on July 14, 2009 at 11:50 PM
Name one unacomplished black man to ever run and win the office of president.
What? OMG it happened!
What makes you think that the shitfest that is the republican party has a chance in Dole of beating Mr TV personality?
BTW i have voted in 4 presidential elections now. Save your sanctimonious snark for your rolling rock chugging bar buddies aka psuedo men drinking psuedo beer.
The republican party is in shambles. Moderates don’t win for republicans. Why vote democrat lite when you can vote flaming raging full on democrat.
You peggy noonans are all the same…so out of touch with what can move the people that you think your over analyzing can explain what you can never understand.
Anyway. You are a moron.
BillaryMcBush on July 14, 2009 at 11:52 PM
Are you seriously suggesting that if Sarah Palin isn’t the GOP nominee, the southern states are going to go blue?
Think harder.
Infidoll on July 14, 2009 at 11:57 PM
I’m sorry – you’re wrong. I voted in the 1980 election and Reagan was not considered a liberal. That’s pretty revisionist. Reagan was hated by the press – called a “reactionary” … it was insinuated that Reagan even preferred a U.S. with slavery.
Reagan DID do a few things that were on the RINO side after he was in office – and mostly during his second term (like amnesty) … but Reagan was far from a RINO.
HondaV65 on July 14, 2009 at 11:58 PM
Cindy, you are indeed correct regarding Reagan…he “worked” the Christian fundamentalists and then basically ignored social issues for his entire 2 terms. Go read Sen. Goldwater’s book and you’ll understand Reagan as well. Palin = fundamentalist. Reagan, not so much.
dakine on July 14, 2009 at 11:59 PM
Huck has a pretty good TV program. He should stick to that. I blame him that McCain was our nominee instead of Romney. And Allah is right: He has no chance at the nomination.
Christian Conservative on July 14, 2009 at 11:59 PM
Honda, I didn’t say Reagan was a liberal. I said folks like you would consider him a RINO if he came along today. He was a true Goldwater conservative, which is something very different from the fundamentalist brand of conservatism which dominates the GOP in 2009.
dakine on July 15, 2009 at 12:00 AM
No … he’s saying that if the GOP Ayatollah’s don’t listen to the base and start addressing our concerns – they’re sunk.
One of our concerns is to stop telling us who we can vote for … we’ll make up our own minds thanks. :D
HondaV65 on July 15, 2009 at 12:01 AM
There’s a difference in acknowledging and appreciating someone’s beliefs and insulting or belittling them. I am not a huge Goldwater fan so I don’t need study up on him. People would find a lot more support for their candidates if they didn’t feel that it is mandatory to insult different beliefs. I seldom see people on this site or in the outside world pushing their Christian beliefs on anybody but there isn’t a thread that doesn’t have some cheap shot at believers.
Cindy Munford on July 15, 2009 at 12:06 AM
Define fundamentalist?
I believe that we should not spend more money than we earn. Is that fundamentalist?
I believe that Republican leaders should be chosen by Republican voters – is that fundamentalist?
I believe in a strong national defense – is that fundamentalist?
I believe that we’re killing a lot of humans through abortion – and unless you can tell me for certain when life begins – then we shouldn’t be aborting humans. Is that fundamentalist?
I believe in the right to keep and bear arms, and in all of the bill of rights. Is that fundamentalist?
I don’t care if you legalize marijuana – but you’re going to have a lot of problems and unintended consequences if you do that. Is that fundamentalist?
I don’t care about Gay’s getting into “civil unions” – but “marriage” is by definition between a man and a woman – and I just don’t see a need to redefine the word for the sake of political correctness. Is that fundamentalist?
Hmmmm – you may want a party of “fundamentalists” who vote RINO – and that might suit you.
But please consider us “fundamentalists” and respect our rights to vote for those who serve our beliefs and priorities. If you don’t wish to compromise with us – don’t slander us for not compromising with you.
Simple really.
HondaV65 on July 15, 2009 at 12:07 AM
All I know is I have gone from not being able to stand Huck during the primaries to actually liking him thanks to seeing him every week on his show. I didn’t think that was possible, but there it is :)
Since I never liked Palin, Huck is someone I’m keeping an eye on.
I know Romney is seen as an economy guy and that will be just about *the* issue come ’10 (although with O messing up foreign policy so badly, I’m sure national security will make a comeback as a top issue soon), but I hear that health care in Mass. is not working well… that wasn’t a wise investment of money so will he still be considered strong on money-matters? I actually voted for Mitt in the primaries since Fred! had dropped out just before I had a chance at voting for him, but since then, where has Mitt been? He’s been way too quiet. I wish he’d start pushing back on O like Cheney has… that might make me excited about him.
-Aslan’s Girl
Aslans Girl on July 15, 2009 at 12:08 AM
By that definition, I guess I’m a fundamentalist.
jazz_piano on July 15, 2009 at 12:11 AM
Like me, you like C.S. Lewis and Fred Thompson, and your screen name speaks volumes . . . so why don’t you like Sarah Palin?
No, wait–I don’t want to know. I’ll just pretend that you do and remain happy. (:
jazz_piano on July 15, 2009 at 12:15 AM
Honestly – I have not set foot in a church in 25 years. The last religious book – actually the last three I’ve read were the Bhagvad Gita, the Ramayana, the Mahabarata, and a biography on Sri Ramakrishna. Not exactly your standard “fundamentalist” Christian Republican fare.
But I can see that the Christian side of the party aren’t the demons the media plays them up to be – and they actually have a lot of good ideas. They get pinged for their stand on abortion and gay marriage – but their stand on abortion is logical … completely logical in my mind. Killing a human being is MURDER – if the human being is innocent. And unless someone can define for me when life really begins – which no one has – then I think better part of valor is to err on the conservative side AND NOT ABORT HUMANS until we have more data and no for sure.
Gay Marriage? Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Why redefine it. If you want civil unions – have them.
Seriously – anyone who pings on “fundamentalists” are really sad sacks. Because there is nothing “extreme” in the positions of fundamentalists. Demonizing fundamentalists is pretty extreme – but fundamentalists aren’t.
HondaV65 on July 15, 2009 at 12:17 AM
Give me a break Cindy, and don’t be so thin-skinned. Fundamentalists of all stripes (religious and otherwise) do nothing but attempt to impose their beliefs on the rest of us. You’re naive if you think otherwise.
Honda, you sound like a Reagan guy. He was not a fundamentalist. Fundamentalists live in a world where there is absolute certainty…doubt does not exist. They believe they have a monopoly on “The Truth”, and the ends are always justified by the means because they are guided by a “higher power”. Fundamentalists are rigid and dogmatic in their ideology. They are typically demagogues. All issues are black and white to the fundamentalist (be he liberal or conservative). Practical solutions, pragmatism and reason are less important than adherence to dogma. You know what it means. Palin is a fundamentalist. A populist fundamentalist at that, which is doubly dangerous.
dakine on July 15, 2009 at 12:20 AM
Interesting. Your posts are good.
jazz_piano on July 15, 2009 at 12:20 AM
Huskster as the GOP nominee? Root canal would be less painful.
muggedbyreality on July 15, 2009 at 12:26 AM
Mike Huckabee has officially been coronated the Republican to beat, by the Media, just like they picked John McCain for us in 2008.
They’re starting even earlier than the last cycle…
juanito on July 15, 2009 at 12:29 AM
You are wrong – you don’t know what a fundamentalist is. I AM A FUNDAMENTALIST and I am none of those things. I like McCain – I voted for McCain. I voted for Bush twice. I voted for Clinton – the first time. How does that match up to your view of us “rigid” fundamentalists now?
Maybe you shouldn’t listen too much to CNN and MSNBC define who “fundamentalists” are.
And ironic to me – is the fact that the people here in HA who condemn Palin for being ignorant and incoherent are the same ones typically who aren’t intelligent enough to make a coherent point without resorting to personal attacks.
HondaV65 on July 15, 2009 at 12:30 AM
Thin-skinned and naive, you prove my point. You are incapable of disagreeing with someone without insults. Let’s say the world goes your way and we get another moderate on the ballot in 2012 and people are sick enough of our current president that this person has a fighting chance to win. But the base is going to have to come out strong and every vote will count. Will you attempt to come here and rally them to the polls? Or will the bridges that your insults of burned come back to haunt you?
Cindy Munford on July 15, 2009 at 12:35 AM
Where did I personally attack you Honda? By my definition, I would not call you a fundamentalist. You may have fallen victim to being fooled by Palin, but I’m guessing we don’t differ much on the core issues. Chill my man.
dakine on July 15, 2009 at 12:35 AM
I’m off to bed … but I do have to address this point. Reagan WAS a fundamentalist. He was the epitome of a fundamentalist. You can cherry pick certain stands he took that might have looked moderate – but the man was a fundamentalist.
The biggest evidence I can submit to prove my point is how quickly and eagerly the GOP Ayatollahs are rushing to put the Reagan legacy behind us.
George H.W. Bush was put on the ticket with Reagan to assuage the concerns of the GOP moderates. Bush – both H.W. and G.W. – were moderates and the former more so than the latter.
You can’t compare either of them to Reagan – the fundamentalist.
HondaV65 on July 15, 2009 at 12:36 AM
What’s even funnier is that they are too stupid to realize that will hurt Gov. Huckabee. The last people in the world conservatives are going to listen to is the media.
Cindy Munford on July 15, 2009 at 12:37 AM
Cindy, if being called thin-skinned and naive offends you and constitutes some sort of personal attack, then you have kind of a low threshold for that sort of thing. Not sure what to say. IMO, Romney can win in 2012 and Palin cannot. I’m honestly not trying to change any minds here. The thing will play out the way it plays out. Get over yourself maybe?
dakine on July 15, 2009 at 12:39 AM
dakine, you are completely full of crap, and an anti-religious bigot to boot.
Buford Gooch on July 15, 2009 at 12:40 AM
Honda, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. By my definition, Reagan was in no way a fundamentalist. I would caution you not to confuse conservatism with fundamentalism.
Have a good one.
dakine on July 15, 2009 at 12:41 AM
She has not “fooled” me – I don’t see her as the Savior Virgin of Conservatism. I see her for what she is – a powerful voice for Conservatism – something that we lack.
And if the GOP Ayatollahs are about party unity under a banner of Conservatism – then why are they jettisoning her?
Can you name one extreme “fundamentalist” position that Sarah Palin has taken? Where she’s vowed to “force” her views on others? There’s not a one. She’s said she’s pro-life – that is her prerogative. She’s not trying to force that on anyone. She’s against Roe v. Wade because it’s bad law – and bestows a right that the founders didn’t intend. That’s not an extremist position.
If anyone is fooled – it’s you my friend. And you’ve been fooled by the GOP Ayatollahs who do nothing for your concerns because they KNOW they have your vote in the bag. Do you agree that the NRSC should endorse Charlie Crist for Florida Senate over Mario Rubio? Or do you believe the Republican voters should decide? If you’re for the latter – then you’re with me – and you’re against the Ayatollahs.
If you’re for the former – then you’re the one forcing views on others. I’m all about democracy.
HondaV65 on July 15, 2009 at 12:41 AM
A-freaking-men folks.
Huckabee is the exact opposite of what we want in a republican candidate right now. I want a Fiscal-Con who’s willing to leave the social issues to the states… not a social crusader who’s willing to spend like the dems.
That’s the image that got us in trouble in 2006.
Chaz706 on July 15, 2009 at 12:41 AM
Buford, I may be full of crap, but point out to me where I demonstrated any religious bigotry.
dakine on July 15, 2009 at 12:42 AM
Honda, I gotta roll, but just to be clear I’m an independent. Conservative in most of my views, but independent nonetheless. Yup, let the voters decide…we’re on the same page on that one for sure.
dakine on July 15, 2009 at 12:44 AM
You are so right. A scan through this thread had me wondering why everyone seems so narrowly focused on their favorite candidate and name-calling the other Republicans, Conservatives, and NON-freakin Liberals! My personal views are seriously conservative…but at this point in American politics…Bugs Bunny would be a better choice than the Marxist Chicago Thugs currently destroying us from within!
redwhiteblue on July 15, 2009 at 12:47 AM
Last thing I’ll say – I promise …
If the GOP Ayatollah’s accept and embrace Sarah Palin – and don’t work to undermine her …
And if she runs for the nomination in 2012 and gets beaten by Mitt – or somebody else – and it’s a clean campaign …
I will vote for the GOP nominee. I think most Palinistas will do likewise. All we want is a level playing field – that’s all. If we can’t cut it on that level field – it’s cool – we’ll vote for whomever is nominated – we just want our candidates to have an honest shot.
What’s so wrong about that? Why are people insisting that we give up on Palin now?
If you’re truly a Republican – you believe in allowing all ideas to participate – and you trust that the best ones will win out.
But the vibe I’ve been getting from the Ayatollahs is – they’re not really interested in democracy – because they know what’s best for us and we should vote for who they say.
Uhm … sorry – Thomas Jefferson and several other founders would disagree with that position. And I stand with them.
HondaV65 on July 15, 2009 at 12:48 AM
It is not within your power to offend me. Maybe you are unaware of your condescending attitude. Gov. Romney may indeed have a good chance, as good as anyone else at this point. I suggest you forgo being his spokesperson, you are not persuasive.
Cindy Munford on July 15, 2009 at 12:50 AM
dakine on July 15, 2009 at 12:42 AM
I guess you don’t think unending attacks on “fundamentalists” with no evidence to back them up is bigoted? Perhaps you could dispense with the generalities and get specific about individual fundamentalists who act the way you accuse all fundamentalists of acting.
Buford Gooch on July 15, 2009 at 1:03 AM
Well, you’re the expert.
Jim Treacher on July 15, 2009 at 1:07 AM
Huckabee’s never been a serious candidate and he won’t be. He’s just a weekend talkhost now.
Sign of the Dollar on July 15, 2009 at 1:09 AM
Does anyone else think that the Pennsylvania Senate race is going to be a bellwether for 2012? If Toomey loses by double digits, it will take a lot of wind out of the sails of those who want to run the most conservative candidate.
Speedwagon82 on July 15, 2009 at 1:10 AM
Never said I was.
MadisonConservative on July 15, 2009 at 1:17 AM
I particularly like any of the frontrunners, but I’ll vote for Huck if it’s down to him and Romney. I haven’t forgotten “Romneycare”.
In fact, I’m not so sure why Sanford shouldn’t run. If you lean libertarian and your voting decisions aren’t based on private lives, then Sanford is one heck of a candidate. He fought for vouchers, argued against the Stimulus, etc.
Mad Kimchi on July 15, 2009 at 1:22 AM
You know what? I don’t care. ALL of the potential GOP candidates excite me just about as much as the candidates for a school board election in a town I’ve never been to and never intend to visit.
If Washington, Jefferson and Reagan all came back and agreed to be co-Presidents they couldn’t fix the GOP, much less the entire Federal System.
LegendHasIt on July 15, 2009 at 1:48 AM
Wait I thought Rush was our frontrunner?
Rbastid on July 15, 2009 at 1:50 AM
^5 Honda! Well said! Ditto!
Pomme143 on July 15, 2009 at 2:12 AM
Heh. Prematurely entered. How embarassing.
I will vote for all the attributes stated by Honda.
If you’ve a record of not standing for conservative principles, you need not apply. I’m sick and tired of being unfairly represented. Enough said.
Pomme143 on July 15, 2009 at 2:13 AM
Romney has talk radio?
what station are you listening to?
Rush, Levin and all at Fox are all quite favorable of Palin.
above that, Palin gets the 40% conservative vote, dems or republican and is also likely to get quite a few independents –haven’t you noticed her party neutral stance?
if Republicans take Romney, be in for another surprise. Palin with Ron Paul. –don’t miss the last 10 seconds of ther last year video clip at http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/14/sarah-palins-run-for-congress/
mooseburger on July 15, 2009 at 2:50 AM
If Palin goes third party, the dems win again. Simple as that. She’ll get lip service support, but when it comes down to it in the voting booth people will jump to the side, either side. Doesn’t matter, splitting the vote is fatal. These days, with this assclown in the potus chair I can’t believe people would throw the dice on a third party run.
So when the democraps win again, you’ll take responsibility for it, right? Nope, you’ll pass the buck, as always.
Spiritk9 on July 15, 2009 at 4:40 AM
Translation: IF you support Palin and don’t criticize her AND make sure she is nominated I will be a good party member. IF not then I reserve the right to continue to call fellow party members names and stay at home because my gal is not the nominee..
Too much salt water has addled your brain
Bradky on July 15, 2009 at 5:29 AM
At least Huck is not afraid to support Palin, unlike Romney who treats her like most men like him treat there woman…nicely but keep them in the kitchen.
Unfortunately he shows her no honor, because he thinks that may diminish his standing.
Huck is smart, don’t ignore the front runner…
right2bright on July 15, 2009 at 7:48 AM
He doesn’t, unless the national GOP has a death wish.
Physics Geek on July 15, 2009 at 7:57 AM
Nice attempt at framing “fundamentalist,” but you do not know from whence you write. You have allowed yourself to see the word as a negative.
We need Constitutionally “fundamentalist” judges. I hope your accountant is a “fundamentalist” accountant or you may wind up in prison.
The accountants at ACORN and ENRON weren’t “fundamentalist” accountants… they saw a lot of “doubt” and “room for compromise” in the rules. Bernie Madoff didn’t care much for the “fundamentals” of investment ethics and laws either.
Now, as for the historical use of the term, an Evangelical “fundamentalist” would have serious problems with several of my theological convictions… but I don’t begrudge him his “fundamentalism.”
mankai on July 15, 2009 at 8:14 AM
This thread provides a remarkable view of squabbling Republicans. I propose one major reason you are all wrestling with each other is because you all know the GOP stands for nothing. You’re all figuring if your guy or gal gets the nod the Party will reflect their philosophy. I think that’s 100% wrong.
The GOP has proven it is not conservative. Putting the same big spending liars in control of Congress may slow our march to socialism but it won’t restore the Republic.
I voted for Romney in the primaries but he’s underwhelmed me by his flacid opposition to the raping of the American economy. I can’t help thinking he’s a Bain Capital insider who’s part of the elites dividing the spoils of the Bush/Paulson raid on our treasury. He talks free market but I don’t trust him. Fitzgerald was right, The Rich are Different!
Huckabee? Sorry Chuck, I love you man, but no. Too Crunchy Con for me.
I’m pretty sure Palin won’t run in 2012. I bet she will attack GOP regulars though. I will support her with time and money if she does. Whether there is a third party or a coordinated conservative attack against the RNC’s phonies like Crist in Florida doesn’t matter to me. I’m willing to do my part to dismantle the GOP that betrayed the country over the last 10 years. I’m hoping that’s where Sarah’s heading.
rcl on July 15, 2009 at 8:39 AM
+100 on your view of the current party status.
Cindy Munford on July 15, 2009 at 8:45 AM
Wanna know what I believe was Palin’s HUGE mistake? She got on a ticket with one the most egregious “phonies” around. McCain was a sure loser and she could have positioned herself as the conservative front-runner by publicly rebuking his candidacy as the sad state that is the GOP.
How does she argue that the party has drifted by offering up McCain (who exemplifies the drift) if she is joined at the hip with the RINO?
She glorified a man who exemplifies the worst of the compromising GOP spirit. She didn’t “head” in the direction of fighting that wing of the party, she willfully and gleefully joined it.
Did she do that to increase her public exposure? If so, that makes her a political hack. If she did it because she truly believed in the McCain candidacy, that makes her a RINO. If she was praising McCain while all the while disagreeing with her own words, that makes her an opportunistic liar.
I think she missed the boat… she should have positioned herself to McCain’s right and stepped into a leadership role after his loss. She would have also avoided the leftist onslaught she got as VP candidate. By the time she took the national stage she would already have been defined and known and the attacks would be less effective.
BIG mistake, Sarah.
mankai on July 15, 2009 at 8:51 AM
Mike Huckabee has officially been coronated the Republican to beat, by the Media, just like they picked John McCain for us in 2008.
They’re starting even earlier than the last cycle…
juanito on July 15, 2009
Bingo! Give that man a cigar.
The difference this time, Juanito, is that we are on to their game.
SKYFOX on July 15, 2009 at 9:14 AM
ugh … If the choice is between Romney and Huckabee, I’m not voting. I held my nose last time and voted for McCain, but I’m not voting for a big government Republican ever again. I’ll write someone in or go third party.
besser tot als rot on July 15, 2009 at 9:28 AM
Huckaphoney front runner (Horse Hockey)
thmcbb on July 15, 2009 at 9:28 AM
Gomer Pyle. Can you say golllley.
Kissmygrits on July 15, 2009 at 9:32 AM
Spiritk9 on July 15, 2009 at 4:40 AM
You assume that there is a significant difference between the GOP and Dems. There isn’t. My main (only?) hope is for divided government so that their petty squabbling (which is a result more of posturing than any real difference in philosophy) keeps them from implementing anything.
I also hope for a true conservative DC/”elite” outsider can get elected President. This is the appeal of Palin. Whether or not she actually fits the role, I do not know, but she is the most prominent person with such a potential that is out there.
besser tot als rot on July 15, 2009 at 9:39 AM
Good analysis…I think Palin will attack the status quo, and at the end of the day decide if she wants to run, or support who is running.
She will be the “spoiler”, her strength can be bringing Obama’s and the dems policies to public debate, and not allowing them to ram through bills that are not read, let alone debated.
We will see if she becomes a nucleus of conservative politicians.
right2bright on July 15, 2009 at 9:52 AM
When I read something like this…I know the poster is not very well read, has a very limited understanding of history.
Sit down, read a couple of books, then re-write your post.
You don’t think that pro-abortion, and pro-life is a major distinction?
You don’t think government health care, the differences are a major distinction?
The energy policies of both parties is a major distinction?
Good grief…
right2bright on July 15, 2009 at 9:56 AM
Like McCain?
mankai on July 15, 2009 at 9:59 AM
right2bright on July 15, 2009 at 9:56 AM
When I read ad hominem attacks, I know that a poster has limited intellectual acumen.
And no, I don’t think that pro-abortion and pro-life lip service results in much of a difference in policy. I think that the Republican expansion in government health care under Bush is only different from the Dems in scope. Energy? I didn’t see Bush the and GOP open up off-shore drilling when they controlled all branches of government. Lip service and posturing all of it.
besser tot als rot on July 15, 2009 at 10:03 AM
There are others that I would prefer to see in office, but Mitt ROmney is without a doubt best candidate that the Republicans can put forward – from a strategic point of view.
golfballs03 on July 15, 2009 at 10:08 AM
Huckabee is an unmitigated religious bigot. He will certainly get the coveted “I can judge who is and is not a REAL Christian” vote.
And he’ll play to them like Beethoven to royalty.
csdeven on July 15, 2009 at 10:11 AM
He’ll use the Elmer Gantry strategy.
csdeven on July 15, 2009 at 10:17 AM
If we run Huck, then we will have a bigger loss than we had with COB (Cranky Old Bastard).
cjs1943 on July 15, 2009 at 10:53 AM
This is what I meant in my first-page post and the course of this thread bears it out. I’m reminded of that mutiny scene in Dr. Zhivago. How often are the “sensible” Republicans going to flog us conservatives back into ranks? The GOP didn’t lose 12% of the electorate because conservatives became liberal. They shrank to 25% because we stayed conservative first, Republican a good second.
How is ANY Republican going to win when honest Americans are ashamed to promote their front men to our friends and family? Got anything but threats and insults to answer that?
Chris_Balsz on July 15, 2009 at 11:08 AM
Guess I should be clear: I’m agreeing with rcl, and I don’t mean he’s the one making threats or insults.
Chris_Balsz on July 15, 2009 at 11:11 AM
Huckabee has nothing to offer. I am with him on the social issues but the main thing will be the economy.
echosyst on July 15, 2009 at 11:21 AM
I would argue with Allapundit’s version that Romney will take the nomination — it remains to be seen what strength Romney actually has (or for that matter Huckabee doesn’t). Thus far we know how boring he is. But if you look at the recent Rasmussen poll and, in particular the crosstabs if you are a member, Huckabee gets 20% on the economy to Romney’s 24% on that issue — well within the MOE — so don’t automatically credit the economy to Romney.
I will strenously argue with AP that Palin will walk away with Huckabee’s base. In Rasmussen’s crosstabs, Huckabee grabs 35% of the evangelical vote compared to Palin’s 21% and Romney 19%; and on cultural issues, Huckabee has a whopping 40%. Huckabee’s base is clearly in tact. Anyone who thinks he will take less than what he took in the last primary is politically unsophisticated. In addition to those states, very much up for grabs is MO, IND, VA, OK, TEX, MISS, NC, KY. And since Huckabee spends three days a week in NY these days, don’t be so quick to cede Romney NY.
Oh, by the way, did you know Huckabee is the keynote speaker for the middle NYS conservative party in October?
nyvoter on July 15, 2009 at 11:34 AM
Further indication that for all the disdain he heaps upon his own readers, he really doesn’t understand how they think.
TheUnrepentantGeek on July 15, 2009 at 11:51 AM
Every now and then you need a Biden
What a harsh scenario
entagor on July 15, 2009 at 11:56 AM
If, by the time the primaries get to Indiana, we are reduced to voting for McCain version 2.0, forget it. I will stay home. I don’t support Huckabee because I don’t trust him. His Christianity strikes me as contrived. I could support Romney but I need to see some serious repentence for his MA healthcare stupidity along with credible pledges to uphold conservative ideals.
Let’s see what shakes out by 2010, when the race really begins. I’m still praying for Sarah to run. If so, she gets my money, my campaign labor and my vote. Anyone else…maybe my vote, we’ll see.
SKYFOX on July 15, 2009 at 1:07 PM
Mitt Romney is the man I would vote for and I know most of the arguments against him. He’s a Mormon. He couldn’t even beat McCain in NH. He can’t win the south. He’s plastic. Those things will all come into play again, even though this is an entirely different economic and political environment than last year.
A lot of the idiots who voted for Bambi are now totally un-enchanted with him.
Show me a better candidate and I may change my mind. But here we are, 3 years out from the next election and right now, I would vote Romney.
Geronimo on July 15, 2009 at 1:10 PM
I don’t think you understand those big words.
I spelled out specifically where I thought you were misguided, and by your response you are.
Of course you just said “lip service” and pointed out Bush expansion, while expanding the war that the dems hated…but then you would feel there is no difference there either.
You have made your mind, obviously, I was more pointing out to others how this “same” thought is so inane.
You don’t see a difference in abortion…energy…military…social programs…education…taxes…I do, I see specific differences in both parties, I think Thomas Sowell does also.
The error you make (and many others) is that Democrats can articulate their position better then the Republicans…that is why you are confused. We have chosen poor communicators, we choose by seniority, dems choose by personality (another huge difference you don’t get).
We had Reagan, Gingrich is pretty good, and Palin…but we chose, Dole, Bush, McCain…hardly what one would call great communicators.
Thomas Sowell spells it out, and why he said Palin was such a phenomenon. She could speak the plain language and people listened, which is why the dems panicked, they saw her as a great communicator, they know what gets votes.
You think they are the same…I see vast differences…perhaps you don’t see them because?
right2bright on July 15, 2009 at 1:35 PM
I hadn’t seen this thread until now.
I will not vote for Mike Huckabee. If he manages to win the GOP nomination, I will not work for him. I will not donate money to him. I will not vote for him.
If Palin herself came to my house and spent an hour drinking beer with me, telling me all the reasons why I should vote for Huckabee, I still would not vote for him.
myrenovations on July 15, 2009 at 2:16 PM
AP, in your Huckhate rage, you missed the obvious point: a field with fewer “social cons” can only help Huckabee. And your analysis of the primaries misses the fact that winning Iowa and South Carolina is usually enough to clear the field, as Bush did in the 2000 election. Last year was an exception to this rule for a variety of reasons.
cackcon on July 15, 2009 at 2:30 PM
I’d take Huckabee over Obama, and over SPECTER, and over Powell, and over Lindsay Grahamnesty.
But versus a conservative? Lata, Huckster.
hawksruleva on July 15, 2009 at 2:34 PM
I can barely stand Huckabee. Barely.
I am mad as hell at the whole government thing going on and to me, Huckabee would be more of the same. If that man is the nominee in 12, I’d be about as enthused as I was for McCain.
I really can not put into words how much I dislike Huckabee.
ORconservative on July 15, 2009 at 2:51 PM
If it was Palin coming over for beers?…Hmmm…maybe
Jeff from WI on July 15, 2009 at 2:56 PM
Who am I kidding,I couldn’t deny a request from Palin.
Jeff from WI on July 15, 2009 at 2:57 PM
I could. I can not vote for Huckabee.
I would enjoy a beer with Palin though.
ORconservative on July 15, 2009 at 2:59 PM
Ha, I couldn’t even bring myself to have a beer with Huckabee let alone cast a vote for the guy.
If I happen to turn on FOX when he is on, I can not turn it off fast enough.
ORconservative on July 15, 2009 at 3:00 PM
I have read with amusement why certain Hot Air bloggers would NOT (under any circumstances) vote for a variety of prospective Republican candidates. Obama is the enemy. If the only way I could get rid of this socialist bum were to vote for Charles Manson, I would do so.
MaiDee on July 15, 2009 at 3:08 PM
All I know is that in the primaries last year, when it was basically down to Huck, McCain and Mitt, I immediately tossed Huck out and picked the most conservative of the remaining two. Which was McCain, if you go by actions in office.
Yes, I know Mitt “changed his views” after leaving Mass., but I held him to the same standard many held McCain to. No matter what he says on the campaign trail, things like McAmnesty matter. Fair enough, but glance at Mitt the Moderate’s record in Mass, and it’s very alarming. Look at health care, for instance, and Mccain is a far more reliable pro-life candidate. Mitt is a smart man, but his political philosophy is all over the map.
The point is that McCain wasn’t very conservative, but he was more conservative than Mitt, no matter what the pundits say. It’s in the record.
So out of the big three of 2012, give me Sarah. But she does have some work to do, some opinions to fine tune, which I’m confident she can get done and be prepared for the task if she runs.
Shotgun Messiah on July 15, 2009 at 3:10 PM
Sorry, Charlie was a registered Democrat, but then again so was Ed Gein & Jeff Dahmer.
Jeff from WI on July 15, 2009 at 3:19 PM
Shotgun Messiah on July 15, 2009 at 3:10 PM
I think you have forgotten they are all politicians. McCain was as liberal as he is in a red state where he’s been safely in office for many many years. Romney managed to be as conservative as he was in a deep blue state with a veto-proof Democrat super-majority. Palin was thwarted by the Democrat minority in Alaska. I wonder what she could have managed in Massachusetts…
thecountofincognito on July 15, 2009 at 3:24 PM
I’ll tell you what, Obama and his band of merry theives are the enemy and the ones to beat but the Republicans will make a huge mistake if they put up opposwition that is Democrat lite or a squishy feel good no confrontation type.
I will vote against anyone who is on board or even on the fence with the current agenda. That includes RINOs.
Huckabee will not ever get my vote.
ORconservative on July 15, 2009 at 3:34 PM
“How does Huck win the nomination?”
Easy. He opens his mouth. Social conservatives vote for him. He wins. End of story.
Gaunilon on July 15, 2009 at 3:38 PM
Huck got my vote in the primary simply because the nomination had been decided by the time my state voted, and I was hoping my state would send a message to McCain that just because he had the most delegates did not mean that everyone approved of his policy stances. I really did not care for any of the choices left to me when I voted in the primary.
With that said, if the 2012 nom is still up for grabs when my state votes, I can state with 99.44% certainty that I will not be voting for Huck again.
Snowed In on July 15, 2009 at 3:43 PM
Unemployment will hover around 12% indefinitely. The credit bubble of the last quarter century allowed too many people to have good paying jobs that were made possible only by crazy lending and even crazier spending. People then had kids falsely assuming that there would, of course, be jobs for those children when they became adults. Reality is far harsher.
What we are seeing now is what I call the baseline economy. This is the new normal. Unemployment at 12%, and real unemployment at 20%, will be the new normal. Anything lower than this would have to come from an economy artificially stimulated with some kind of unsustainable bubble. Since we will not see another credit bubble, or real estate bubble in our lifetimes, nor would we want that considering they are unsustainable and highly destructive and destabilizing, we will never see unemployment go back down to what it was. There are just more people than there is need for them. That is not a fault of the economy. That is a market place that functions efficiently. Unemployment is only a political problem for the leaders.
The frightening solution, however, for this political problem is clear: the government will hire those redundant people and make them a part of the Machine. What they will do? Use your imagination.
keep the change on July 15, 2009 at 4:30 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 3 4 5 6 Next »