From today's Washington Post: How Huckabee Could Rock the 2008 Vote. The article presents a viable "what-if" scenarion, in my opinion, for Huckabee (wiki; campaign website) successfully campaigning in the Republican primaries and caucases. It makes a few comparisons to Pres. Bill Clinton, and details what might happen, and, in the author's opinion, needs to happen for Huckabee to either win the Presidential nomination or be the "social conservative" counter-weight on a Guiliani-led ticket. While it is a "what-if" scenario, I thought it made for good reading, especially this last part:
The clearest testament to Huckabee's dexterity -- and the staying power of his faith-infused, soft-edged conservatism -- is the very makeup of the 2008 GOP field. In the mid-1990s, Huckabee was a frequently overlooked member of the celebrated corps of Republican Revolution-era governors. The talent pool ran so deep at the time that the party seemed stocked with viable presidential aspirants for decades to come.
But while one of those governors, George W. Bush, found his way to the White House, the others slowly faded. By late 2006, just three governors were in the hunt to succeed Bush -- Huckabee, New York's George Pataki and Wisconsin's Tommy Thompson. Pataki quickly learned that he had no constituency and never entered the race. Thompson did jump in, only to discover that his signature issue, welfare reform, had lost its political saliency.
That leaves Huckabee, the last 1990s-era Republican governor standing in the 2008 race. As his rise shows, religion never goes out of style in American politics. Huckabee's rivals may yet learn that the hard way.
As IP says, discuss...
(by the way, Huckabee isn't one of the candidates listed in the categories section; IP, would you consider adding him?)
HG
I've just added him. Thanks.
HG do you support Huckabee or do you just find this issue interesting? Have you seen his movie? http://www.beemovie.com/
I just found this article interesting, that's all. i'll make up my mind come next November, on who to vote for.
HG
Huckabee, like all the rest, has some blemishes on his record. Pretty good on social issues, a bit too populist on the economic stuff (if I recall correctly) and raised a lot of taxes in Arkansas. I doubt he gets my vote in Feb, but I could change my mind between now and then.
"I doubt he gets my vote in Feb, but I could change my mind between now and then."
That says a lot about Fred Thompson's campaign so far, I think.
There were a lot of conservatives hoping that Fred would catch fire and become the clear conservative candidate and thus, the frontrunner. For whatever reason, that just hasn't happened.
Still 60 days left until IA, though.
Just trying to keep an open mind, IP :-) Shouldn't be construed as any indictment of the Thompson campaign.
I still do think Thompson will be the clear conservative candidate. But if he hasn't done that after the first 3 primaries, I could consider voting for the "leading" conservative in Feb.
"But if he hasn't done that after the first 3 primaries, I could consider voting for the "leading" conservative in Feb."
If someone (anyone) hasn't done that after the first three primaries, I think it'll be hard to stop Rudy on 2/5. That said, I'm finding it harder and harder to envision a scenario where anyone but Rudy or Mitt gets the nomination. As someone who would have been quite comfortable three months ago if Thompson had been our nominee, I'm wondering if he's already peaked.
Question to the group: Would a Guiliani-Huckabee ticket be "conservative" enough to attract undecided voters come next November? Basically, would Huckabee be a solid enough conservative to counter-balance Guiliani at the top of the ticket?
and just for IP: From today's Wall Street Journal Opinions/Editorial page: Hating Rudy. It's not a "tar-and-feather the bastard" piece; rather, it looks at the fermenting Guiliani Derangement Syndrome that may be forming on the Left. One of the better quotes: "The irony, of course, is that the more vocal, vicious and unfounded the liberal attacks on Mr. Giuliani become, the easier it is for him to make his case to conservative primary voters that they agree on a lot more than they disagree. Mr. Giuliani has often cited his liberal foes to burnish his own conservative credentials." To paraphrase a TV show, Guiliani can whack someone on the Left, instead of moving to the Right, and accomplish the same goal.
The best quote, in my opinion, is the final bit:
HG
With enemies like Mr. Rangel, does Mr. Giuliani need friends?
Good point.
Question to the group: Would a Guiliani-Huckabee ticket be "conservative" enough to attract undecided voters come next November?
I don't think the "undecideds" are the issue. This issue is, would it be "conservative" enough to keep the pro-lifers from bolting for a 3rd party candidate, or just sitting it out? IMO - no, probably not. I just think there is a decent % of the population that just won't vote for a pro-choice candidate - period. Even if that means Hillary wins.
"Basically, would Huckabee be a solid enough conservative to counter-balance Guiliani at the top of the ticket?"
Huckabee is a lot less Conservative than Giuliani. Just very vocally pro-life. Which I guess to Giuliani haters is the same thing.
On November 5th, 2007 at 07:21 PM, Dan Fielding said: "Basically, would Huckabee be a solid enough conservative to counter-balance Guiliani at the top of the ticket?" Huckabee is a lot less Conservative than Giuliani. Just very vocally pro-life. Which I guess to Giuliani haters is the same thing.
On November 5th, 2007 at 07:04 PM, redstatewannabe said: I don't think the "undecideds" are the issue. This issue is, would it be "conservative" enough to keep the pro-lifers from bolting for a 3rd party candidate, or just sitting it out? IMO - no, probably not. I just think there is a decent % of the population that just won't vote for a pro-choice candidate - period. Even if that means Hillary wins.
In the scenario of a Guiliani-Huckabee ticket, if Guiliani made appropriate noises about listening to Huckabee, about making judiciary nominations that are "strict" enough, etc.; does anyone think that will be enough to keep the pro-life vote from bolting to a 3rd party or staying home that day?
HG