I was listening to an interview with Florida governor Charlie Crist following his endorsement of John McCain tonight. Among all the glowing compliments he had for McCain was that McCain is a great conservative. I continue to hear this same thing parroted from all manner of so called conservatives. It makes me wonder whether these people are attempting to redefine conservatism or if they have any idea what conservative even means.
The so called conservative pundits have been doing the same thing of course. And McCain characterizes himself as a conservative as well when he knows very well that he is not. And through all of this it appears that the electorate is buying the story. I suppose the old saw that voters have short memories is true.
The point of this post is to point out how contrary to conservatism John McCain’s record and rhetoric really is. In act after and and statement after statement John McCain has demonstrated himself to be anything but a conservative.
A great place to start in examining that record is a piece by Mark Levin at National Review Online entitled The Real McCain Record. In that article Levin chronicles McCain’s record and a plethora of issues. Beginning with McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform (which limited the only class of free speech the founders had in mind, political speech) Levin demonstrates how far from conservatism McCain is and has been. The list includes the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill, the McCain-Lieberman anti America global warming bill, the McCain-Kennedy-Edwards trial bar bill masquerading as a patient’s bill of rights and McCain’s attempts to decimate the America pharmaceutical industry by importing drugs from Canada.
Then there was McCain’s opposition to both Bush tax cuts. Today McCain claims his opposition was based on his desire to also cut federal spending. Even that reasoning is weak considering that penalizes tax payers for the government’s excesses but that was not his rhetoric at the time. Rather, McCain engaged in typical liberal class warfare rhetoric.
According to Levin, as chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee “McCain was consistently hostile to American enterprise, from media and pharmaceutical companies to technology and energy companies.” Then there’s McCain’s role in the “Gang of 14, which prevented the Republican leadership in the Senate from mounting a rule change that would have ended the systematic use (actual and threatened) of the filibuster to prevent majority approval of judicial nominees.”
Levin then goes on to McCain’s defense record. Of course, McCain supporters claim that he will vigorously prosecute the war against radical Islamic fascism. McCain’s record, however, suggests otherwise.
His supporters point to essentially one policy strength, McCain’s early support for a surge and counterinsurgency. It has now evolved into McCain taking credit for forcing the president to adopt General David Petreaus’s strategy. Where’s the evidence to support such a claim?
Moreover, Iraq is an important battle in our war against the Islamo-fascist threat. But the war is a global war, and it most certainly includes the continental United States, which, after all, was struck on 9/11. How does McCain fare in that regard?
McCain-ACLU — the unprecedented granting of due-process rights to unlawful enemy combatants (terrorists).
According to Gun Owners of America, McCain voted in 2004 to force gun owners to purchase trigger locks when they purchased a handgun. In 2004 he offered an amendment to a gun show bill that would have banned the private sale of handguns at gun shows unless a background check was run. The article includes numerous incidents of McCain treading on the second amendment. That should come as no surprise considering his view of the first amendment.
The Club for Growth said, “While Senator McCain’s economic record contains a number of pro-growth positions, such as his support for school choice and free trade, and his steadfast opposition to wasteful government spending, his overall record is tainted by a marked antipathy towards the free market and individual freedom.”
Let us not forget the Keating Five scandal of 1980s. This from Wizbangblue.com:
Few remember that John McCain only narrowly survived the Keating Five Scandal of the 1980’s involving the corrupt dealings of Charles H. Keating and the Lincoln Savings & Loan. Keating was responsible for the collapse of Lincoln, yet gave McCain and four other members of congress over $1.3 million in political contributions to help influence banking and other legislation. McCain later attempted to whitewash his role in this scandal by becoming the poster boy in the congress for campaign finance reform.
Slate.com has a pretty thorough explanation of what happened and it isn’t pretty for McCain. Charles Keating ended up going to prison for bilking depositors in his Lincoln Savings and Loan out of billions of dollars. It was the biggest of the savings and loan scandals and McCain was wrapped up in it. Keating contributed large sums of money to McCain’s campaign and sought McCain’s assistance with federal investigators. McCain claimed he was just making sure a constituent was being treated fairly but Keating was McCain’s long time friend as well as contributor.
John McCain’s record is one of corruption, consistent opposition to the Republican Party and conservative ideals. He has a reputation for fits of anger and anyone in Washington knows that you cross John McCain at your own peril because he will do everything in his power to get even. He is dishonest and will do and say pretty much anything to get elected.
Much has been said over the last few days about Rush Limbaugh’s assertion that he may not vote for the Republican nominee this year. I’ve had my disagreements with Rush during this campaign season but on this I’m in agreement. If John McCain wins the Republican nomination I will not vote for him. I’ve written about being careful about what you say regarding other Republicans because you may find yourself having to vote for them. In this case I’m not worried about it because there is no conceivable circumstance where I would vote for McCain. He is in the same category as Lindsey Graham. In McCain’s case I won’t vote for the Democrat nominee but I will either vote third party or not vote at all in the presidential race. There is simply no way I can, in good conscience, vote for this man. And I’m convinced that there are many like me.
That brings us to the widespread claim that John McCain is the only candidate who can beat Hillary Clinton (or Obama). I don’t believe McCain can beat either of them. Despite what the polls may say, McCain is the least electable of the Republican candidates. He does not inspire the rank and file of the Republican Party. There is so much bad blood that he would only serve to divide the party. And the claims that those in the middle, the so called moderates, would vote for him in large numbers is, I think, simply untrue. By and large those people will break for the Democrat candidate. McCain will get some of them, to be sure, but not enough to do the job. As for the Republican base, many will stay home. Others will vote third party. Some may even vote for the Democrat in protest. But at the end of the day, McCain will not have the support of the base. He will not have the support of conservatives.
And all those “conservatives” endorsing McCain today are, I believe, doing so because they believe the claim that he is the only one who can win. It is a lie perpetuated by the left with the help of the media. As Rush pointed out to a caller on Friday, what good is the endorsement of the New York Times? Does anyone believe they will endorse McCain over the Democrat nominee? Of course not.
UPDATE:
For even more details about McCain’s record of dishonesty and liberal policies, see Ann Coulter’s column, ‘Straight Talk’ Express Takes Scenic Route to Truth. The more you learn the more you realize McCain is a scoundrel!
While overall I’d say tonight’s Republican debate was probably the best of MSNBS’s efforts, it was still characterized by some pretty slanted questioning. Tim Russert asked each candidate, and I’m paraphrasing here, are you excited about running on the record of the party that has screwed up everything? Mostly the candidates handled the question with far more aplomb than Russert hoped. On several occasions Russert pontificated at length in the form of a question, promoting such issues as global warming.
For the most part no one make any mistakes and gaffs tonight. All acquitted themselves pretty well. The general consensus of the panel on MSNBC was that on the economic issues Romney came out on top. I’m not sure I agree with that but he did do well. McCain seemed to be in a daze at the beginning but he warmed up as he went along.
At the outset, the MSNBC panel seemed to think the candidates would take the opportunity to gang up on Romney since he’s the front runner going in. I thought they might gang up on McCain. Ultimately, however, no one was ganged up on and it might have been the most civil of all the Republican debates to date.
Little was said tonight about border security or the war against Islam fascism. The primary focus of the questioning, after Russert asserted how bad the Republican Party has been, was on the issue of the economy. Huckabee pointed out that of all the candidates on the stage, he was the only one saying there was a problem back in New Hampshire. He said that all the other candidates claimed the economy was sound then.
On the question of whether the candidates agreed with the stimulus package that has been agreed upon, most said they did but they’d go farther. Only Huckabee questioned the package, asking where the money would come from and assuming we’d borrow it from China. He said he wondered whose economy would be helped the most. Romney even followed up on that later and gave credit to Huckabee for bringing up the question of China as a competitor to America. Paul also took issue with the stimulus package but he takes issue with virtually everything.
To be fair, Paul did make some good points tonight. He pointed out yet again that the Republican Party used to be for the elimination of the Department of Education but now they work to grow it. I’ve said the same thing many times. On most domestic issues I’m in agreement with Paul but on foreign policy I still think he’s plain dangerous.
An interesting portion of the debate was when the candidates asked question of each other. Only Romney used the opportunity to make a speech in the process of asking a question. In fact, it appeared for a minute or so that he didn’t understand what he was supposed to be doing. Interestingly McCain chose to ask Huckabee about the FairTax. Specifically he asked what Huckabee’s response was to critics who claim that the FairTax would unfairly hurt those at the bottom of the economic ladder. That’s about as softball a question as I could imagine anyone asking and Huckabee handled it easily. McCain listened like he really wanted to understand. I still wonder whether it was a blunder on McCain’s part or whether he deliberately set Huckabee up to give a good answer in the hope that he would gain points over Romney.
Ron Paul asked McCain a very esoteric question about a panel of economic advisors. It was tedious and seemed intended to make McCain look ignorant on economic issues. McCain managed to answer the question without dealing with the panel Paul mentioned and, indeed, I’m sure not one in 100 in the audience had any idea what Paul was talking about.
The unifying theme of the evening was opposition to Hillary Clinton. Most of the candidates had something to say about Clinton and several were specifically asked about campaigning against her and Bill if they became the nominee. Probably the best line of the night was Romney’s response to that question when he said he didn’t want to think about Bill Clinton in the White House again with nothing to do.
One of the most interesting moments actually followed the debate when Chris Mathews was questioning Giuliani about the second amendment. Mathews was incredulous that Giuliani would actually believe the second amendment means what it says. He seemed to think that Giuliani didn’t really believe that but was just saying it because he was running for the Republican nomination. One could easily see how Mathews might fell that way considering Giuliani’s approach to guns as mayor or New York City.
I don’t think there were any big winners or losers tonight. My candidate, Huckabee, did pretty well I thought, but so did the rest. I don’t expect this debate will have changed a lot of minds, though it might influence some in Florida who have yet to make up their minds. As I said above, it was probably the best MSNBC debate to date and i enjoyed watching it. They made a good decision in excluding Chris Mathews from the questioning.
It seems the race for the Republican nomination is in some disarray. Some pundits are predicting a brokered convention. Some Fred heads are talking write in votes in an attempt to force a brokered convention. What are the likely scenarios through Super Tuesday?
Giuliani had a solid lead in Florida before the early primaries. Some polls had him over 36%. Then the early primaries happened and Giuliani was not playing in any of them. That changed the political landscape. Now Giuliani, who has spent heavily in Florida, is tied for third with Huckabee who hasn’t spent much and isn’t campaigning there. Pretty much everyone believes that if Giuliani doesn’t win Florida his campaign is over. I think it likely he’ll come in forth.
The polls show Romney and McCain in a statistical tie for first in Florida. I suspect Romney will handily defeat McCain in the sunshine state, giving McCain a likely second place finish. Of course, the large liberal northeastern snow birds could tilt that the other way. Second is as good as last in this winner take all state and if that is where McCain ends up it hurts him a lot. Huckabee will be third which will give him no delegates but it will still energize his campaign because he will again have done it without much money, meaning he has real, solid support.
What does all that mean going into Super Tuesday? I think it will be a three man race at that point with Romney leading the pack. McCain and Huckabee will be fighting for second place.
There are, of course, some wildcards in play. Where will Thompson supporters go? They should go to Huckabee since both Huckabee and Thompson were going for the same constituency. Some will go to Romney because he is the most conservative of the front runners (if you don’t consider Huckabee a front runner). Some, like ALa of Blonde Sagacity, seem determined to go with McCain, primarily I think, because of his war record. I’m mystified by that since these people consider themselves conservatives but they can ignore McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, etc. But many of them bought pretty much anything Thompson said and Thompson attacked Huckabee relentlessly. That was no surprise considering Huckabee was his main opponent. They were, after all, reaching out to the same constituency. Once again, violation of Reagan’s eleventh commandment takes its toll.
Then there’s the small group who supported Duncan Hunter. Hunter is now endorsing Huckabee, which has to really irk some of the pundits on the right as well as Thompson supporters.
I still think Huckabee has a decent shot but I concede he has an uphill battle and the odds are against him. If, as I am predicting, Giuliani comes in third or forth in Florida, he is toast. His support has already shrunk considerably and without a win in Florida it will pretty much dry up. That leaves a three man race with Romney, McCain and Huckabee going into Super Tuesday.
I am convinced that McCain cannot win overall in states that have closed primaries. In the South Carolina primary McCain did not do well among those who consider themselves conservative or very conservative. He also did not do well among those who are pro-life. Additionally, Protestants and those who attend church regularly went largely for Huckabee (Source). I said last week, McCain barely won South Carolina and it took independents crossing over to give him that win and had Thompson not been in the race Huckabee would likely have won anyway. None of this bodes well for McCain going forward. The best thing he has is the claim of momentum coming out of South Carolina and I’m not convinced he really has any momentum, though the media has worked hard to generate some.
Based on what is known now, I believe Romney is the most likely winner on Super Tuesday. How well Huckabee does will depend on his ability to stretch a dollar and enlist the active support of the organizations that already exist in the FairTax community and the evangelical community. That carried him in the Iowa Straw Poll, it carried him in the Iowa Caucus and it has the potential to carry him on Super Tuesday. The question is, will those organizations mobilize? If they do Huckabee could defy the odds and the pundits and be positioned to take the nomination. If they do not, Romney wins on Super Tuesday. Either way the best McCain can hope for is second and that would mean the end of his candidacy. Indeed, if Romney is the clear winner after Super Tuesday he will likely be the nominee. As much as that thought does not appeal to me, it is infinitely preferable to a McCain win. Still, I have hope, if not giddy optimism, that Huckabee can pull this off.
If, by some miracle, McCain emerges from Super Tuesday a winner, the Republican Party is in real trouble! More on that possible outcome in another post.
I don’t mind saying I’m disappointed. I’ve had harsh words for John McCain and my opinion has not changed. I really thought South Carolinians would not be fooled by him but I was wrong. Of course, independents are what pushed McCain over the top. If you didn’t know, South Carolina has open primaries, something I’ve always disagreed with. Among Republicans and particularly conservatives, Huckabee won. But independents went strongly for McCain.
Because it was still quite close I don’t think second place does too much damage to Huckabee. And, because independents won it for McCain, I’m not convinced that will translate to states that hold closed primaries. I certainly hope it won’t because McCain is many things but conservative is not one of them.
Thompson came in a distant third. Had he been a close third he might have still had a decent position but he was 13-14 points behind Huckabee. In my view that pretty much ends it for Thompson. He may hang in there a little longer but his campaign is effectively over.
Listening to FOX News the consensus seems to be that after today the race has been reduced to McCain, Romney and Giuliani. I pray that isn’t the case considering none of them is conservative. They further believe that if Giuliani doesn’t win Florida it will be down to McCain and Romney If that eventuality occurs, I’ll have to do some serious soul searching about how I will respond. I am a conservative and I don’t know that I could vote for McCain under any circumstances.
I simply do not buy the argument from most of the talking heads on FOX News that this is the end of the road for Huckabee. Second is not what he wanted but the fact is he’s still viable. Florida is next and neither Huckabee nor McCain is going to win there. Next is Super Tuesday and lot of states do not have open primaries. I don’t believe McCain can win in the south without independents and Huckabee will win in those states. What is more likely in my judgement is a spread of delegates following Super Tuesday that has Huckabee squarely in the pack along with others, none with enough delegates to take them over the top.
It’s going to be a while before we know who the Republican nominee is and it could end up in a brokered convention, something we haven’t seen in some time. If that happens who knows what the outcome will be? At that point anyone could get the nomination, even Fred Thompson.
It is truly a dreary day in Charleston and across the state of South Carolina. Not the best day to have a primary. We went to the polls around 10:00 this morning. Our polling place is the Greater Goodwill AME Church. When we pulled into the parking lot it was packed, so much so that we had to pull all the way around back to park, then walk around the building through the flooded parking lot in the rain. My consolation was that there was such a good turnout. Then I discovered the church was having some kind of dinner and that accounted for the majority of the parking.
We got in the building to vote and there were maybe 10-15 people in the line. The poll workers said it had been steady all morning but not a great turnout. That was a disappointment.
We cast our votes, me for Huckabee, and headed home to watch the news. Of course all morning the coverage was on Nevada where FOX News called the GOP race for Romney very early. There was a lot of speculation about how Nevada might impact South Carolina (idiotic speculation in my opinion).
The weather appears to be an obvious factor today. According to all the talking heads, Huckabee is strongest in the upstate where they’re getting snow today, though nothing is sticking according to my son in Greenville. McCain is supposed to be strongest in the Lowcountry where it has rained pretty steady all day. Who will be hurt most by the weather?
Some analysis of exit polls on FOX News I found interesting. As expected Huckabee has the highest percentage of evangelicals and McCain the highest percentage of veterans. According to the report, there has been a higher percentage of evangelical than veterans in the exit polls, not unexpected since there are more of them in the population. The most interesting part of the analysis was that conservatives were breaking for Huckabee by six points over McCain. That’s encouraging.
As of 5:00 I’ve seen no actual returns for this primary and as much as I’d love to see some numbers, I think that is preferable since it isn’t influencing voters. The bottom line is, this race is too close to call. I still think Huckabee is going to pull it out but it could be late this evening before I know if I’m right or not.
I’ll be staying up as long as it takes to follow the returns this evening and as soon as someone is declared the winner, I’ll be back to write about it. In the mean time, if you’re in South Carolina and you haven’t voted yet, get out there and do it!
The following letter was signed by a number of Arkansas business leaders. They are in a position to know what kind of Governor Mike Huckabee was.
COLUMBIA, S.C., Jan. 16 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Today, the following businessmen from Arkansas released a statement in support of former Arkansas Governor, Mike Huckabee: Scott T. Ford, President and CEO, Alltel Corporation; Warren A. Stephens, President and CEO, Stephens Inc.; Madison Murphy, Former Chairman, Murphy Oil Corporation; John Tyson, Chairman of the Board, Tyson Foods, Inc; and French Hill, Chairman and CEO, Delta Trust and Banking Corporation:
"We are a traditionally bi-partisan group of executives of several of the largest corporations headquartered in the State of Arkansas, each with considerable exposure to the Administration of Governor Mike Huckabee. Of late, Governor Huckabee has attracted what we believe to be unwarranted criticism regarding his business record."
"Our experience with Governor Huckabee indicates that he not only values greatly the freedoms of religion and liberty, but of the free market as well. He is an atypical leader who garnered the respect of not only the professional business community but of the working men and women across our State as well."
"When he became our Governor, he inherited our long sub-standard education system, infrastructure, and regulatory climate. Under his leadership, we were able to grow our businesses, increase our employment, reduce our litigation exposure and enjoy, along with all of our fellow Arkansans, a healthier economy, improved schools, updated highways, and new healthcare delivery facilities."
"In our support of Governor Huckabee’s truly conservative, small government business outlook and his pragmatic, yet compassionate style of governing, we invite you to look past the shallow rhetoric of yet another campaign season to see what we have experienced first hand — that with the right political leadership in place, businesses and citizens can jointly prosper and as they do, they contribute so much more to the economic and societal fabric of a community than simply tax revenues."
As soon as the polls closed in Michigan FOX News declared Romney the winner in the Republican primary. As the votes continue to be counted Romney’s lead continues to increase. When FOX News called it the lead was six points. As I write this that lead has expanded to nine percent over McCain. The question now is, what impact will this have in South Carolina come Saturday?
Here’s how I see it. McCain was counting on winning in Michigan, or at least running a close second. As it stands now it looks like he’ll be a distant second. That hurts him in South Carolina. The McCain campaign spin is that the large contingent of veterans in South Carolina is well organized and they will carry the day. I don’t think so. I think McCain comes in second or third on Saturday. Those veterans may have done it for him had he won in Michigan but that didn’t happen.
Thompson has really been working hard here the last week and it is clearly paying off. But he came in behind Ron Paul in Michigan which could hurt him as some see him as a lost cause. That can only help Huckabee who hasn’t been sitting on his laurels either. I think Huckabee wins in South Carolina. Thompson comes in second or third. If McCain can hold on to some of the numbers he’s built and comes in second with Thompson third that could spell the end of Thompson’s run. Even Newt Gingrich thinks Huckabee is the man to beat here and he doesn’t see it happening either.
I’ve said before that from an ideological perspective I like Thompson over Huckabee. I wish Thompson had executive experience though. For the most part the voters prefer former Governors over former or current Senators. Unquestionably Huckabee has the executive experience and Thompson doesn’t. But otherwise I really like Thompson’s positions pretty much across the board. The problem is, I don’t think he can win. His abysmal showing in Michigan strengthens that view. Huckabee, on the other hand, has shown his ability to build support and gain momentum in spite of a lack of funding. Now he’s raising money at a much faster rate with the added momentum. Thompson seems to be on fire now but I still think it’s just too late.
The latest Rasmussen poll has McCain with a strong lead in South Carolina, nine points over Huckabee but Real Clear Politics still has gives Huckabee +3.7. While I generally like the Rasmussen poll I have strong doubts about this one. I live here and talk to people. I think I know a little about what’s going on here. McCain may have a small lead going into today but if it’s actually a lead it will shrink following his distant second place finish in Michigan. Besides, people in the south aren’t fans of McCain. I think the Rasmussen poll is way off and I think Saturday will demonstrate that.
For weeks now Rush and others have been decrying the fact that all the Republican candidates claim the Reagan legacy when none are actually conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan. Then, of course, Huckabee advisor Ed Rollins had the audacity to say the Reagan coalition is gone. That sent Rush over the edge.
Now Newt Gingrich is saying much the same thing. From This Week with George Stephanopoulos:
We are at the end of the George W. Bush era. We are at the end of the Reagan era. We’re at a point in time when we’re about to start redefining — as a number of people started talking about, starting to redefine — the nature of the Republican Party, in response to what the country needs.
Rush just didn’t know what to do with that. He’s been a Gingrich supporter for years and Newt says something like that. It put Rush in a spot.
Rush had this to say on his show today:
Every one of these Republicans is starting to talk about redefining the party, and this has been going on since the early days of this, not just now. If you recall, all during last year, I told you this was my big concern: that Reaganism and conservatism were going to be redefined so as to fit the mold of whoever these guys on our primary roster are. One of the things that Newt said is "redefine the nature of the Republican Party in response to what the country needs." Something about that rubs me wrong. Something about that sort of grates on me. The Republican Party is supposed to sit out there and I guess (slurps) moisten its index finger, stick it in the air, find out what people want, and be that? That’s not who we are! Now, it may be who populists are. In fact, it is exactly who populists are. Even if you have no intention of following through on what you plan to do as you promise all these wonderful things to your supporters, as a populist. But this is not what the Republican Party has been. It’s what the Democrat Party had been.
This fits right in with what’s been going on with the Republican race for the nomination. The lines are drawn, the assumptions have all been made and everyone is hearing what they expect to hear rather than what is actually being said.
Newt was on Hannity and Colmes tonight and Sean asked him about the comment. Newt went on the explain that the Republican Party cannot continue trying to hold on to the issues of the eighties. He pointed out that most of the major concerns we have today didn’t exist when Reagan was in office. Gingrich made the point that if Reagan was in office today he’d be tackling today’s issues, not the issues of the eighties. In effect, the Reagan era is over and it’s time for a new era if Republicans want to win.
Newt was NOT denigrating the Reagan legacy or conservatism. He made it clear that he was always a Reagan supporter. But what Rush and others seem to want is Reagan himself. Too bad.
No one is a bigger fan of Ronald Reagan than I am. Reagan stood for conservatism long before it was fashionable and he is the model of conservatism. But we aren’t facing the Soviet Union, Reagan defeated that. We aren’t facing many of the problems we faced in the eighties. We have a whole new set of problems and we have to face them head on as a party and decided how we’ll deal with them and articulate that to the electorate. We can’t do that if we’re constantly bickering over Reagan.
It’s not going to happen but Rush, Laura Ingraham and the rest of the right leaning pundits need to stop living in the past and take a look at the present. Reagan is dead. We aren’t going to return to the eighties much as some of those pundits might wish we could.
I want conservatives in office. But if every candidate that takes a look at the changing landscape ends up characterized as a populist we’re facing a long uphill battle.
The South Carolina primary is a week away and at present Huckabee is projected to win here. Thompson, however, had a very good night in the debate on FOX News Thursday and McCain is pulling out all the stops to prevent a repeat of 2000. What is the likely outcome?
Regular readers will recall that I was an early Thompson supporter. To this day I believe Thompson is a more conservative candidate than Huckabee is, excepting his position on the FairTax. But Fred took so long to enter the race and when he did, he was all but invisible by choice. He gave few interviews and was not to be found in the media. At the same time Mike Huckabee was making his name known and moving up.
I believe that Fred’s showing last Thursday was too little too late. He threw everything he has at Huckabee because they are going after that same voters. It wasn’t enough. Huckabee has the lead and I don’t expect he’ll lose it. In fact, I expect that after the South Carolina primary we may see Fred Thompson drop out of the race. If he doesn’t come in at least second his viability will be in serious jeopardy. If Thompson drops out, who does he endorse and where do his supporters go?
The safe money is on Thompson backing his long time friend McCain. But I suspect many of Thompson’s supporters will have a difficult time moving over with him.
There are plenty of people calling John McCain a conservative. I remember a little online political test I took that said the candidate I agreed the most with was John McCain. That might be true on rhetoric alone but it certainly isn’t true when it comes to his record. John McCain is not a conservative, he is the maverick he’s portrayed himself to be. He’s unreliable when it comes to advancing the conservative agenda. How can Thompson supporters support McCain after Thompson drops out?
If they do not support McCain, where will they go? I can’t see them going with Giuliani who is a social liberal and opponent of the second amendment. What about Romney? Perhaps. But he’s a long time RINO recently converted to conservatism when it suited his ambition. I don’t trust him and I don’t see when conservatives in general should. What does that leave? It leaves Huckabee.
The problem is, Thompson supporters have joined the Huckabee bashing bandwagon. It will be difficult for them to support a guy they’ve invested so much into destroying.
All of you who hate Huckabee need to think about what you will do if he ends up being the nominee. Just like I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about what I’ll do if any of the current slate of RINOs ends up with the nomination. This thing is pretty wide open right now. I think as a party we need to give some serious though to how we’re going to win in November, not just how our candidate can win the nomination.
After the New Hampshire primary I got to thinking. Everyone has their theories about what happened. McCain much bigger than expected and Hillary won when Obama was supposed to win big. What happened?
I think it was a combination of two things. Remember in 2000, many Democrats crossed over to Republican primaries to vote for John McCain. After all, he’s the Republican most palatable to Democrats (which ought to say something to Republicans, particularly conservatives). I believe that a lot of Democrats who supported Obama were convinced Obama had it wrapped up so they crossed over to the Republican primary to vote for McCain. That explains both unexpected results.
But I think there was something else in play and that was Hillary’s little crying spell. There was plenty of speculation on the right that her little emotional outburst would hurt her. I mean, who wants a chief executive and commander in chief who is ruled by emotions? Apparently the answer to that question is many Democrats. Hillary’s emotional outburst brought a lot of Democrats over to her side which, to me, is just frightening.
Can anyone imagine Margaret Thatcher having a similar emotional outburst in public? I certainly can’t and had she ever done so her political career would have been over. Would we want an emotional outburst in the middle of delicate negotiations with a hostile foreign government when things weren’t going well? Would that be beneficial to us?
Some might say that Hillary wouldn’t do that in such a situation? Perhaps but if true that means that she reserves such outbursts for when they are beneficial. The implication is she judged that an emotional outburst was called for in that case.
I remember an episode of Star Trek where Captain Kirk accused Mr. Spock of having an emotional outburst. Spock’s response was that his actions had been logical. The situation was clearly desperate so desperate action was called for. Either that applies to Mrs. Clinton which makes it pure manipulation or she can’t be trusted to remain cool under pressure. Either case is unpleasant.
But in the end the really frightening part is that Democrats want that sort of thing in their president.
