« You Keep Using that Word... | Main | So Much for Subtlety »
December 11, 2007
Mutual Assured Destruction
Earlier this year, when it looked as though Rudy Giuliani was going to be the Republican nominee for president, many social conservatives and evangelicals declared they would rather sit out the election than vote for the former New York mayor.
Now that Mike Huckabee is on the rise, they're about to find out that they're not the only ones who can stay home. So maybe that wasn't such a good precedent to set. Other members of the GOP coalition have principles, as well, and perhaps would have been willing to compromise had the social conservatives not been so adamant. It's clear that those threats, along with the rise of Huckabee, are the proverbial straw.
As readers well know, I'm not an advocate of sitting out elections just because the candidate I happen to support doesn't win the nomination. I do not support Mike Huckabee for president, but I think he would be a better president than Hillary.
Of course, that's a pretty low bar to clear.
Honestly, though, voting for Huckabee is going to be tough. The major social conservative knock against Giuliani and Romney is that they were too liberal. Personally, I don't think the answer should be to nominate a guy who's liberal on every issue except abortion, gay marriage and gun ownership.
Taxes and Fiscal Responsibility - Sure, he's signed a pledge. But look at his record. People in Arkansas are willing to point it out.
Immigration - Nice plan (except for the mistakes), but again...the record. An example of how the two collide? One of the plan's points is to "empower local authorities." As governor, he thought differently.
National Security - Let's all be nice to one another. Oh, and let's close Gitmo to boot. What's an NIE again? And Cuba?
Limited Government - Hey, how about a nationwide smoking ban?
Crime - The less said about this, the better for him.
In short, Mike Huckabee would rid the GOP of its advantage on these issues, and he's got some baggage of his own that would hurt him in a general election campaign. For the record, I agree with Huckabee's stance on that biblical doctrine, but do not believe he should have signed it while governor of a state. It doesn't cross the line, but it does blur it a bit. Add poor political temperament and a certain...cuteness with the truth into that equation and it comes down to a pretty simple truth.
Huckabee is a deeply flawed candidate whose appeal is limited and who, like Rudy Giuliani, has the potential to split the Republican coalition if nominated. Fiscal conservatives are already mad as heck with Congressional overspending. Nominating a tax-and-spend governor would send them over the edge, and rightly so.
I can understand the frustration conservative evangelical voters feel, but Huckabee is the wrong vehicle with which to communicate discontent with the Republican nominees.
Can't we settle for one of these two guys?
Posted by slublog at December 11, 2007 05:48 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.slublog.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/3523
Comments
I think the second of your two guys needs to settle things with himself first, no? Such as, do I really want to try to be the next President?
Posted by: MainiacJoe at December 11, 2007 08:58 PM
The thing to consider is who and what (general) style they might be expected to follow.
IMHO, I see this:
Rudy G. = LBJ. Lots of shady connections, and not necessarily always operating in full concert with the wishes of the Party coalition. He's a lapsed Catholic, which really doesn't mean a whole lot since we broke that particular barrier with JFK... and that whole transvestite routine probably hasn't earned him any points with the Vatican lately.
Romney = JFK. Parallels in the minority religion thing, but we may be pleasantly surprised to find out that his (recently adopted) social conservative values are not very far off of those of the evangelical wing. Pitchforks down, folks. I don't care much for him, but out of rest of these "doity bums", while not the most stable and consistent conservative, he is currently the most viably electable candidate.
Huckabee = Jimmy Carter meets Bill Clinton. Actually, he would really like to channel FDR for all his nanny-statism, but looks to me like he will step all over himself until Hillary gives him the coup-de-grace in the general election.
Fred Thompson = Reagan meets Eisenhower. Well, he *looks* like Ike. Lacks sorely in his campaigning thus far, but has a LOT of sound and rational ideas, and has avoided the religion pitfalls of the other candidates. IMHO, he still remain the best choice for what he stands for.
Posted by: seekeronos at December 12, 2007 02:15 AM
I've still got my hopes for Thompson.
Of course, I say that like the little girl who thinks she's getting a pony for Christmas. But it could happen!
Posted by: Hal at December 12, 2007 01:34 PM
I understand you're dilemma. I will not vote for Romney or Huckabee, yet feel the same about Hillary. Hmm... wonder if Perot will come out of retirement? At least he'd provide some amusement to this dismal campaign. Huckabee?!? Did we learn nothing from the Dole campaign???
Posted by: John at December 12, 2007 08:16 PM