Give the man his due: that was an impressive victory. He'd taken it on the chin hard, twice. And now he's won one that wasn't even close.
I had hoped Huck would do a lot better than a distant third. It's now difficult to view him as a candidate of anything more than the Evangelicals in the GOP, given that he hasn't done well in any state where Evangelicals are a relatively small sliver of the electorate. I'm guessing that McCain's loss tonight will take some of the wind out of his sails in South Carolina, which maybe helps Huck ... but Fred Thompson -- who scored a pathetic 4 percent in Michigan tonight -- appears to be eating into Huck's support. So who knows. If Huck can't win South Carolina, I can't see how he carries on. This war of attrition favors Romney, who's got the bucks and the organization.
Basically, nobody knows anything about the Republican race. Sure is fun to watch, though. If Huck doesn't win or place in SC, I predict he'll drop out and endorse McCain, angling to consolidate the Stop Romney vote, and nab the VP slot on the ticket, which, all things considered, is likely to lose this November. Huckabee will emerge strong, though, and spend the next four years getting ready.
Huckabee-Jindal 2012. You read it here first.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
McCain would be far less reliable on Supreme Court appointments.
If he were looking for someone to uphold his McCain-Feingold travesty, he would in all probability be choosing someone with a rather elastic view of the Constitution.
Just look at the justices who upheld the worst parts of McCain-Feingold in the McConnell decision: Ginsberg, Breyer, Souter, Stevens, all pro-Roe justices. The anti-Roe justices (Rhenquist, Scalia, Thomas) voted against McCain-Feingold.
Rod on 1-16-2008 "I had hoped Huck would do a lot better than a distant third. It's now difficult to view him as a candidate of anything more than the Evangelicals in the GOP, given that he hasn't done well in any state where Evangelicals are a relatively small sliver of the electorate."
Rod on 1-3-2008 "If you think Huckabee's only a phenomenon of the religious right, explain those numbers, willya?"
Rod, I take great delight in saying that I (and several others) told you so. You pooh-poohed this idea when you crowed about Huckabee's win in Iowa. But let me remind you of what I and some others said that evening.
----------
60% of the voters identified themselves as Evangelicals/Born Agains. Non-Evangelicals placed Huckabee fourth. He won all those categories because Evangelicals dominate the caucuses.
But Evangelicals aren't going to dominate in New Hampshire or Florida or Michigan or Nevada. When the deck isn't stacked, it will be intersting to see how far his so-called populist appeal will take him.
Posted by: Daniel | January 3, 2008 10:40 PM
----------
Oh please, don't be ridiculous. Romney led among people who said religion isn't that important to them.
Actually that's not what that CNN data says at all. It said Romney led among those people who said that the "Religious Beliefs of Candidate...." wasn't that important to them. In other words: "I'm voting for a President, not a Preacher."
Posted by: jaybird | January 3, 2008 11:27 PM
----------
I can understand how you misinterpret these numbers, Rod. When was the last time you visited Iowa? Ever?
Maybe you should have been at Oak Street Baptist Church a few weeks ago when the pastor started talking about the moral direction of our country. Or at Harmony Bible Church, where the number of Huckabee bumper stickers in the parking lot on Sunday morning is astounding.
Or perhaps you should listen to KAYP, the local AFA affiliate radio station, who has been running story after story about a local anti-Mormon evangelist who released a new book, "When Salt Lake City Calls."
You come to Iowa, spend a few weeks getting to know us, and then tell us what these numbers mean. And compare the numbers with those from the 1988 caucus, the one that put Pat Robertson in second place behind Bob Dole.
The most telling numbers in the CNN poll are the ones about how the caucus attenders felt about President Bush. 68% said they were satisfied or enthusiastic about Bush. Huckabee claimed 72% of these voters. Maybe instead of writing about how Huckabee isn't buoyed by the Christianists, you should be writing about how these numbers do not bode well for him in the general election.
After all, what's 72% of Bush's 32% approval rating? Last place in the general election.
Posted by: ds0490 | January 3, 2008 11:44 PM
----------
That's just a small sampling of folks you disagreed with on the 3rd, but now apparently agree with regarding Huck's base.
Maybe you should refrain from pontificating on what folks in the rest of the country are saying with their votes and simply report on local events from your lofty perch in the ivory towers of the Dallas Morning News.
I'm a little confused by the comments about McCain being the pro-life conservative the GOP establishment is out to quash. Since when has McCain been a conservative let alone "the pro-life conservative"? I guess I don't know what those words mean. If McCain is conservative (in either the economic or social sense), then presumably Obama and Hillary are also conservatives, so whomever wins, we will have a conservative in the White House.
Truth be told, there are no conservatives running for President. Paul is about as close as any of the candidates come. The fact that a conservative cannot mount a national campaign within the GOP is a sure sign that the many need a reminder of the foulness of Democratic rule. Babes will be slaughtered, cap and trade will tank the economy, nuclear energy will continue to flounder, some very freaky people will be appointed to the Supreme Court, entitlements will expand, Planned Parenthood will distribute porn in elementary school playgrounds and I will pay roughly 20%-25% more in taxes. But maybe in eight years the GOP can rediscover its soul. Or maybe not.
The Romney camp has only this to say: "ah, ah, ah, ah Stayin' alive, stayin' alive!"
McCain is not pro-life. He's a phony. Read my blog post kristinsramblings.blogspot.com
McCain is no conservative
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.