While most wish the number of participants in GOP debates would shrink, the Des Moines Register sponsored debate next week will feature all the regular candidates, plus Alan Keyes.
Oh Dear God. This might be good, actually, now Huck will no longer be the king of one-liners. He might actually have to talk about policy or something meaningful. Keyes is great for humore – I’m okay with him being invited.
#3 – Entertainment’s fine, for the previous few months… particularly when nobody’s paying attention…but it’s time to get serious. The top six, henceforth, only…
Hey, nice to see you guys finally changed your rankings to reflect something more like real life. Though I guess you STILL can’t bring yourselves to admit that Huckabee is the leading candidate, even though he leads in Iowa, South Carolina, and some national polls….and it rising like a rocket in Florida and Texas, and will clearly be the favorite son of the Southern bloc of states (which the GOP MUST have to win the general election). Your favoritism, intellectually, toward the so-called MSM “front-runners” was irresponsible to your readers for months, now in the face of actual data that proves out what I’ve been warning you was going to happen your continued refusal to give Huckabee his due is beyond irresponsible….it goes to the core of your legitimacy as a resource for information.
Paul S: Race42008.com is just a blog. It’s not the official source for anything. The rankings are just an opinion about how the candidates are doing relative to each other.
PaulS, the smart money at Intrade gives Rudy about twice as much a chance to win the nomination as Huckabee.
Huck led nationally by only one pollster — and not anymore. He’s also got 80% of his positions out of whack with the party of economic conservatism and muscular foreign policy, which voters don’t know about yet due to the quickness of his rise. He is not the frontrunner.
Some of Ambassador Keyes’ ideas about religious freedom could help buttress Governor Romney’s thesis. It’s impossible to know at this point but if Keyes is a fan of Mitt we might see him play “attack dog” against the Huck and try to take down the unsuspecting preacher – Keyes’ constituency of Evangelicals and Values Voters would likely listen.
Romney should offer Keyes a job if he attacks Rudy and Huckabee.
There is as good an argument that Huckabee is the frontrunner as for anyone else. Huckabee is the only candidate who is both in position to win IA or NH and a top tier national candidate. He also has the stongest base of support.
paul – huck still has very little money, his national lead looks like an outlier, and its unclear what the effect of the early states will be. given that, a #2 ranking seems fair.
1. Given that NYC is effectively capitol of the world, financially, and in part because the UN is located there, the Mayor of New York is involved with foreign heads of state.
2. Rudy’s career since leaving the Mayor’s office has focused on security consulting, and his clients include a long list of foreign governments.
3. Most of what’s necessary to conduct a good foreign policy is moral clarity. Madeleine Albright may be extremely well schooled in foreign policy, but would you want her President? Rudy showed moral clarity when he kicked Arafat out of the UN 50th celebration — BEFORE 9/11, when the President was coddling him. And issued a statement about Arafat with moral clarity. THAT is the kind of moral leadership we need in the White House, and what’s been lacking in every President for decades, save Reagan and Bush43.
So, with Rudy, we’d have the best combination of foreign policy experience plus moral clarity we’ve had in modern history.
Also, I will add:
4. Yes, having his own city attacked, being in the rubble, having many friends killed, is a MAJOR PLUS, because it has given him even more personal resolve, and is good reason for our enemies to be scared as hell of him.
All of this should be obvious to most Americans and an overwhelming majority of Republicans. It would be if 9/11 had happened in the last year. But some people are willing to intentionally forget simply because Rudy does not believe a zygote has rights over a woman.
I will agree that he has had dealings with foreign leaders, but it means nothing on the world stage. Clinton has spoken to more leaders than Rudy, and that does not mean she would deal correctly with foreign dictators.
I will give you number two, although it does not prove he can run a military.
I would also agree that number three is the most important. He did deal correctly with Arafat. But moral clarity is not defined by one decision about a dictator. It is exactly in this area that I believe he is lacking. I say this not to disparage him, but there have beeen many poor decisions in his personal life that do not reflect moral clarity.
In general he does not have a foreign policy track record. The only people that I believe can claim that are John McCain, Duncan Hunter, and Joe Biden.
I believe that this assesment is fair, as it did not include my candidate either.
#23 – “So, with Rudy, we’d have the best combination of foreign policy experience plus moral clarity we’ve had in modern history.”
What do you mean when you say “moral clarity”? Are you suggesting that Rudy is somehow more socially Conservative than his record clearly indicates? Please expound.
“All of this should be obvious to most Americans and an overwhelming majority of Republicans. It would be if 9/11 had happened in the last year. But some people are willing to intentionally forget simply because Rudy does not believe a zygote has rights over a woman.”
Excuse us if we value the unborn, and believe that the convenience of one person does not exceed the life of another. Excuse us if we believe that innocent life has worth and should be protected.
Excuse us if we understand the important role children play in the survival of America.
–
“P.S. to #20, Reagan and Bush43 didn’t have foreign policy experience, but their moral clarity more than made up for it.”
Reagan I’ll give you, though, I point out that his opponent was doing a miserable job, and many assumed it could only get better. As for Bush, also true, though we were at peace in 2000, and domestic issues were the major ones.
In some ways I see John McCains views on torture the same way. He has emotional issues attached that I believe would cloud his judgment in a tough situation.
Michael, moral clarity in foreign policy, meaning his actions re Arafat, re the Saudi check, the statements he made at the 2004 GOP convention and on the campaign trail.
I, like #30, do not believe that one’s rights begin when they pass through the birth canal. It is not potted meat in there. It is an innocent human life. People treat their pets better than that.
ACT, I was not arguing the abortion point per se. I’m saying it’s blinded many of you, and/or prevented many of you from admitting the fact, that Rudy is the perfect candidate on terrorism.
I’d be pleased if revenge DID play a part for Rudy. Our Presidents have mostly failed to due INACTION regarding our enemies, and I’m including most Republican Presidents, from Bush41 to Ford to Nixon to Eisenhower, the earlier of whom are guilty of allowing the Chinese and the Soviets to amass nuclear weapons.
ANYTHING to get the President to ACT is great, in my opinion.
Michael, yes, innocent life and the ability to live in freedom.
Because I disagree with you about the point at which RIGHTS begin, does not mean I feel any differently about heinous acts against those whom we agree have rights.
For instance, I accept how WWII was ended, because I believe that more lives would have been lost if it did not happen that way. It would have been over the top to save the lives of a few.
My point is this, I want someone who believes that when all of this is over, he will pay for the things that he has done. I want someone who believes that he has to answer to a higher calling, than ridicule from you or me.
“I’m saying it’s blinded many of you, and/or prevented many of you from admitting the fact, that Rudy is the perfect candidate on terrorism.”
Oh no, I don’t dispute that Giuliani would be good on terrorism, but his stances on other issues – namely the ones that you mentioned, mean that I can’t support him, not in the primaries, and probably not in the general.
You can ask any Romney, Huckabee, McCain, or Thompson supporter, and almost all will say that Giuliani is to be admired for his actions on Terrorism. But terror is not the only issue that will be faced in the next decade.
I spent some time there and I think this Dumond thing (just to name one of Huckabee’s problems) is going to really hurt him. Especially when he’s going on all the talk shows saying that the parole board brought it up to him. Some of the parole board members have been saying the opposite.
I was just talking to one of my friends while I was looking at the site. He said a friend of his is leaning towards Huckabee ever since the last debate. I told him to tell his friend about the site you listed, and then went on to tell him about the Dumond case. He will tell his friend, and that’s how it will work. Word of mouth. We can’t let Huckabee get the nomination.
Here’s why: Phyllis Schlafly comments on Huckabee’s lack of conservatism
Phyllis Schlafly, president of the national Eagle Forum, is even more blunt. “He [Huckabee] destroyed the conservative movement in Arkansas, and left the Republican Party a shambles,” she says. “Yet some of the same evangelicals who sold us on George W. Bush as a ‘compassionate conservative’ are now trying to sell us on Mike Huckabee.”
Read the entire OpinionJournal.com article Another Man from Hope by John Fund (10-26-07).
******************
Also, Huckabee is a liar (denying he pushed to get Dumond parolled).
I guess they mass-produce those in Arkansas.
Please, not another lying, scheming snake oil salesman from Arkansas for POTUS.
Once is enough!
#50, Well, I happenned to like W, although he is a poor communicator and he has made several decisions that I did not agree with. There is no one who will be completely like you. If there is, one of you is unneccesary.
Tancredo should drop out and agree to become Mitt’s Dir. of Homeland Security. Hunter should drop out and become Mitt’s SecDef. Keyes should drop out and become Mitt’s Pastor in Chief.
Michael, I’m in and out. Rudy certainly believes he answers to a higher calling, and originally planned a life in the priesthood. If the lives at Nagasaki and Hiroshima morally offset the larger number of lives that would have been lost otherwise, then I hope Rudy’s leadership of the city and the nation during 9/11 offsets his mistakes in his personal life.
Tancredo said today he is staying in as long as he can, which I guess refers to money.
Interestingly, I also heard that Ron Paul’s campaign is basically being run by online supporters and that the candidate himself has little control. Al of the meetups, etc are all organic. That’s scary but amazing.
If mitt doesn’t win NH, he should endorse Rudy in exchange for a vp slot. Then when Rudy resigns amid scandal over his next future wife in like 2 years…..
Mitt should be and will be the would be a great VP choice for anybody in the GOP field, he’ll be 68 in 2016 and prime to be the Pres. Just an honest evaluation, though I still think he should and will become the next POTUS.
I think in 2016 we will be cheering on Jim DeMint for Pres.
I don’t think there is any appeasing McCain when it comes to Mitt – I think McCain has lost all sense of reality when it comes to Mitt and his hatred runs too deep for any peace.
RayinNH, Rudy agreeing to be VP just isn’t a possibility in this universe. Not even counting the fact that Mitt would have to pick a Southerner. Not even counting the fact that Rudy would not want to lose on that ticket and harm his chances to run in 2012.
I could see, perhaps, Rudy accepting a deal to be McCain’s VP in exchange for McCain to serve only 1 term.
Perhaps you are right about McCain but this is still politics and McCain is still a politician wanting be president. A Romney endorsment would probably seal the deal for someone like McCain or Rudy. WIth his considerable organization and money he could help either of those two win in the other early states.
Very intriguing, Rudy as McCain’s VP in exchange for one term. I think that the idea of McCain/Rudy would be a very strong ticket, because it would provide geographical and ideological balance. In addition, the two are friends and it would be likely that they could coordinate their political interests more easily than any other pair of the current candidates…
That having been said, I doubt that McCain would be willing to accept those terms – (i.e., only serving one term). It would weaken him as a candidate, as it would bring the age issue into bold relief (plus, I don’t think any major candidate in history has ever campaigned on the premise that he would stay in the White House for only one term). Also, McCain would hold all the cards. Rudy isn’t in a position to accept the VP slot under conditions of any sort, let alone something that drastic… Rudy knows that he could still run eight years later (he’s only 63, the same age as McCain when he ran in 2000)…
Mitt and Rudy – I doubt that any of the current candidates would agree to run w/ Mitt. McCain certainly wouldn’t. With the recent escalation between Rudy and Mitt and how it will continue for a while, I would view it as unlikely…
Mitt certainly is not going to do anything to help McCain get the nomination, and I doubt that he would do it for Rudy, either, for the same reasons I cited in #88. Mitt and McCain can’t stand each other…
Like I said before, you may be right about McCain but they are still all politicians. Mitt has a lot of money to burn and a lot of organizational strength. If he loses NH a VP offer would probably tempt him to use those resources to help someone else. I’m not even saying it is probable because I think Mitt will win in NH even if he can’t pull out a close one in Iowa.
“Mitt has a lot of money to burn and a lot of organizational strength. If he loses NH a VP offer would probably tempt him to use those resources to help someone else.”
I spoke to an election law expert about this scenario and I was told it is illegal. Even if the person is chosen as VP he cannot use his personal wealth because its considered a financial contribution, which are capped.
“Tommy, and all the big 4 getting behind one of them to beat Huck would have an enormous impact.”
And who is the most likely candidate to face Huck? Its Romney. Unless we see major changes, Romney will still be leading in NH even if he loses IA, and he becomes the man with the best chance of stopping Huck. He pulls from the others as the anti-mike, and Romney and Huckabee get the two tickets out of NH.
A good point – plus the ironic use of the term “BFF” to describe JFK/LBJ – obviously, if they could see how politics has changed since their era, it would completely blow their minds:
There is nothing that would ever convince McCain to run w/ Romney. I doubt that he would be willing to accept VP under anyone other than Rudy – and even then, I doubt it. Obviously, he’d be way too old to have another chance to run. He’d rather stay in the Senate and have a chance of retaking a chairmanship if Republicans ever retake control.
The others, b/c they’re younger – I think might be a different story. I would speculate that Mitt would probably leap at the chance to be VP – I just don’t think that anyone would offer it to him.
#93 – Feltcher-
VERY good info on the issue of whether a VP candidate could use his personal wealth. I had never thought of that question before. Cool for you to provide that info for us… Obviously, if Mitt would not be allowed to tap his personal wealth to help the ticket, that would greatly decrease his value…
Not to sound paranoid, but I wonder if Keyes isn’t there to try to run a sword through Huckabee. I’ve got no reason to believe that other than a hunch. The guy must be a one man band.
December 9th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
That is a terrible decision, to include marginal candidates w/ less than a month left…
December 9th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
YES! OH MY GOD, THIS HAS MADE MY DAY.
December 9th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
#1 — Stop it. You know that you love the entertainment value.
December 9th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Oh Dear God. This might be good, actually, now Huck will no longer be the king of one-liners. He might actually have to talk about policy or something meaningful. Keyes is great for humore – I’m okay with him being invited.
December 9th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Can we trade Keyes for Tancredo?
December 9th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
#3 – Entertainment’s fine, for the previous few months… particularly when nobody’s paying attention…but it’s time to get serious. The top six, henceforth, only…
December 9th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
As if the debates already didn’t allow the candidates enough time to speak…
December 9th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Ambassador Keyes might really shake things up with less than a month to go.
December 9th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
Bad news for Huck. Last time around Keyes finished with 14% on the Iowa caucus. May the best preacher win!
December 9th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
sure – let him play. this debate is a pandering joke anyway. candidates are participating out of fear
December 9th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Hey, nice to see you guys finally changed your rankings to reflect something more like real life. Though I guess you STILL can’t bring yourselves to admit that Huckabee is the leading candidate, even though he leads in Iowa, South Carolina, and some national polls….and it rising like a rocket in Florida and Texas, and will clearly be the favorite son of the Southern bloc of states (which the GOP MUST have to win the general election). Your favoritism, intellectually, toward the so-called MSM “front-runners” was irresponsible to your readers for months, now in the face of actual data that proves out what I’ve been warning you was going to happen your continued refusal to give Huckabee his due is beyond irresponsible….it goes to the core of your legitimacy as a resource for information.
December 9th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Paul S: Race42008.com is just a blog. It’s not the official source for anything. The rankings are just an opinion about how the candidates are doing relative to each other.
December 9th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
PaulS, the smart money at Intrade gives Rudy about twice as much a chance to win the nomination as Huckabee.
Huck led nationally by only one pollster — and not anymore. He’s also got 80% of his positions out of whack with the party of economic conservatism and muscular foreign policy, which voters don’t know about yet due to the quickness of his rise. He is not the frontrunner.
December 9th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Some of Ambassador Keyes’ ideas about religious freedom could help buttress Governor Romney’s thesis. It’s impossible to know at this point but if Keyes is a fan of Mitt we might see him play “attack dog” against the Huck and try to take down the unsuspecting preacher – Keyes’ constituency of Evangelicals and Values Voters would likely listen.
December 9th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
Romney should offer Keyes a job if he attacks Rudy and Huckabee.
There is as good an argument that Huckabee is the frontrunner as for anyone else. Huckabee is the only candidate who is both in position to win IA or NH and a top tier national candidate. He also has the stongest base of support.
December 9th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Metro,
Again, where is Rudy’s foreign policy experience. Being the mayor of a city that gets attacked is not foreign policy experience.
December 9th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
paul – huck still has very little money, his national lead looks like an outlier, and its unclear what the effect of the early states will be. given that, a #2 ranking seems fair.
December 9th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Paul S, friendly tip: some people don’t like Huck. Look:
http://www.huckabeefacts.org
“your continued refusal to give Huckabee his due is beyond irresponsible”
That site is a small step to correct that.
December 9th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Keyes is to the Rep. as Gravel is to the Dem.
December 9th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Michael,
Rudy’s foreign policy experience is multi-fold:
1. Given that NYC is effectively capitol of the world, financially, and in part because the UN is located there, the Mayor of New York is involved with foreign heads of state.
2. Rudy’s career since leaving the Mayor’s office has focused on security consulting, and his clients include a long list of foreign governments.
3. Most of what’s necessary to conduct a good foreign policy is moral clarity. Madeleine Albright may be extremely well schooled in foreign policy, but would you want her President? Rudy showed moral clarity when he kicked Arafat out of the UN 50th celebration — BEFORE 9/11, when the President was coddling him. And issued a statement about Arafat with moral clarity. THAT is the kind of moral leadership we need in the White House, and what’s been lacking in every President for decades, save Reagan and Bush43.
December 9th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
ja pruce,
Let us pray….
December 9th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
P.S. to #20, Reagan and Bush43 didn’t have foreign policy experience, but their moral clarity more than made up for it.
December 9th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
So, with Rudy, we’d have the best combination of foreign policy experience plus moral clarity we’ve had in modern history.
Also, I will add:
4. Yes, having his own city attacked, being in the rubble, having many friends killed, is a MAJOR PLUS, because it has given him even more personal resolve, and is good reason for our enemies to be scared as hell of him.
December 9th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
All of this should be obvious to most Americans and an overwhelming majority of Republicans. It would be if 9/11 had happened in the last year. But some people are willing to intentionally forget simply because Rudy does not believe a zygote has rights over a woman.
December 9th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
I will agree that he has had dealings with foreign leaders, but it means nothing on the world stage. Clinton has spoken to more leaders than Rudy, and that does not mean she would deal correctly with foreign dictators.
I will give you number two, although it does not prove he can run a military.
I would also agree that number three is the most important. He did deal correctly with Arafat. But moral clarity is not defined by one decision about a dictator. It is exactly in this area that I believe he is lacking. I say this not to disparage him, but there have beeen many poor decisions in his personal life that do not reflect moral clarity.
In general he does not have a foreign policy track record. The only people that I believe can claim that are John McCain, Duncan Hunter, and Joe Biden.
I believe that this assesment is fair, as it did not include my candidate either.
December 9th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
#22, I agree.
December 9th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
#23 – “So, with Rudy, we’d have the best combination of foreign policy experience plus moral clarity we’ve had in modern history.”
What do you mean when you say “moral clarity”? Are you suggesting that Rudy is somehow more socially Conservative than his record clearly indicates? Please expound.
December 9th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
I would say that number 4 brings some emotional baggage, although I think in many cases this could be good.
December 9th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
In my opinion his issues with point 4 would overide number 3. This is a problem.
December 9th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
“All of this should be obvious to most Americans and an overwhelming majority of Republicans. It would be if 9/11 had happened in the last year. But some people are willing to intentionally forget simply because Rudy does not believe a zygote has rights over a woman.”
Excuse us if we value the unborn, and believe that the convenience of one person does not exceed the life of another. Excuse us if we believe that innocent life has worth and should be protected.
Excuse us if we understand the important role children play in the survival of America.
–
“P.S. to #20, Reagan and Bush43 didn’t have foreign policy experience, but their moral clarity more than made up for it.”
Reagan I’ll give you, though, I point out that his opponent was doing a miserable job, and many assumed it could only get better. As for Bush, also true, though we were at peace in 2000, and domestic issues were the major ones.
December 9th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
In some ways I see John McCains views on torture the same way. He has emotional issues attached that I believe would cloud his judgment in a tough situation.
December 9th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
Michael, moral clarity in foreign policy, meaning his actions re Arafat, re the Saudi check, the statements he made at the 2004 GOP convention and on the campaign trail.
December 9th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
ACT, I’m speaking of the moral clarity Reagan and Bush43 evidenced in office, not on the campaign trail.
December 9th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Michael, point 4 serves to cement point 3 more deeply.
December 9th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
I, like #30, do not believe that one’s rights begin when they pass through the birth canal. It is not potted meat in there. It is an innocent human life. People treat their pets better than that.
December 9th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
ACT, I was not arguing the abortion point per se. I’m saying it’s blinded many of you, and/or prevented many of you from admitting the fact, that Rudy is the perfect candidate on terrorism.
December 9th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
#34, That is untue, it can cloud his judgement. He should act because it is right, not because of revenge.
December 9th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
#36 answers #35.
December 9th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Why does terrorism matter to you, is it your LIFE you value?
December 9th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
I’d be pleased if revenge DID play a part for Rudy. Our Presidents have mostly failed to due INACTION regarding our enemies, and I’m including most Republican Presidents, from Bush41 to Ford to Nixon to Eisenhower, the earlier of whom are guilty of allowing the Chinese and the Soviets to amass nuclear weapons.
ANYTHING to get the President to ACT is great, in my opinion.
December 9th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Please explain McCain’s foreign policy experience.
December 9th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Your mistaken. Prevention is not the same as Revenge.
December 9th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Michael, yes, innocent life and the ability to live in freedom.
Because I disagree with you about the point at which RIGHTS begin, does not mean I feel any differently about heinous acts against those whom we agree have rights.
December 9th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
And if revenge helps a President have the courage to prevent, fantastic.
December 9th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
What’s more relevant is for our enemies to BELIEVE Rudy would act out of revenge.
December 9th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
I would mostly agree with #45. My difference is that I do not believe that it is more relevant.
December 9th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
I think more relevant is what he would do if his finger were on the button.
December 9th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
For instance, I accept how WWII was ended, because I believe that more lives would have been lost if it did not happen that way. It would have been over the top to save the lives of a few.
My point is this, I want someone who believes that when all of this is over, he will pay for the things that he has done. I want someone who believes that he has to answer to a higher calling, than ridicule from you or me.
December 9th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
“I’m saying it’s blinded many of you, and/or prevented many of you from admitting the fact, that Rudy is the perfect candidate on terrorism.”
Oh no, I don’t dispute that Giuliani would be good on terrorism, but his stances on other issues – namely the ones that you mentioned, mean that I can’t support him, not in the primaries, and probably not in the general.
You can ask any Romney, Huckabee, McCain, or Thompson supporter, and almost all will say that Giuliani is to be admired for his actions on Terrorism. But terror is not the only issue that will be faced in the next decade.
December 9th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
#18 – Arg – thanks for the link to http://www.huckabeefact.org
I had been looking for that site.
I spent some time there and I think this Dumond thing (just to name one of Huckabee’s problems) is going to really hurt him. Especially when he’s going on all the talk shows saying that the parole board brought it up to him. Some of the parole board members have been saying the opposite.
I was just talking to one of my friends while I was looking at the site. He said a friend of his is leaning towards Huckabee ever since the last debate. I told him to tell his friend about the site you listed, and then went on to tell him about the Dumond case. He will tell his friend, and that’s how it will work. Word of mouth. We can’t let Huckabee get the nomination.
Here’s why: Phyllis Schlafly comments on Huckabee’s lack of conservatism
Phyllis Schlafly, president of the national Eagle Forum, is even more blunt. “He [Huckabee] destroyed the conservative movement in Arkansas, and left the Republican Party a shambles,” she says. “Yet some of the same evangelicals who sold us on George W. Bush as a ‘compassionate conservative’ are now trying to sell us on Mike Huckabee.”
Read the entire OpinionJournal.com article Another Man from Hope by John Fund (10-26-07).
******************
Also, Huckabee is a liar (denying he pushed to get Dumond parolled).
I guess they mass-produce those in Arkansas.
Please, not another lying, scheming snake oil salesman from Arkansas for POTUS.
Once is enough!
December 9th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Heck, why not John Cox too?!
Not constructive, but could be interesting.
December 9th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
#50, Well, I happenned to like W, although he is a poor communicator and he has made several decisions that I did not agree with. There is no one who will be completely like you. If there is, one of you is unneccesary.
December 9th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Didn’t Cox drop out already.
December 9th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
53,
Don’t know. Don’t care.
December 9th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
As the Mooninites say: “Let us all bow our heads and pretend to be serious.”
December 9th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
#50, Do you post your comments on every thread?
December 9th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Who will drop out next, Tancredo…Hunter?
December 9th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
“THAT is the kind of moral leadership we need in the White House, and what’s been lacking in every President for decades, save Reagan and Bush43″
Is that the Reagan who sold arms to the mullahs in Iran?
And used the money to fund death squads in Central America, in direct violation of US law?
You got a pretty funny idea of morality, as well as of moral clarity.
December 9th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
57,
Kuckabee after the prayers of the masses get answered and he gets struck down.
December 9th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Very funny.
December 9th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
I would be sure to send flowers….right after I gave a prayer of thanks.
December 9th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
Not gonna happen.
December 9th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
I say Tancredo and Hunter are done after the Wednesday debate.
December 9th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Did Metro evacuate?
December 9th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
re 63, Hopefully. The vast majority of their supporters would not go to Huckabee though.
December 9th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
we shall see.
December 9th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Tancredo should drop out and agree to become Mitt’s Dir. of Homeland Security. Hunter should drop out and become Mitt’s SecDef. Keyes should drop out and become Mitt’s Pastor in Chief.
December 9th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Rudy should drop out and become Mitt’s Director of International Intimidation.
December 9th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Michael, I’m in and out. Rudy certainly believes he answers to a higher calling, and originally planned a life in the priesthood. If the lives at Nagasaki and Hiroshima morally offset the larger number of lives that would have been lost otherwise, then I hope Rudy’s leadership of the city and the nation during 9/11 offsets his mistakes in his personal life.
December 9th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Tancredo said today he is staying in as long as he can, which I guess refers to money.
Interestingly, I also heard that Ron Paul’s campaign is basically being run by online supporters and that the candidate himself has little control. Al of the meetups, etc are all organic. That’s scary but amazing.
December 9th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
McCain should drop out and remain AZ’s senior senator the Harry Reid’s best friend.
Fred Thompson should drop out and return to Law & Order.
Huck should drop out and go live in a self-contained community with a bunch of AIDS patients and homosexuals.
December 9th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Ron Paul should drop out and become the director of the ACLJ.
December 9th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
If mitt doesn’t win NH, he should endorse Rudy in exchange for a vp slot. Then when Rudy resigns amid scandal over his next future wife in like 2 years…..
December 9th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
scratch that. If he loses NH, He should make peace with McCain and endorse him instead in exchange for the vp slot. The he could run 4 years from now.
December 9th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Mitt should be and will be the would be a great VP choice for anybody in the GOP field, he’ll be 68 in 2016 and prime to be the Pres. Just an honest evaluation, though I still think he should and will become the next POTUS.
I think in 2016 we will be cheering on Jim DeMint for Pres.
December 9th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
DeMint would go over about as well as Brownback.
December 9th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
I don’t think there is any appeasing McCain when it comes to Mitt – I think McCain has lost all sense of reality when it comes to Mitt and his hatred runs too deep for any peace.
December 9th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Sanford on the other hand appeals.
December 9th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
Well it would seem that DeMint is a very high possibility when Mitt wins the nomination.
Metro – would you support Mitt if he picked Rudy as his VP? (I think i’ve asked you 10,000 different scenarios about you supporting Mitt).
December 9th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
I suppose I could handle Sanford as well. Has Sanford endorsed anyone yet?
December 9th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
RayinNH, Rudy agreeing to be VP just isn’t a possibility in this universe. Not even counting the fact that Mitt would have to pick a Southerner. Not even counting the fact that Rudy would not want to lose on that ticket and harm his chances to run in 2012.
I could see, perhaps, Rudy accepting a deal to be McCain’s VP in exchange for McCain to serve only 1 term.
December 9th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
No, Sanford has withheld. My gut tells me he is one of Rudy’s secret endorsers.
December 9th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Ray,
Perhaps you are right about McCain but this is still politics and McCain is still a politician wanting be president. A Romney endorsment would probably seal the deal for someone like McCain or Rudy. WIth his considerable organization and money he could help either of those two win in the other early states.
December 9th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
Metro – Yes or No?
December 9th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
Metro,
Sorry, no dice on 82.
December 9th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
metro,
and you are talking to?
December 9th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
ooops,
I didn’t realize that was you there Tommy.
btw, What do you think a Romney endorsement would do for one of the anti-kuckabees?
December 9th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Metro (#81)-
Very intriguing, Rudy as McCain’s VP in exchange for one term. I think that the idea of McCain/Rudy would be a very strong ticket, because it would provide geographical and ideological balance. In addition, the two are friends and it would be likely that they could coordinate their political interests more easily than any other pair of the current candidates…
That having been said, I doubt that McCain would be willing to accept those terms – (i.e., only serving one term). It would weaken him as a candidate, as it would bring the age issue into bold relief (plus, I don’t think any major candidate in history has ever campaigned on the premise that he would stay in the White House for only one term). Also, McCain would hold all the cards. Rudy isn’t in a position to accept the VP slot under conditions of any sort, let alone something that drastic… Rudy knows that he could still run eight years later (he’s only 63, the same age as McCain when he ran in 2000)…
Mitt and Rudy – I doubt that any of the current candidates would agree to run w/ Mitt. McCain certainly wouldn’t. With the recent escalation between Rudy and Mitt and how it will continue for a while, I would view it as unlikely…
December 9th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
One more note – I hadn’t seen mcon #83-
Mitt certainly is not going to do anything to help McCain get the nomination, and I doubt that he would do it for Rudy, either, for the same reasons I cited in #88. Mitt and McCain can’t stand each other…
December 9th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
I think any of the big 4 endorsing each other would be bound to have an impact on the race.
December 9th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
88 and 89,
Like I said before, you may be right about McCain but they are still all politicians. Mitt has a lot of money to burn and a lot of organizational strength. If he loses NH a VP offer would probably tempt him to use those resources to help someone else. I’m not even saying it is probable because I think Mitt will win in NH even if he can’t pull out a close one in Iowa.
December 9th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Tommy, and all the big 4 getting behind one of them to beat Huck would have an enormous impact.
December 9th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
“Mitt has a lot of money to burn and a lot of organizational strength. If he loses NH a VP offer would probably tempt him to use those resources to help someone else.”
I spoke to an election law expert about this scenario and I was told it is illegal. Even if the person is chosen as VP he cannot use his personal wealth because its considered a financial contribution, which are capped.
December 9th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
I should have been more specific. It would be considered a financial contribution to the candidate for president.
December 9th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
You know, when all of us sit here and speculate about who might or might not take a VP slot, we need to remember one thing …
Kennedy and Johnson weren’t exactly BFF, either.
December 9th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
“Tommy, and all the big 4 getting behind one of them to beat Huck would have an enormous impact.”
And who is the most likely candidate to face Huck? Its Romney. Unless we see major changes, Romney will still be leading in NH even if he loses IA, and he becomes the man with the best chance of stopping Huck. He pulls from the others as the anti-mike, and Romney and Huckabee get the two tickets out of NH.
December 9th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Yeah, and LBJ may have been the last VP who helped the ticket.
December 9th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
I am glad that Alan got invited. But on the other hand he hurts my two favorite candidates. Oh well, things can’t always go like you want to.
December 9th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
feltcher,
As McCain-FeinCrap has shown us there is more than one way to skin a cat.
December 9th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
Per #95-
A good point – plus the ironic use of the term “BFF” to describe JFK/LBJ – obviously, if they could see how politics has changed since their era, it would completely blow their minds:
There is nothing that would ever convince McCain to run w/ Romney. I doubt that he would be willing to accept VP under anyone other than Rudy – and even then, I doubt it. Obviously, he’d be way too old to have another chance to run. He’d rather stay in the Senate and have a chance of retaking a chairmanship if Republicans ever retake control.
The others, b/c they’re younger – I think might be a different story. I would speculate that Mitt would probably leap at the chance to be VP – I just don’t think that anyone would offer it to him.
#93 – Feltcher-
VERY good info on the issue of whether a VP candidate could use his personal wealth. I had never thought of that question before. Cool for you to provide that info for us… Obviously, if Mitt would not be allowed to tap his personal wealth to help the ticket, that would greatly decrease his value…
December 9th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
Not to sound paranoid, but I wonder if Keyes isn’t there to try to run a sword through Huckabee. I’ve got no reason to believe that other than a hunch. The guy must be a one man band.
December 10th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
[...] Alan Keyes At Next Debate Jump to Comments http://race42008.com/2007/12/09/iowa-debate-one-more-candidate-added-to-the-roster/ [...]