A previous post detailed why the Republicans will likely lose in the fall. For more details, see the post below, in which I lay out the scenario for a Republican defeat. But does it really have to be this way?
Is there a way out for the GOP?
I think there is. There are still three candidates in the race. I think one of them still has the ability to win in the fall.
By many accounts, we are race that is nearly unwinnable. If, in fact, the race is about money, the Democrats will certainly win. They have already surpassed the Republicans in fundraising by tens of millions of dollars. If the race is about change, John McCain has been in Washington forever and Mitt Romney is an Establishment Republican. They don't give us much. The Democrats will be the party of change whether Clinton or Obama win. And they will trump us on that issue.
But there is one Republican candidate that can still pull off a win in the fall.
We need a candidate who can squeeze every drop of value from his money. We need a candidate who can connect with the common man who votes. We need a genuine conservative who has not padded his story with fabrications. We need a governor with executive experience, not a legislator with committee experience. We need a candidate whose principles are solid and whose ideas are out of the box. That candidate is Mike Huckabee.
Right now, the story has him losing. With no money and sinking poll numbers, his candidacy is in its last days. Right now, the narrative will have him bowing to the inevitable McCain campaign soon after Super Tuesday. Right now, Huckabee is almost done.
Right now.
Right now, though, we can still change the story.
Rather than bow to the polls and pundits, we need to make them bow to us. We are the people. We are the voters. We are the only poll that really matters. We are Republicans, and we need to coalesce around the one candidate who can still pull off a win.
We can still prove the pundits wrong one more time. We can still pour money into a campaign that gives tremendous returns for every dollar we give. We don't have to go with the polls; we set the polls, for crying out loud!
The question is not "Will we lose?"
The real question is "Are we going to do what it takes to win?"
The question is not, "Who is leading in the polls?"
The real question is, "Are we willing to let liberal media pundits decide our race for us?"
I know we can.
I hope we will.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
How Republicans Will Lose
Unless things change radically on Super Tuesday, the main story of this election year will be how the Republicans lost.
I know, I know, I'm supposed to be a common-sense conservative, and the Republicans are supposed to be my party. Supposed to be.
But for each of the major candidates, it's much easier to paint a scenario where a seemingly great candidate manages to lose a winnable race. Let's examine the first victim of this phenomenon, Fred Thompson.
Fred Thompson was the conservative's darling back during the summer of 2007. He promised a no-nonsense candidacy that would put the liberals back in their place. When Fred finally officially announced, he was instantly in the race. He had nearly $12 million dollars overnight and poll numbers putting him instantly into national contention. Fred Thompson should have been the Republican nominee.
Instead, he squandered $12 million and 20 percentage points in the polls and comes away as the first major candidate to leave the race. Deciding to skip the first three debates he could have been in, Thompson never seemed to know how to campaign. He took a winning proposition and turned it into a massive waste . And his is only the first story.
Next we see the story of Rudy Giuliani. The man to beat, Rudy was seen as the presumptive nominee. Getting an early start with a nice warchest, Rudy took the lead in polls, and never looked back. Rudy Giuliani should have been the Republican nominee.
Yet, the mantles of fiscal conservatism and national security were not enough to hide the fact that he was a social liberal, totally out of touch with most of his party. And with a puzzling campaign strategy that ignored some states and made him invisible during political media frenzies. Another one bites the dust.
Mitt Romney is another nearly perfect canidate who will lose. Mitt brought the biggest war chest an incredible business record into the race. With no hint of scandal around his candidacy, and a squeaky clean good-guy image, Mitt Romney sculpted his message to appeal to the Reagan coalition of social and fiscal conservatives, and national security hawks. Mitt Romney ought to wind up as the Republican nominee.
He won't. Simply because he did sculpt his message, the coalition didn't coalesce. His packaged presentation designed to unite a divided party failed because it was simply too packaged. Romney failed to sell himself as a genuine conservative, because he has not been one. And Republican voters saw through it. Mitt Romney will bite the dust.
The next man likely to lose is Mike Huckabee. If anyone shouldn't be on this list, Mike is the man. Mike never was supposed to get this high. Defying conventional wisdom, his message and retail political style catapulted him into the elite first tier of candidates. In a tremedous campaing, he won a David vs. Goliath battle in Iowa. Mike Huckabee should be the Republican nominee.
Yet, two fatal flaws have hamstrung this brilliant campaign and will likely be the death of it. First, Mike's fundraising machine was simply non-existent. Without much needed cash, Huckabee was forced to make critical cuts at terribly wrong times in the campaign. Secondly, the potential free media given by conservative talk radio that Huckabee should have recieved, turned into a feeding frenzy. For some strange reason, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and their ilk decided that Mike Huckabee was not conservative enough and decided to kill his campaign. Now that it isn't far from dead, the talkers will have to live with their creation: a likely McCain candidacy. Huckabee's lack of the ability to connect with these talkers probably killed his campaign.
This leaves us with the obvious: someone's got to win. But even the one remaining candidate is likely to be a looser. John McCain will be the default nominee; the last one standing. In a year when voters are seemingly screaming for change, the GOP will offer its usual strategy: give it to the guy who's next in line. John McCain has reversed a dysfunctional campaign and lagging poll numbers with a debt-ridden campaign that has managed to make something out of everyone else's mistakes.
By playing old-school attack politics better than the man who started it, McCain took Romney's negativity back to him, and beat him. He picked up Huckabee's slack in South Carolina and Guiliani's in Florida. By riding the divide better than anyone else, he has managed to (seemingly) be the last one standing. John McCain will likely be the Republican nominee.
John McCain's victory will result in his loosing the race to the Democrat in the fall. Despite the current poll numbers to the contrary, his droning stump speech will not match the aggression of a Clinton, nor the energy of an Obama. As the oldest candidate, and the one with the longest history in Washington, he is clearly not what the general electorate want. Only able to trump the Democrats on national security, he will be fresh meat for the energized Democrats.
The next question is....
Does it really have to be this way?
To be continued
I know, I know, I'm supposed to be a common-sense conservative, and the Republicans are supposed to be my party. Supposed to be.
But for each of the major candidates, it's much easier to paint a scenario where a seemingly great candidate manages to lose a winnable race. Let's examine the first victim of this phenomenon, Fred Thompson.
Fred Thompson was the conservative's darling back during the summer of 2007. He promised a no-nonsense candidacy that would put the liberals back in their place. When Fred finally officially announced, he was instantly in the race. He had nearly $12 million dollars overnight and poll numbers putting him instantly into national contention. Fred Thompson should have been the Republican nominee.
Instead, he squandered $12 million and 20 percentage points in the polls and comes away as the first major candidate to leave the race. Deciding to skip the first three debates he could have been in, Thompson never seemed to know how to campaign. He took a winning proposition and turned it into a massive waste . And his is only the first story.
Next we see the story of Rudy Giuliani. The man to beat, Rudy was seen as the presumptive nominee. Getting an early start with a nice warchest, Rudy took the lead in polls, and never looked back. Rudy Giuliani should have been the Republican nominee.
Yet, the mantles of fiscal conservatism and national security were not enough to hide the fact that he was a social liberal, totally out of touch with most of his party. And with a puzzling campaign strategy that ignored some states and made him invisible during political media frenzies. Another one bites the dust.
Mitt Romney is another nearly perfect canidate who will lose. Mitt brought the biggest war chest an incredible business record into the race. With no hint of scandal around his candidacy, and a squeaky clean good-guy image, Mitt Romney sculpted his message to appeal to the Reagan coalition of social and fiscal conservatives, and national security hawks. Mitt Romney ought to wind up as the Republican nominee.
He won't. Simply because he did sculpt his message, the coalition didn't coalesce. His packaged presentation designed to unite a divided party failed because it was simply too packaged. Romney failed to sell himself as a genuine conservative, because he has not been one. And Republican voters saw through it. Mitt Romney will bite the dust.
The next man likely to lose is Mike Huckabee. If anyone shouldn't be on this list, Mike is the man. Mike never was supposed to get this high. Defying conventional wisdom, his message and retail political style catapulted him into the elite first tier of candidates. In a tremedous campaing, he won a David vs. Goliath battle in Iowa. Mike Huckabee should be the Republican nominee.
Yet, two fatal flaws have hamstrung this brilliant campaign and will likely be the death of it. First, Mike's fundraising machine was simply non-existent. Without much needed cash, Huckabee was forced to make critical cuts at terribly wrong times in the campaign. Secondly, the potential free media given by conservative talk radio that Huckabee should have recieved, turned into a feeding frenzy. For some strange reason, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and their ilk decided that Mike Huckabee was not conservative enough and decided to kill his campaign. Now that it isn't far from dead, the talkers will have to live with their creation: a likely McCain candidacy. Huckabee's lack of the ability to connect with these talkers probably killed his campaign.
This leaves us with the obvious: someone's got to win. But even the one remaining candidate is likely to be a looser. John McCain will be the default nominee; the last one standing. In a year when voters are seemingly screaming for change, the GOP will offer its usual strategy: give it to the guy who's next in line. John McCain has reversed a dysfunctional campaign and lagging poll numbers with a debt-ridden campaign that has managed to make something out of everyone else's mistakes.
By playing old-school attack politics better than the man who started it, McCain took Romney's negativity back to him, and beat him. He picked up Huckabee's slack in South Carolina and Guiliani's in Florida. By riding the divide better than anyone else, he has managed to (seemingly) be the last one standing. John McCain will likely be the Republican nominee.
John McCain's victory will result in his loosing the race to the Democrat in the fall. Despite the current poll numbers to the contrary, his droning stump speech will not match the aggression of a Clinton, nor the energy of an Obama. As the oldest candidate, and the one with the longest history in Washington, he is clearly not what the general electorate want. Only able to trump the Democrats on national security, he will be fresh meat for the energized Democrats.
The next question is....
Does it really have to be this way?
To be continued
Huckabee and Reagan
This article by Georgia Congressman John Linder is a must-read for any Huckabee supporter or detractor.
http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=10019&SectionID=17&SubSectionID=116&S=1
In it, Linder states why Mike Huckabee will be back in the future.
I say, let's make the future happen now.
http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=10019&SectionID=17&SubSectionID=116&S=1
In it, Linder states why Mike Huckabee will be back in the future.
I say, let's make the future happen now.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Hillary Endorses Guacamole
Today, former First Lady Hillary Clinton opened up what may be a sweeping new campaign position. Chips and guacamole go together. Speaking on the stump in Nevada on Jan. 11, she reaffirmed her campaign's committment to making sure that no chip travels unaccomanied by that gooey, green goodness known as guacamole. "[O]ne is guacamole, and one is chips....they both go together," said the former First Lady, to cheers in the audience.
Speaking on the condition of anonymity, one campaign staffer said that "Hillary is trying to reassure the chip-eating crowd that she is the real person with the experience to change things for them. This stimulus package of guacamole will both make Hillary seem like she is a real person, and will appeal to younger voters, just like Obama does. We want voters to know that Hillary is a nice, yet tough agent of experiential change who is in touch with her emotions and knows how to eat guacamole."
By linking chips with guacamole, Clinton is reaching out to those who for years have eaten chips without guacamole. "And I keep urging people, get out and do this, for yourselves, your families, your future,"she later said. Clinton views this program as crucial to her campaign. "I come with all of my experience and my lifelong commitment to making positive change for people with a record on issues that matter to the people of Nevada," she said.
Clinton's endorsement of chips and guacamole comes as no surprise to those who know her. Former White House staffers note that she often ordered guacamole and chips be brought in to ease tension during sensitive negotiations. "She often brought chips and guacamole to the table while she brokered the peace deal between Northern and Southern Ireland," said a former aide, also speaking anonymously. "She had this great recipe she would just whip up. The entire Healthcare Task Force just lived on the stuff while we worked to socialize medicine."
Presidential Candidate Barack Obama also weighed in on the guacamole controversy. "Change is what we need in this country, because change is different than not changing. Now, guacamole has its place, and I respect Senator Clinton for her guacamole. But change is change. And we must not allow thought or logic to get in way of change. We need guacamole like John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King dreamed of. We must peddle the hope that America will unite around a bowl of guacamole! A bowl that embraces red chips! Blue chips! Chips of every color! Uniting into the noble sea of green goo that will carry us into a new era of change and hope!"
Former Senator Jonathan Edwards had little to say, except to note that his grandfather ate chips while he worked at a guacamole mill in South Carolina.
Republican hopeful Mike Huckabee disagrees with the First Lady's proposal. "Everyone knows that Democrat guacamole is full of pork," he told reporters earlier today. "I've always been a salsa man myself."
Speaking on the condition of anonymity, one campaign staffer said that "Hillary is trying to reassure the chip-eating crowd that she is the real person with the experience to change things for them. This stimulus package of guacamole will both make Hillary seem like she is a real person, and will appeal to younger voters, just like Obama does. We want voters to know that Hillary is a nice, yet tough agent of experiential change who is in touch with her emotions and knows how to eat guacamole."
By linking chips with guacamole, Clinton is reaching out to those who for years have eaten chips without guacamole. "And I keep urging people, get out and do this, for yourselves, your families, your future,"she later said. Clinton views this program as crucial to her campaign. "I come with all of my experience and my lifelong commitment to making positive change for people with a record on issues that matter to the people of Nevada," she said.
Clinton's endorsement of chips and guacamole comes as no surprise to those who know her. Former White House staffers note that she often ordered guacamole and chips be brought in to ease tension during sensitive negotiations. "She often brought chips and guacamole to the table while she brokered the peace deal between Northern and Southern Ireland," said a former aide, also speaking anonymously. "She had this great recipe she would just whip up. The entire Healthcare Task Force just lived on the stuff while we worked to socialize medicine."
Presidential Candidate Barack Obama also weighed in on the guacamole controversy. "Change is what we need in this country, because change is different than not changing. Now, guacamole has its place, and I respect Senator Clinton for her guacamole. But change is change. And we must not allow thought or logic to get in way of change. We need guacamole like John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King dreamed of. We must peddle the hope that America will unite around a bowl of guacamole! A bowl that embraces red chips! Blue chips! Chips of every color! Uniting into the noble sea of green goo that will carry us into a new era of change and hope!"
Former Senator Jonathan Edwards had little to say, except to note that his grandfather ate chips while he worked at a guacamole mill in South Carolina.
Republican hopeful Mike Huckabee disagrees with the First Lady's proposal. "Everyone knows that Democrat guacamole is full of pork," he told reporters earlier today. "I've always been a salsa man myself."
Thursday, January 10, 2008
The Talkers Will Come Back
It's been an interesting yet disgusting phenomenon. I'm talking about the way that the typical conservative talking heads have turned on Mike Huckabee. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Lara Ingraham and (ugh) Ann Coulter either attacked the Governor, or dismissed him outright.
He's been called a populist; he's been called a homosexual-lover; he's been the subject of a Sean Hannity grilling and a Rush Limbaugh monologue. He's taken a lot of flak from typical conservatives because as largely secular thinkers, they don't understand his Christian worldview. He's taken hits from the wise guys because they don't want to understand pragmatic governing. And he's taken hits from the talkers because he is truely his own kind of Republican. And none of them is quite sure what to do with it.
Except for Coulter, they'll all be back. Watch and see.
They'll be back, first of all because they'll want to back the Republican nominee for President, and I still think it will be Mike Huckabee. None of these guys want an Obama or Clinton presidency. And they will all sing the praises of Mike Huckabee because they will want to defeat the Democratic nominee. These talkers are by and large mouthpieces for the Republican party, and they will flock to the nominee whoever he is. I think it will be Mike Huckabee.
Secondly, they will be back because the are loosing audience. I don't have hard numbers to back this assertion. But I've been a listener to a lot of these pundits for a while, and when they went after Mike, they lost me. I have been very disappointed in their treatment of the Governor and his record. Turning a long-time fan into a disappointed and angry listener is not the way to build audience numbers. And I know I'm not the only one. These guys will have to get their audience back, or someone else will get it from them.
The talkers will be back.
He's been called a populist; he's been called a homosexual-lover; he's been the subject of a Sean Hannity grilling and a Rush Limbaugh monologue. He's taken a lot of flak from typical conservatives because as largely secular thinkers, they don't understand his Christian worldview. He's taken hits from the wise guys because they don't want to understand pragmatic governing. And he's taken hits from the talkers because he is truely his own kind of Republican. And none of them is quite sure what to do with it.
Except for Coulter, they'll all be back. Watch and see.
They'll be back, first of all because they'll want to back the Republican nominee for President, and I still think it will be Mike Huckabee. None of these guys want an Obama or Clinton presidency. And they will all sing the praises of Mike Huckabee because they will want to defeat the Democratic nominee. These talkers are by and large mouthpieces for the Republican party, and they will flock to the nominee whoever he is. I think it will be Mike Huckabee.
Secondly, they will be back because the are loosing audience. I don't have hard numbers to back this assertion. But I've been a listener to a lot of these pundits for a while, and when they went after Mike, they lost me. I have been very disappointed in their treatment of the Governor and his record. Turning a long-time fan into a disappointed and angry listener is not the way to build audience numbers. And I know I'm not the only one. These guys will have to get their audience back, or someone else will get it from them.
The talkers will be back.
Obama on the Second Amendment
The newest Democratic phenom is the Junior Senator from Illinois, Barack Hussein Obama. And what a phenom he is. Upsetting both the Clinton and Edwards machine in Iowa and nearly upsetting the old Clinton machine in New Hampshire. Casting himself as a catalyst for "change" and peddling "hope," he seems to be taking the Democratic establishment to school. He's suave, good-looking and on fire when he gives a stump speech. He's also very liberal.
To begin with, let's examine how he stands on the Second Amendment. An important part of his stance on the Second Amendment includes banning all semi-automatic weapons. According to the 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test, Barack Obama favors the ban or sale of all semi-automatic weapons. That means certain models of guns will be banned simply because they use a different loading mechanism. It shows Obama probably has no personal experience with firearms and has no working knowledge of how or why guns are lethal. He would limit a homeowner's ability to protect himself based on an apparently knee-jerk pander to those who dislike guns.
Obama also favors other restrictions on gun ownership. He showed a position on the VoteMatch quiz indicating that he favored limiting "availability of guns by whatever means are effective." This is a candidate who is clearly against guns and who is no friend to the millions of gun owners across the nation.
He's also who the Republicans are going to have to beat. Here's one piece of ammunition against him. And this pun WAS intended.
To begin with, let's examine how he stands on the Second Amendment. An important part of his stance on the Second Amendment includes banning all semi-automatic weapons. According to the 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test, Barack Obama favors the ban or sale of all semi-automatic weapons. That means certain models of guns will be banned simply because they use a different loading mechanism. It shows Obama probably has no personal experience with firearms and has no working knowledge of how or why guns are lethal. He would limit a homeowner's ability to protect himself based on an apparently knee-jerk pander to those who dislike guns.
Obama also favors other restrictions on gun ownership. He showed a position on the VoteMatch quiz indicating that he favored limiting "availability of guns by whatever means are effective." This is a candidate who is clearly against guns and who is no friend to the millions of gun owners across the nation.
He's also who the Republicans are going to have to beat. Here's one piece of ammunition against him. And this pun WAS intended.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
How Mike Wins the Race
After a beautiful first place win in Iowa and a respectable third place showing in Hew Hampshire, the Republican Race is wide open. And man for man, my money is on Mike Huckabee to emerge as the winner. McCain's surge will split moderates up between himself and Guiliani, while Fred Thompson's cash problems could force him out of the race early.
With moderates split, and a bounce from Fred's conservatives, Mike could carve out a very nice coalition to challenge Romney for his party's mantle. And I'm not the only one who thinks so. For a more polished and professional opinion, read the article at this link:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/01/huckabee_has_momentum.html
Until next time, happy blogging!
With moderates split, and a bounce from Fred's conservatives, Mike could carve out a very nice coalition to challenge Romney for his party's mantle. And I'm not the only one who thinks so. For a more polished and professional opinion, read the article at this link:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/01/huckabee_has_momentum.html
Until next time, happy blogging!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)