Huckabee's Bright(er) Future

His various weaknesses notwithstanding, Huckabee's performance tonight - three wins and counting at the moment, after it looked like he might not win again after Iowa, and easily out-performing his showing in a lot of the pre-primary polls - has to be encouraging to those (ahem, Rod) who see him as a possible GOP contender in 2012.

Incidentally, if Romney throws in the towel after tonight - which is by no means impossible, depending on the outcome in California - and Huckabee doesn't, will any of the McCain-haters on the right insist that all good conservatives need to rally around Huck? Just asking ...

Comments

Well, judging by the comments of the morons at Malkin's Hotair site, not likely. Most of them hate Huckabee just as much as McCain. I'm conservative, and even I can't stand most of the Republican party.

Posted by Derrick | February 5, 2008 10:09 PM

No, I think they should extol everyone to get behind that guy with all the Youtube videos of him trying to out-liberal Ted Kennedy as 'the true conservative choice.' Don't know why that one didn't work, or why people accuse elites of being out of touch...

At least Huckabee can actually claim to be a real conservative on issues that matter; unfortunately, they are not issues on which McCain is particularly vulnerable - people are going after him because of taxes, immigration, and campaign finance reform, not morality per se.

In this regard, I loved McCarthy's piece in the National Review on the 'McCain Mirage'. Check out the part in particular when he explains how 'we have to give him his due for being right and lonely out in front on the key issue of our time, but still, I don't think he understands the larger War on Terror', followed by the weakest, most short-sighted and disoriented foreign policy analysis I have ever seen. Thanks for the insight there guys, but I'm gonna trust Dan Drezner's judgment on this one...

Really, those guys crack me up - still don't understand why their lecturing us didn't help. Snicker.

Posted by Vermando | February 5, 2008 10:34 PM

Mitt's on now, saying he plans to stay in the race all the way to the convention. It breaks my heart to see how hard he's trying, how much he's struggling, to stay alive in this campaign. And I just keep wondering, what for? The guy is worth a reported quarter of a billion dollars, and here he is pouring his soul into this losing battle.

And why is it a losing battle? In a nutshell, because Mitt made too many shifts in position, and didn't hold elected office long enough to fully establish his credibility as a presidential contender.

That said, he's a really solid character and worthy of our respect. He made the most of the opportunities extended to him in life, he proved to be a dedicated family man, and a man of faith, and he had a very successful career. He's a great man, and in that regard, so rare among politicians.

Posted by MD | February 5, 2008 10:50 PM

MD writes: " Mitt made too many shifts in position, and didn't hold elected office long enough to fully establish his credibility as a presidential contender.

That said, he's a really solid character and worthy of our respect. He made the most of the opportunities extended to him in life, he proved to be a dedicated family man, and a man of faith, and he had a very successful career. He's a great man, and in that regard, so rare among politicians. "

He's a creature of pure, naked, ruthless ambition who was willing to run as a pro-choice, pro-gay social moderate in Massachusetts and who turned right around and pretended to be Pat Robertson on those issues the minute he decided he was running in 2008. It's no shock that even a group of people as deranged as the "Repiglican base" couldn't get behind a slimy chameleon like Mitt.

From the low vote totals in the GOP primaries and the evident fundraising problems their candidates are having it looks like a whole lot of Republicans are sitting this race out - perhaps because they're rightly ashamed of the frigging hash their party made of things in their 6 years of incompetent, corrupt, warmongering, torture-loving, Constitution-molesting hegemony.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | February 6, 2008 12:00 AM

He made the most of the opportunities extended to him in life, he proved to be a dedicated family man, and a man of faith, and he had a very successful career.

Had my daddy been the President of AMC, the governor of Michigan and a Presidential contender, I am sure that many opportunities would have been extended to me also.

Born on third base...

Posted by Don Quijote | February 6, 2008 12:34 AM

will any of the McCain-haters on the right insist that all good conservatives need to rally around Huck?

No, because it is not about "McCain hate" but supporting someone who is conservative.

Posted by Steven | February 6, 2008 12:37 AM

Steven quotes and writes: "will any of the McCain-haters on the right insist that all good conservatives need to rally around Huck?

No, because it is not about "McCain hate" but supporting someone who is conservative. "

Which means - in the GOP at this point - supporting torture and war on Iran and additional tax cuts for the rich.

In other words, it means being Dick Cheney's bitch.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | February 6, 2008 1:14 AM

" I am sure that many opportunities would have been extended to me also.

Born on third base..."

The world is full of men born on third base who get tagged out. Romney's accomplishments at Bain Capital, the SLC Olympics, and as governor of MA were impressive, and they were his own.

Posted by Fred | February 6, 2008 3:26 AM

If Romney were to drop out, I would shift my support to Huckabee. But I wouldn't be nearly enthusiastic as I have been for Romney.

1.)McCain has locked up the nomination now. There's no point for the intensity stop-McCainers like me have shown the past month for Romney.

2.) Huckabee isn't nearly as conservative as Romney, and isn't more conservative than McCain. The only reason I think he'd be better is that Huck has a chance of appointing more originalist judges to SCOTUS.

Why does Ross seem to think that it says something bad about anti-McCain folks that they've supported Romney and won't go as strongly for Huckabee? He seems to think there's a double standard at play. There's only one standard, which one candidate met (Romney), and the other didn't (Huckabee).

Posted by Gyrd | February 6, 2008 8:58 AM

Romney is _not_ a conservative. Or actually, maybe he is- who knows? He has switched his positions so many times that I don't know what his position on, say, abortion, or gay rights really is. I don't think even his wife really knows. Hell, I'm not sure even he knows.

The spectacle of people who criticized John Kerry for being a flip flopper- John Kerry of all people, who had the courage to take some foreign policy positions on Vietnam and Central America that were anything but popular at the time- now defending the inner moral consistency of Mitt Romney is really laughable. Never mind Kerry, since I don't want to slag his reputation by comparing him to Romney- what about Clinton. What's different about Bill Clinton's political changes of color, and Mitt Romney's? Just the fact that he has the R after his name?

Not to mention the fact that, like Dubya, he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth.

Posted by Hector | February 6, 2008 9:29 AM

I'm with Hector - how in the world anyone can think Romney is a conservative just bewilders me.

Anyway, if you're in need of a good laugh this morning, I would direct my browser over to The Corner, where Kathryn Jean Lopez seriously recommends that John McCain announce at CPAC tomorrow that he intends - if elected - to appoint my former Senator, George Allen, as Secretary of the Treasury. It's ok - blink a few times, rub your eyes. You read that right.

Let me say it again. George Allen. As Secretary of the Treasury. Now I've read a lot of stupid things in my life (many of them penned by Ms. Lopez) but this may take the prize.

Posted by spydur01 | February 6, 2008 10:10 AM

Maybe the Republicans can try a regional candidate strategy: Run Huckabee in the South, Romney in Utah, and McCain everywhere else. Then they could hope to put it together in the electoral college.

Posted by wph | February 6, 2008 10:38 AM

spydur01 reports: "Let me say it again. George Allen. As Secretary of the Treasury. Now I've read a lot of stupid things in my life (many of them penned by Ms. Lopez) but this may take the prize."

Who does she want for Secretary of State? Rush Limbaugh?

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | February 6, 2008 10:54 AM

Actually, MoeLarryAndJesus, she's already got a candidate for Sec State that she has been pushing for some time. To your credit, you must not be the glutton for punishment that I am - The Corner is my guilty little pleasure.

Who is that candidate, you may ask? Why, none other than Mr. Diplomacy himself.....John Bolton.

Posted by spydur01 | February 6, 2008 11:11 AM

Not only will conservatives rally around Huckabee, I think they might be able to defeat McCain.

Posted by Mike | February 6, 2008 11:17 AM

Mike puts on his thinkin' cap and says: "Not only will conservatives rally around Huckabee, I think they might be able to defeat McCain."

Mike must be Kathryn Jean Lopez's brain-damaged younger brother. Though a Huckabee nomination would provide me with endless hours of amusement, it won't happen.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | February 6, 2008 11:39 AM

McCain is in - neither Huck nor Mitt will be able to overcome this advantage. I'm sure Rush is on the phone with his maid hoping she can score him some oxy.

Romney could have been a good candidate, but the minute he decided to become a varmint-huntin', Gitmo-lovin' head case, he was sunk. I liked the guy when he ran against Kennedy in 1994 and when he started to come on the national scene. And then the pandering started. And it took about three seconds to see through his little act.

Posted by spydur01 | February 6, 2008 12:29 PM

wph: "Maybe the Republicans can try a regional candidate strategy: Run Huckabee in the South, Romney in Utah, and McCain everywhere else. Then they could hope to put it together in the electoral college."

The Whigs tried that in 1836 against Van Buren: Webster in New England, Harrison in the Northwest, Hugh White in the South. Didn't work...

Posted by David T | February 6, 2008 1:21 PM