Big winners: McCain, Huckabee
Big losers: Money and talk radio – neither seem to have been what they were cracked up to be.
Oh, and of course Ron Paul…. whose whacko Internet supporters must be baffled that their leader, despite all his money (again meaningless) and media attention, got next to no votes.
Big surprise: As of 10:30PM Tuesday, McCain leads Romney in California by 18% – a blowout in a state in which Romney was supposed to be surging. Romney should do the graceful thing and drop out. All those millions could be used for cancer research.
The South shall rise again. I’ve been telling folks that the South wasn’t going to go for a Yankee business man, nee carpet bagger. And those Yankee pundits are going to have to deal with the fact that The Union isn’t their base anymore.
Chuck,
It looks to me like Republicans all over the country, not just the south, prefer the war hero to the CEO. So do independents. So do lots of Democrats I know who think very highly of John McCain and who thought John Kerry was a douchebag.
American politics are coming around to where I wanted them to be on 9/11. It is not at all what I expected, but it’s happening.
“I’ve been telling folks that the South wasn’t going to go for a Yankee business man, nee carpet bagger.”
The South per se has little do with it. Many conservatives simply do not feel comfortable with Mitt Romney. He often does indeed come across as some sort of carpetbagger. This is why he lost to John McCain. The latter gentleman seems more genuine.
Insights from Stephen Green:
Good reason to vote McCain- CNN reports that James Dobson, of Focus on the Family, says:
Should Senator John McCain capture the nomination as many assume, I believe this general election will offer the worst choices for president in my lifetime.”
8:31: I just heard Fox News report that McCain is the second choice of the majority of Southern Huckabee voters.
9:49 — On Fox, Romney supporter Sean Hannity does not look like a happy camper. He says that Huckabee split the conservative vote, and argues that the Huckabee votes would have gone to Romney.
I have to disagree. Not only did exit polls show a majority of Huckabee voters favoring McCain as a second choice, Romney’s third place showing speaks for itself.
http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2008/02/chill_out_ok_bu.html
David,
I was talking about Huckabee in the South. If you recall, there was as almost as much sneering at Huckabee as at McCain. Whether the pundits like Huckabee or not, the South is essential and they are going to have to learn to eat grits and like them, or at least pretend they do. The intellectual Republican core seems North Eastern to me, and perhaps a trifle narrow.
Chuck,
From here in Georgia, where Huckabee did really well, the concern isn’t that he’s an evangelical. We have alot of respect for them around here. The concern is that he’s nothing but. The conservatives back in his own home state hate him, he displays stunning ignorance on foreign policy, and his conservatism only stretches to two issues: abortion and gay rights. That’s where the anxiety comes from, not regional elitism.
I took an exit poll yesterday on the way out the door, and I think they missed the key question: is support in Georgia for Huckabee motivated by “none of the above”-ism, by evangelical identity politics, or by the FAIR tax?
This is heavy Neal Boortz country; symbolic votes for the FAIR tax always have strong appeal among metro-Atlanta Boortz fans. I once worked a touring Flat Tax vs Fair Tax debate back in the mid-90′s. Everywhere else, the debate got a hundred people at best, usually much less. In Atlanta, we had a convention center and it was STILL standing room only. Thousands came to hear about it.
Without polling, it’ll be tough to pick apart, but I personally wonder if Huckabee’s hopelessness and general disillusionment with Romney and McCain lead to a feeling like it was safe to lodge a protest vote.
I would rather hear what the talk radio host, the blogger, or the politician thinks about something and not what he thinks I want to hear.
McCain is called a maverick (goes he’s own way) because he get’s away with not standing for anything conservative. McCain will go where is good for McCain, not the party, the agenda nor the nation.
When you say talk radio is a looser, then so be it. The principles, the stands are more important than the temporary up and down of elections, more important than any one talk show host or pundit. (We did get welfare reform under the Clintons)
The long view is that McCain will hurt the conservative agenda because it (the agenda) has to be continually preached (to persuade) and pursued and fought for. If the supposed standard bearer doesn’t believe it then it truly doesn’t matter who is in the WH at any one time.
The agenda has been muddled, diluted and compromised enough; McCain would decimate it.
Lem,
I usually disagree, but respect what you say… However, why do you insist on the sick world view that the President is supposed to push a Party Agenda?
I like McCain because he usually seems to care MORE about what’s best for the nation, not whatever demagoguery some party hack wants to puke all over the American public. McCain has been loyal to the ideals, even if he’s disagreed with implementations and occasionally chooses pragmatism over dogmatic ideology. You can prefer some ass that will spout an agenda. I prefer a president that will actually care about more than a “base” of voters.
If that “hurts” the conservative movement, then the conservative movement is no good for the US and should be shot in the head.
Just my opinion, of course.
Lem… please… you’re obviously a good guy with a sense of humor… and just because I don’t think conservative and liberal are useful terms anymore doesn’t mean you shouldn’t…
BUT… This conservative infatuation with Romney was just gonzo. The guy was obviously more liberal (far more liberal) than McCain just a few years ago when running against Kennedy. Flip-flopper? Romney made John Kerry look like a man of steadfast values! And this nonsense McCain only being out for himself makes no sense. What Arizona politician would take his stand on immigration just for himself? You may not like the guy, but he’s not an idiot. Enough.
dclydew I’ll give you an example.
Reagan changed the way democrats talk about taxes. You no longer hear democrats talk (at least within earshot of a microphone) about raising taxes. They talk about middle calls tax cuts, they accuse Bush of cutting taxes for the wealthy, but you never hear talk of tax increases the way we used to before Reagan.
That is a tremendous victory that took Reagan eight years to accomplish by using the bully pulpit of the presidency.
Roger let’s hope you are right.
Btw, I’m still brooding over the Patriots giving away that super bowl the other night.
I’ll get over it… eventually.
There were no conservatives still in the race yesterday. I cast my vote for the least bad alternative yesterday, and will again do so in November.
“None of the above, try again” would win in a landslide. He’s not running.
I am amazed at how many people get enthused about a political party that uses them like tissue. You can’t buy me a present with my money. I wouldn’t let you run my life or manage my finances or pick my doctor. Why should I want John or Hillary or Barack or some stranger in Washington to do that?
These are the same folks that decided your property belongs to you, unless the government wants to seize it and give it to somebody else who will pay more taxes. Congress could easily fix this judicial miscarriage, but you don’t see them doing anything, do you? That kind of government should be kept weak, poor, and far away.
I took an exit poll yesterday on the way out the door, and I think they missed the key question: is support in Georgia for Huckabee motivated by “none of the above”-ism, by evangelical identity politics, or by the FAIR tax?
That could well be the case. My staunchly Democratic evangelical uncle in OK was intrigued by the proposal.
BTW, I wasn’t pushing Huckabee, just suggesting that folks needed some tolerance for regional variations. And I do think there is some regional bias in the intellectual crowd, most of whom, as with the Democrats, live or were educated in the NE. That’s just how it is, and I suspect some of those folks see the South as the land of the Stars and Bars and snake handlers. What the South needs is its own slate of famous universities. That won’t happen overnight, nor do I expect the faculties to be that different, but at least they would be living among a more diverse group of people
Lem,
That’s a great example, but I think its an example of the Gipper Leading the party, not following along the party line. When Ronnie ranted about taxes, that was Him all the way and it wouldn’t have mattered a damn what the Republicans might have thought.
I think I’ve begun to figure out why some Conservatives don’t like McCain. He’s not in line with the Post-Gingrich “My Way, or I’ll Break The Government” style of politics. It’s not that he isn’t conservative in most senses of the word. It’s just that he’s willing to compromise with people who aren’t conservative.
McCain hasn’t preached that GitMo residents should have a full civil trial with a jury… only that they should not be tortured. George Bush also says that (they only seem to disagree about the issue of water boarding and it’s status as ‘technique’ or ‘torture’). That’s not a Conservative issue, it’s a moral issue, an issue based on personal beliefs.
McCain’s vote against GWB’s tax breaks, weren’t anti-conservative. It’s not conservative to just give tax breaks, not even the Gipper would think so. No, tax breaks can only happen when we cut spending. Look at the time when GWB was planning that tax cut. Look at the situation our nation was in. I don’t think it was in our best interest to cut taxes alone at that time. McCain felt the same way… don’t bring in less money, if you’re spending the same (and more with a war looming on the horizon). Again, this isn’t anti-conservative, if anything, Bush’s proposal probably made Ronnie roll over in his grave.
The guy has a temper, but then so have some of our best leaders. He’s conceited, but I have yet to meet a politician that isn’t. If John McCain were the new face of the Republican party, if people like Ann Coulter and Rush were told to sit quietly and let the adults talk… if Republicans once again focused more on the nation, rather than their party… I would probably abandon the middle of nowhere where I’m currently stuck and join the Republican Party.
Chuck,
I agree. Even though I hold no belief about God, I think Huckabee got shafted due to his religion. I think part of that is absolutely due to unreasonable intellectualism… but I think it also may be somewhat of a backlash to the extreme promotion of religious issues (in the press, not in the government) that’s been tied to the GOP. I don’t think Bush actually gave a hoot about those issues, but the loud and screeching voices of the MSM and TV Evangelists, left many Americans to assume that the religious wing of the Republican party would love to enact draconian theocratic laws, based on modern interpretations of Ancient writings. Religion should never keep a good candidate from gaining office, but religion should never be the basis for Law… hopefully we’ll find the balance between personal ethics based on religious belief and political positions that may affect many people who don’t share the same metaphysical views.
Now, from another point of view, I think Huckabee should have run as a Christian Liberal. He had a pretty good platform from that perspective except for the positions on gays and abortion (both dogmatically considered non-starters by the left). So, I don’t know why a conservative would really vote for him… but then I don’t know why most Christians are conservative. It seems to me (having spent 25 years as a Christian), that the message spread by Jesus was a lot closer to the liberal than conservative, particularly in caring for the less fortunate in your society. Of course, the Left has their own set of anti-religious problems… and maybe the GOP is simply the only place Christians can find any cover… but as much as I think having a “Jesus Loves Everyone” kind of Christian (as opposed to the “Let’s start Armegeddon” ones
) might be really good for the ethics and spirit of our nation… I still don’t think Huck would have brought strong fiscal, foreign policy or small government conservativism to the table.
Maybe I’m wrong though.
As another example of McCain’s appeal, I pull this bit from a posting by Gene over at Harry’s Place.
–Although I can’t help liking McCain (if it wasn’t such an insult in certain circles, I’d call him a decent man), I’m quite aware that on many of the social and economic issues I care about, he’s far to the right of me. I actually was moved last night when he referred, non-sarcastically, to “our friends” on the Democratic side. (Talk like that may be one reason why the Limbaughs and Coulters despise him so much.) But while I admired his willingness to criticize the Bush administration’s conduct of the Iraq war during the first few years, I think he’s gone a little too soft on Bush and the Iraqi government since the “surge.” His talk of US forces staying in Iraq for another hundred years if necessary does not reassure me either.
You know, I think the American voters could go big for a guy with bipartisan instincts who doesn’t demonize the other side and puts country before party.
“It seems to me (having spent 25 years as a Christian), that the message spread by Jesus was a lot closer to the liberal than conservative, particularly in caring for the less fortunate in your society.”
True, but it was individual voluntary action that carried moral weight.
Nowhere did he ever suggest that you should ban together with enough of your neighbors in a mob, and *take* from others to give it away, at sword point — which is what unrestrained redistributionist “democracy” is ultimately about.
Chuck,
Precisely.
I don’t agree with McCain on everything, but I do agree with him that cooperation between our political leaders will be much better than constant showdowns at High Noon in the Senate Chambers.
McCain has proven again and again, that he can find a middle ground between the ideals of Conservatives and the ideals of Liberals. This has only become ‘evil’ after Newt and his madness in the 90′s… I don’t think anyone want to continue to play this game, except maybe those that make all their money off of pitting Brother against Brother (Coulter, Limbaugh etc).
I don’t want any more impeach now bullshit, no more The President Lied, or the President got a Blowjob or the President sent us to War over Oil or any other bullshit like that. If I’m gonna send money to Washington, I expect it to be used to make our lives better… not pay for them to spew spittle at each other.
Our nation is so much closer than many others, yet somehow we seem more divided than them… Look at some of the European democracies, they have parties in power that seriously cover the spectrum, from ultra conservative or extreme socialist… in comparison we have two middle of the road parties that ought to behave better than they have in the past 16 years or so.
Think too, if there’s no more Bush to hate, and most liberals like McCain (despite his politics)… what recourse would the Dem powerhouse have? They wouldn’t dare try to demonize McCain. Not only would McCain probably punch Nancy in the face, I think a large section of the Democrats would probably buy popcorn and root for McCain. Personal attacks will be right out, political attacks will probably also be out… I can barely fathom the concept of a person becoming president with a general approval rate of 70% among Americans no matter their politics.
A president that most people like… that most people support… that most people would feel proud to be the face of our nation (and yes, I think the face of the American nation should punch the Speaker of the House in the face when necessary…. might make Ablahblahblahajahad in Iran think twice or three times.
newscaper,
True, but it was individual voluntary action that carried moral weight.
I agree.
Nowhere did he ever suggest that you should ban together with enough of your neighbors in a mob, and *take* from others to give it away, at sword point — which is what unrestrained redistributionist “democracy” is ultimately about.
Well, he never recommended banning together with enough of your neighbors in a mob and *impose* his moral statements on others… but that seems pretty common at this point. If we are to stick only to what Jesus said, then there exists no political position for a Christian, except one of neutrality. Rather than going to such draconian extremes, it seems that Christians would do well to include Jesus’ moral positions as they develop their own political views.
In all honesty, Jesus never said anything like “Go fight the abortionist” or “Go fight the gays”. He statements were much more along the lines of “Take care of the widows and orphans”. Nowhere did Jesus ever support any philosophy that could be paralleled with the current “Religious Right”. I think a good Christian implementation of social programs to help people would be workable, without holding people at swordpoint and taking all of their money. In fact, were it not for the issues of abortion and gay marriage, (both issues which while condemned in the Bible, are never placed as things for Christians to fight… only things for Christians to avoid) I think that Christians would probably have a great softening effect on the Democratic party and some of their views on how best to serve the poor and helpless.
Instead, it seems to me that pompous leaders have made a big show out of their piety and led many Christians into a political position that seems ill-fitting and from a non-christian position, somewhat alarming. This isn’t because Christianity should be that way, but rather because its being manipulated by some… and the sheep follow the shepherd, even if that shepherd fleeces them and leaves them broken. There’s no need to wonder what Jesus would say, the Biblical record makes clear what he thought of such men.
Serpents, offspring of vipers.
Whitewashed graves, clean on the outside, but inside full of dead men’s bones.
If Jesus existed and if he exists today… I would not want to be the star of the 700 Club, Focus on The Family or any other system that has misled his little sheep. Sometimes I think people forget that Jesus had worse to say about the supposed religious leaders, than about the non-worshipers of his day. I wonder why they so foolishly consider that his return would be any different.
Chuck,
Well said about the South’s universities, but I should point out that we’re working on developing top-tier schools. It’s just that it takes time.
In the research university segment, we have Duke, UVA, Johns Hopkins and Emory dipping into much the same market that you see applying to the Ivy League. Certainly they’ve surpassed UPenn and Rutgers. For high tech, Georgia Tech is still a notch below MIT, but popular impressions lag the realities by many years. They’re closer than you’d think.
On another tier, you see several public universities in the South building support. Georgia State University’s business school, for example, is one of those hidden gems you don’t normally hear about in the national press. But you’ll be hearing much more about them very, very soon.
For most of these segments, it takes a generation or more for public opinion to shift. Rest assured, it’s happening. The next time you see a Georgia Tech president, rest assured he’ll do a better job than the last one.
Where the South still *is* lagging badly is in the small liberal arts colleges like Williams, Bates, Amherst, etc. And in K-12 education, of course. Without a local pool of highly educated students, the best colleges are still fighting with one arm tied behind their backs.
dclydew: If John McCain were the new face of the Republican party, if people like Ann Coulter and Rush were told to sit quietly and let the adults talk… if Republicans once again focused more on the nation, rather than their party… I would probably abandon the middle of nowhere where I’m currently stuck and join the Republican Party.
Hear, hear.
Ha! Me and MJT, how could the GOP refuse an offer like that?!
dclydew: If John McCain were the new face of the Republican party, if people like Ann Coulter and Rush were told to sit quietly and let the adults talk… if Republicans once again focused more on the nation, rather than their party… I would probably abandon the middle of nowhere where I’m currently stuck and join the Republican Party.
RINO is such a lovely general purpose term, eh? Rush and Coulter should consider the possibilities. And maybe they have.
Washington DC is awashed with monuments…. to the great moderates in American history
People like Jefferson, FDR and Kennedy.
http://tinyurl.com/2bcxpp
http://tinyurl.com/2cqk3c
John McCain is the author of the most egregious governmental assualt on freedom of speech in our nation’s history. No one that supports him has any right to call themselves “liberal”.
,i>John McCain is the author of the most egregious governmental assualt on freedom of speech in our nation’s history.
You know a politician must be doing something right when people have to start making absurd statements about them… Chimpy McHitler, General Betrayus and this…
And here I thought most of the useful idiots were on the left
“So, I don’t know why a conservative would really vote for him… but then I don’t know why most Christians are conservative.”
dclydew, why do you think that most Christians are conservative? I think the opposite and I’ll tell you why. So you’ll understand where I’m coming from, here are my definitions for the highest level concepts for the two groups, redcuced to their essentials, without which the concepts would have no meaning:
Christianity: a man-made religion based on the principle of personal sacrifice and devotion to an all-powerful creator god.
Conservatism: a political system based on the principles of strong defense, limited government, and low taxes.
I see the two concepts as being antithetical to each other. A christian should not logically be for low taxes or limited government, nor should a strong defense be of overriding concern. A conservative should not logically be for a christian-like, altruistic personal sacrifice.
What we have, I think, are a lot of people with beliefs taken from both concepts, with distinct issues being glommed illogically together as the abstractions chain down, crisscrossing in and out of lower abstactions, each lower abstraction getting more specific as they eventually wend down to actual thinking human beings. You end up with inconsistent people with inconsistent policies, much of it poll driven and peer driven. I’m not saying that the concepts are like Plato’s Forms. The chain of thought begins with the individual, it’s just that many people don’t know how to find their way through the abstractions to get to the concept that their gut wants them to go to. There are many christians in the democratic party as well.
Godzilla,
You may well be right… I don’t pretend to understand why any Christians are conservative (or why any Atheists are Liberal). As far as I can tell, some people in the GOP (during the late 80′s and 90′s) figured out that if they frothed at the mouth about abortion and gays then they would get votes from Christians. It doesn’t really appear that the GOP actually cares about such issues (note that they had control of all three branches of government and never even seriously debated the issue in Congress). Sadly, I think a lot of Christians got entirely hoodwinked by the move, though I can’t for the life of me figure out why they’re still so fooled.
Traditionally, based on the moral and ethical views of Christians and the political views of the two parties… the thing stinks.
To think that a conservative, small government, limited control group would promote laws restricting the rights and freedoms of individuals to make their own decision is nearly insane. While I support that Roe v. Wade isn’t constitutional, I find that trying to outlaw or severely curb abortion isn’t any better (particularly from a conservative viewpoint).
As you say, the Christian view in general seems to have a lot more in common with the mainstream democrats (not the crazy lefties)… at least the one promoted in the Bible. Whatever stuff is getting spewed from the pulpit… well I have some serious doubts about the legitimacy of many preachers today.
But, Ive stated several times that one of our major problems (I think) has to do with a lack of eudcation in political philosophy. Liberals that aren’t behind a war to provide more freedom for individuals in the ME? Conservatives that are behind expanding government, ballooning debt (and still want tax cuts) and trying to override state laws (see Terri Schaivo). A couple years ago I ran across an Anarchist protest… they were protesting because the government was pulling some funding from a Library.
Totally nuts.
In fact, conservatism should be able to logically embrace the concept of abortion, as it eliminates personal sacrifice. It is the christian who is ideologically and logically pro-life. True conservatists should be fighing tooth and nail to get rid of these contaminants, and make people realize that abortion and conservatism are not incompatible but actually corrolaries. Just as well, conservatism should be able to logically embrace gay marriage. Christianity and Conservatism should be viewed as opposites, except at the very ground levels of existence…i.e. both types must eat, work, etc.
dclydew, why do you think that most Christians are conservative?
I think this is mistaken. I certainly have some strong evangelical Christians in my family, and some are Democrats, others Republican. The Republican side comes from the Civil War/Anti-slavery/prohibition/women’s suffrage movement. Yes, they were once united. The Democratic side comes from a Depression/FDR/Texas-Missouri/Agricultural background. The latter will even tell you that some have called them Communist because of their approach to community and helping.
Christianity in the US covers a host of sects and movements, some differing over theological points that are at best obscure to outsiders. To claim that American Christians are either conservative or liberal is to vastly over-simplify.
Oh, and about the relationship between religion and government. The evangelicals I know would be happy if the government just bugged out and left them alone. Unfortunately, what with the loss of local control over schools and the attacks on religion in public life, they have been forced to deal with things in the land of Caesar.
“To think that a conservative, small government, limited control group would promote laws restricting the rights and freedoms of individuals to make their own decision is nearly insane.”
It’s a mind boggler all right, and I see it as the core principle of Christianity being the blame. I have no idea how a Christian democrat thinks, but I would guess that they’ve displaced one sort of non-adherence to personal sacrifice (the alignment with pro-abortion) with another, perhaps the personal sacrifice, or more like rationalized lip service, to the poor, the downtrodden, the oppressed, the unfortunates, of all species, including rats, bugs, and plants.
Chuck,
I agree… I was a Cosmic Schmuck for writing that with such generalized statements, sorry about that. Obviously not all Christians are Conservative, our Democratic Governer is a pastor, Obama is obviously religious, and Carter was as well.
I should have said “but then I don’t know why some Christians are conservative.”
The problem though with “would be happy if the government just bugged out and left them alone” is that it doesn’t seem to be the case in practice. For all of the Evangelicals I know that claim the above many of them also want the government to stop people from having abortions and stop gays from getting married. That is many of them seem to want the government to leave THEM alone, but not so much their neighbor. Though, I really wonder if this isn’t to do some smart politicians manipulating the issues to get conservative leaning Christians fired up.
As for control over schools and attacks on religion, I agree. I think the Constitution is pretty clear on “Congress shall make no law…”. However, it doesn’t really appear that the GOP is really doing much to help in those areas either.
On the flip side, I think an influx of Christians into the Democratic party might force them to become less statist and less anti-religious. Most people that are around my age, are disgusted by ALL Christians, because of the behavior of Some Christians. I can’t even count the number of my friends that think I’m crazy for considering that I might vote for someone that supports the “crazy christians”.
When I ask people why they feel that way, it never has anything to do with the Bible and whats stated there… it always has to do with the loud mouths on television and the perception they give as to how Christians behave. I think, like any religion, most of its people are sane, some of its people are crazy and the crazies get all the press, thus modifying the view of outsiders to consider all of the group as crazy.
It will be interesting to see what happens over the next few years.