I think it might be wise for the FReepers who involve themselves against Mike to consider the electability issue of candidates and perhaps tone down the bellicoseness of the discourse a tad. Not being conservative enough (or progressive on the democrat side) is only a problem during the primaries; as soon as the primaries looks settled the candidates run for the middle where the real battle for the presidency is fought. At that point we the conservatives become "The Base".
Pro-Life single issue voters make up about a little less than 15% of the presidential election vote, if I remember correctly from the last two elections. With most all such voters voting for the Republican candidate, that makes up 30-40% of the number of votes cast for the Republican candidate. It is my strong impression that without the abortion issue this voting block would split Democrat / Republican in about the same numbers we see in the rest of the population. In essence; many single issue Right-to-Life voters are not real conservatives or feel "at home" in the Republican party. Thus I argue that without a believable pro-life candidate the Republican party can not even come close to winning the general election but will end up with less than 35% of the vote (maybe even under 30%).
So who is a believable, electable candidate on the right-to-life issue this election season?
Well, Rudy is (thanks for being honest!) pro-choice and will, I fear, trigger a lot of pro-life voters to either stay at home or vote democrat. Nothing that hasn't been said before there but still needed to be repeated I think. I also do believe he would be chicken feed against the assumed Clinton machine; too predictable, too much dirt and an already an established recipient of what I term the Democrat "hate" frenzy. (The Democrats do a remarkable job of whipping up sheer hatred in otherwise reasonable people against vulnerable opponents - not nice!)
Romney I personally thought was not very believable but, some of my friends in the pro-life movement say that they feel they could vote for him and that they think his "conversion" is for real. I see similar thoughts expressed regarding him that I saw regarding W in 2000; we didn't really believe he was genuinely pro-life either but he showed enough concern and cared enough for our votes to make it so (he has since, in my view, proved to be the strongest pro-life president we have ever had). If for nothing else so for the notion that if a candidate worry enough about us as voters to risk a blatant flip-flop, then maybe that is good enough. As far as electability goes, given that the right-to-life crowd follows; I am not convinced - I think the center of the electorate, the independents have an appetite for something "radical" this time around and might go for a woman just for the pure novelty of it (I would too if she was a pro-life Republican My family and I supported Keys in the 2000 primaries). Romney, in the soon to ensue MSM rush to elect "a woman" is just not a strong enough contrast to be visible. I think the tactic from the democrats if Romney is the candidate would be to simply drown him out of the spotlight, which will not be too hard - when was the last time we saw Romney on TV in a spot he didn't pay for?
Fred got the nod from the National Right-to-Life organization and that should have been enough-said about him, however, my sense is that many in the movement were quite surprised at this, kind of like the Pat Robertson / Rudy endorsement. Nevertheless, if he can get himself enough votes to win the primary then he'll do for the right-to-lifers. But, Fred is looking tired, near haggard in some unguarded moments. Sure, a young wife and two(?) small children can do that to a young man never mind a guy in his sixties and I truly respect the taxing effort of the fray that campaigning is. That's what he signed up for though and if the fraying is proving too hard then that in a sense is part of the election process as well. Should he find the form over the next few weeks and manage to get the primary nod then he better have found the form of his life because even more taxing times are ahead. I am trying to be kind but to get to the point; I would not be surprised if he bows out early in the primaries or even before, I respect his effort but he looks like he is ready to throw in the towel now - what will he look like in the general election with its torturous schedules and murderous, relentless attacks. If he wins the primaries, never mind the general election then that would be the biggest surprise in my years of following politics (and I do not usually get surprised)
Duncan Hunter: I was an early fan of his (still getting his emails), excellent TV persona, solid pro-life but, he is not going to get elected. The reason, I think, is that he ran the illegal immigration and anti free-trade messages too hard, almost to the point of earning himself a tinfoil hatter view with some. Also, note to the single issue immigration voters: Evangelicals may talk the talk on illegal immigration but for the most part the emphasis is on the illegal part of that catch phrase with them - not on immigration; I sometimes get the feeling that immigration is a bigger issue than illegal here on FR these days.
Mike Huckabee: Definitely highest score on Pro-Life, Pro-Family issues - no problems there. However, the solid pro-life candidate in Republican primaries has typically played the role of "balancer", by that I mean that the front runner needed to have enough votes siphoned off to a single issue pro-lifer that it kept him on "our side" (e.g.: Alan Keys in 2000). Huckabee is different though; first of all, I think he could actually handle the Clinton deus ex machina if he should be lucky enough to get the Republican nod. How could he do that? Well a couple of things that majorly go in his favor; he is very likable, he is a phenomenal TV persona, looks and sounds fantastic on stage in debates and also in one-on-one interviews and to top that he is, convincingly, stealing the thunder on a couple of issues that the Democrats hope to run hard on next year - the environment and compassion for the weak in society. OK, so we drift a little to the left (what's new) but, we get our pro-life president. Does he have enough international political experience? I would think that for any governor that get elected to president the question should rather be: Does he have a history of picking strong people for government posts - any governor elected to president will have to rely on people more experienced than him or her self to govern effectively on foreign policy, there is nothing new or different between him and other governors in that sense. I honestly do not know his track record for picking staff and officials; perhaps someone from Arkansas would like to chime in on that - that is truly an important question.
So what are Mike's chances, realistically, to become the next POTUS. Not too good I'm afraid; he is still very much a long-shot for the primaries, ironically enough, mostly because so many thinks he is a long-shot. The relentless attacks on him from the right on the web are also pattently unhelpful, of course (kudos to the cntl-C~cntrl-V debaters on this forum for a well orchestrated campaign). Now, would it be worth the "sacrifice" for the pundits on the right to lay down the swords and let him have a go at it? I honestly think so - the field of candidates is what it is, sure we could wish for some ideal candidate that is both a "true" conservative or even libertarian and pro-life and who also has a chance to win us the POTUS for the party but that candidate is not running this year. I know a lot of FReepers will have to swallow real hard to give Mike a chance (I personally despise caving to the global warming fraudsters) but, I think it's worth giving him the go-ahead because I want a strong pro-life candidate that stands a chance in the general election. (Global warming will be a non-issue sooner or later anyway because it is a hoax, and maybe that's what Mike is thinking as well). Being an immigrant myself (legal - now citizen) I will refrain from debating immigration as much as possible; other than to say that what is being displayed on this website is sometimes offensive to me - it's fair game, I think, to discuss both legal vs. illegal and number of total immigrants to allow but I fear that the line is getting a bit blurred between the illegal / legal debate and being negative to immigrants in general and that is not too good. As a matter of fact I see it as being somewhat of a threat to the high regard of Free Republic
Let's hear it for Mike!
It is the media and radical leftist activists seeking to blur the lines for political gain (essentially to make Hispanics complete slaves to the Democrat plantation as they have Blacks). I cannot think of a group in America that should be more anti-illegals than those like you who followed the rules to become a citizen. Getting lumped in with criminal invaders would boil my blood.
Nice summary. You put a lot of thought into that it seems. When social conservatives ran Rudy and his supporters off earlier this year libertarians in the party on FR understood. He was unacceptable to them. Even those same social conservatives are not trying to ram the Evangelical compassionate conservative Huck down our throat.
We need a candidate that can appeal to both major branches of the GOP. It’s becoming obvious that Fred is the only one who can do that.