Posted on 11/27/2007 12:34:05 AM PST by Jeff Fuller
The below is what I origianlly posted at Iowans for Romney) http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/2007/11/vote-for-mike-huckabee-is-vote-for-rudy_25.html :
Yes my friends, a vote for Mike Huckabee is a vote for Rudy Giuliani. In Iowa this is absolutely the case, and in other battleground states the same argument holds true.
Why is a vote for Huckabee a vote for Rudy?
On the surface the proposition appears preposterous. Huckabee and Rudy represent the absolute polar opposites of the GOP field; Huck being a solid social conservative but fiscal liberal/moderate and conversely Rudy being a social liberal/moderate and a solid fiscal conservative. I've had conversations with supporters of both Rudy and Huck; they are farily consistent in saying that the one candidate in the race that they wouldn't/couldn't vote for is the other.
However, at least for Team Rudy, their died-in-the-wool supporters are openly rooting for Huckabee to win Iowa. Also, these two candidate themselves seem to have man-crushes on one another. Seems odd, eh?
Well, Rudy and his most knowledgeable supporters know that Mitt is the only real threat to his path to the nomination. More and more people are realizing that the race is shaping up to be a Romney-Rudy showdown. Influential conservative editor of the Weekly Standard Fred Barnes penned a piece called "The Two-Man Race" arguing that only Rudy and Romney had "credible strategies/scenarios" to winning the GOP nomination. Fred said:
If a long shot like McCain or Thompson or even Mike Huckabee wins in Iowa (January 3) or New Hampshire (January 8) or South Carolina (January 19), there won't be enough time for him to raise the funds needed to compete effectively in Florida on January 29 and the 20-plus primaries on February 5. Television ads are expensive, but necessary.
Similarly, conservative columnist John Poderotz wrote a piece called "The Two Man Republican Race" where he also says it's down to Romney and Rudy. Of Huckabee he says:
Mike Huckabee, Baptist preacher turned politician, has taken Thompson’s place as the Southern conservative to watch, but while he is conservative on social issues, on economic and political matters he seems more in the populist traditions of the Democratic party, and he has no plausible path to the nomination.Now I know there will be Huckabee supporter that believe that if he wins Iowa that he will pick up steam and win the subsequent states eventually going on to win the nomination. I respectfully disagree.
Huckabee's appeal is disproportionately weighted to firm evangelical Christians. The latest Iowa poll shows that Huckabee is blowing every other candidate away in this demographic. He's got nearly half of all evangelical Iowans polled in his camp already. He knows and speaks the language of this well-organized and motivated demographic. But is it enough? Maybe for Iowa, but not for the subsequent states.
Actually, let's take a look at the the primary calender and see if Huckabee has any "credible pathway" to the nomination:
Iowa--Jan 3rd.
Wyoming--Jan 5th (only a fraction of state's primary delegates up for grabs on this date though and these will be determined via a convention of party activists):
New Hampshire--Jan 8th:
Michigan--Jan 15th:
Nevada--Jan 19th:
South Carolina--Jan 19th (same day as Nevada . . . and thereby probably diluting the "bounce" of a win unless the same candidate wins them both):
Florida--Jan 29th (27 electoral votes) has been polled:
TSUNAMI TUESDAY--Feb 5th:
Won't all these subsequent states come to love Huckabee like Iowa? Not enough for him to come even close to winning any of them (until possibly South Carolina). It is well known that social conservatives with a strongly religious appeal tend to over-perform in Iowa and then fade into irrelevance thereafter:
One exception to my "close second" theory is Huckabee. He seems to be enjoying a well-timed surge, but unless he wins Iowa, he risks becoming John Podhoretz's "Republican Guy Who Is Coming Out of Nowhere to Place a Surprising Second in Iowa," a role JPod contends has been played in previous cycles by Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanan, and Steve Forbes. In other words, he gets one more news cycle of good press and then fades quickly.
Having said all that, if each win begets another bump in the polls, it's not unthinkable to see Romney win Iowa, win Wyoming (for whatever that's worth), win New Hampshire, win Michigan, win South Carolina by a hair, and then go into Florida with a very hot hand...
A word of warning to Huckabee supporters: If on caucus night, lots of Rudy supporters (who should be diametrically opposed to a candidate like Huckabee) start to align with the Huckabee camp you will know that you are being used as a tool for a Rudy nomination. Ironically, you are probably the voting block that would be most opposed to having a pro-choice candidate, yet it would be, at least in part, your own doing.
Of course, James Dobson and/or Tony Perkins and/or Richard Land could help the average Christian conservative realize all of the above by endorsing Romney BEFORE Jan 3rd. Otherwise, they risk being complicit in creating the situation they supposedly lament: a pro-choice GOP nominee that will necessitate a 3rd party pro-life candidate. This scenario will hand Hillary the oval office on a silver platter. So then, might one also conclude: "A vote for Huckabee is a vote for Hillary?"
I, therefore, invite and implore all social conservative Iowans to consider supporting Governor Mitt Romney on Jan 3rd at your Caucus event. His is the largest tent unifying social, fiscal, and security conservatives and this coalition of strength can carry him forward beyond Iowa to win the GOP nomination and the general election. It CAN happen and we all can be a part of it.
Thank you for the offer.
We'll just settle for the Presidential nomination.
--AiT, Another Vote in the DUNCAN HUNTER column
bump
Your claim is at odds with recent polls that show the top 5 GOP candidates winning out against Hillary. And btw, a vote for Huckabee is a vote for Huckabee. The article is tripe. (and personally, I'd prefer Duncan Hunter)
This is the only way to secure the conservative base. Romney, Rudy and Huckabee aint got it...McCain is a joke altogether.
Get a conservative candidate or go to the polls without a base.
The message has not changed from day one, it will happen.
Even closer to the truth a vote for Romney is a vote for Hillary.
Rudyhad two chances to beat Hillary. He ran scared both times.
You mentioned in another thread displeasure with his notion of fair-trade - namely, holding a mirror up to China’s trade policy toward the U.S. and applying it to them. You will want to consider, however, that this particular brand of patriotic populism will help back the Reagan Democrats, a crucial constituency if we are to keep the Hildabeast out of the WH. If this is the one thing someone dislikes about him, then considering all the flaws and warts of the other candidates... seems pretty minor.
That's ridiculous and that all-or-nothing thinking is why some are perpetually confused/surprised by what happens in the real world.
I don’t want to settle for the nomination. He has to actually win the presidency and that’s a pretty big jump from a congressman
ROOTY!
Why would any social conservative vote for a flaming blue state liberal like Romney. Romney is a strong supporter of abortion on demand as a means of birth control, (He had this seared in his mind when a relative allegedly died of a back alley abortion). He just instituted socialized medicine in Mass, that Hillary has admitted was the inspiration for her own universal health care plan. Romney has also been a big supporter of the homosexual agenda. So why again should any conservative vote for Romney.
At least Rudy doesn’t lie about being a big lib.
a) Duncan Hunter pitted against Hitlery, would not ABSOLUTELY CLEAN HER CLOCK in debates?
and
b) You would not support him against her?
And in a pefect world, it would be that simple. But guess what, unless you choose to live in a fantasy world, that's not the way it is in real life.
In a general election, you are voting for someone, as well as against someone, and even if you don't vote as all, your actions have serious ramifications. The Perot useful idiots gave us Clinton. FACT! Your bubble world didn't exist.
it’s a major tax increase. just because other countries are socialist doesn’t mean we have to copy them to ‘fight’ back.
You are entitled to your opinion, of course.
Rudy is more of a threat to the conservative movement than Hillary.
of course I would support him if he was pitted against Hillary. I would also support Tancredo.
how come nobody is for Tancredo???
Because after all of the illegals were deported, the guy wouldn't have one clue how to be chief executive of the world's only hyper power.
like that really matters?
all kidding aside, it is hard enough for even a senator to win the presidency, let alone a congressman
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.