>
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.
You are entitled to your opinion and I as well to mine.
Amen!
Absolutely right. Huckabee has no traction outside Iowa - even if he wins it, he goes no further. Romney MUST win Iowa. If he loses to Huckabee, Giuliani’s Florida firewall will succeed and he becomes, without doubt, the Republican nominee.
OTOH, if Romney wins Iowa, he will inevitably win New Hampshire, Michigan, Nevada (just wait until he places ads and an army of volunteers saturate the state), and South Carolina. This momentum will result in him winning Florida, and then locking up the nomination on Super Tuesday.
So, to all the Huckabee supporters in Iowa, think long and hard about what you’re doing because if you oppose the policies and stance of Rudy Giuliani, a vote for Huckabee GUARANTEES a Giuliani nomination.
You are entitled to your opinion and I as well to mine.
You know, I actually disagree with this assumption. Here’s why:
1. Mitt Romney was and still is unknown to most Americans whereas Hillary Clinton is known by everyone. Name recognition or lack thereof was the primary determinant in the early head-to-head polls. However, as time goes on, Hilary’s negatives become stronger and Mitt’s positives become stronger. This is why he now surpasses Hilary in the latest head-to-head poll.
2. If Mitt secures the Republican nomination, Americans will get to know him and they will inevitably prefer him than Hilary. Here’s why:
a) Mitt Romney LOOKS and SOUNDS presidential. He’s the IDEAL of what a president should be.
b) Mitt has NO scandals or baggage. No cheating on his wife. No bribery allegations. No corruption odor. No “dirty tricks” teams.
c) Mitt is a fresh face - no more “Clinton-Bush fatigue” that has plagued the nation for a generation.
d) Mitt is a genuinely good person - no bodyguard or staff member has ever said he treated them with disrespect or abuse. He even shut down his entire company just to look for a missing 14-year old girl (http://www.mittromney.com/News/In-The-News/NEWSMAX_Romney_Rescue ) As for Hillary - just ask the former secret service.
e) Mitt has executive EXPERIENCE - as governor, as CEO, as head of the Salt Lake Olympics - AND WAS HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL, despite a liberal Democratic Massachusetts, despite a scandal-plagued Olympics, despite the cutthroat business world. As for Hillary, well, perhaps being MARRIED to a president is experience - not!
f) Mitt can think on his feet - can anyone imagine an “Ask Hillary Anything” open forum?
There are other points but I need to get ready for work.
If Romney becomes the Republican nominee and Hillary becomes the Democratic nominee; Americans will have a choice between a man who looks, sounds, and behaves as the perfect president or a woman who epitomizes everything negative about modern US politics.
If you’re going RINO, then Rudy. Mitt won’t even deliver Massachusetts, however RUDY can make Hildabeast spend gobs of money and time in both NY and California. That is really going to hurt in the General. The Dems haven’t had to worrie about those two, expensive, time and money eating states.
Mitt’s not going to put New York in play, at all. I’m not sure about California and Mitt.
a vote for either Giuliani, Romney, or Huckabee is just another liberal RINOfest.
This is the first time ever I have noticed this. Granted it isn’t much, but it seems to me it was always the Dems way way to the left on the primaries.
This is good for the country.
I’m supporting Tancredo.
No amount of shilling by your used car salesman candidate will change my mind.
I’m not impressed. ‘Pod
4) Cast your vote accordingly. Your vote shows up in the column of the person you identify with most, whom you want to be President of the United States. It is to be an honest statement to the WORLD (without your name being told) as to your honest opinion, you state a moral truth.
DING! DING! DING!!!
We have a winner!!!
>
"We Ents don't say anything unless it is worth taking a looonnng tiiiime tooo saaaay."
I will not vote for that baby-killing... gungrabbing, gay marriage loving liberal... or mitt or huck. You keep shilling for that rat and it will be YOU and your ilk that elects the beast!
LLS
Isn’t Rudy Hillary in a dress? ;-)
I’m still not convinced that Fred is a “REAL” conservative, but he is more consistent than most of the candidates in the “top tier”.
It’s a major tax increase? Huh? Hunters plan to make American manufactures exempt from taxes is a tax increase? You mean to tell me if I go to my bank and try to negotiate a better deal on my mortgage I am a socialist? I am thinking, what could be more socialist than building up the ChiCom military with US dollars.
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.