3/4/2008

11 Responses to “Breaking: Huckabee Out”

1. I’m glad to see him go because overtly religious candidates aren’t my cup of tea. Overall, I think it turned out to be a good thing for the GOP to have Huckabee stay in through today, because his presence prevented the media from totally ignoring the Republicans. In addition, Huckabee’s candidacy burned pretty bright at first but ultimately it fizzled out, and hopefully that gave religious conservatives time to adjust to the reality that their message didn’t resonate with many voters.

   However, Huckabee ended with 251 delegates to Romney’s 247. He may well have stayed in to surpass Romney’s totals so he could claim the mantle as heir apparent.

   DRJ (d8934e) — 3/4/2008 @ 6:43 pm

   
   

2. “Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney were all, at least in part, victims of Huckabee’s surprise success.”

   Could it be that they were not what people wanted in a candidate? The unfortunate part of all this is that we will be left with two Democrats running for president and nobody that even 50% of Republicans were willing to get behind. From what I can see, McCain has more Democratic support than he has Republican.

   While I can appreciate and honor his military career and service, I can’t be enthusiastic about the legislation he has authored, his support for ideals that are diametrically opposed to mine or his arrogance in the manner of response to criticisms of his past actions. He may make the right choices on Supreme Court justices, but with the current climate in the Senate and the House, I doubt that a conservative justice would ever win approval. And with his “willingness to reach across the isle”, I doubt that he would even nominate a conservative justice.

   Over all, I am not optimistic about the next four years, no matter which Democrat wins the White House. Legalization of between 12 and 30 million illegal aliens, increased taxes, decreased economic stability and decreased rights for American citizens are all on the horizon for the next term.

   Jay Curtis (8f6541) — 3/4/2008 @ 7:12 pm

   
   

3. On a related note,

   http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080304/NATION/326810167/1001

   “The survey determined that a quarter of self-identified Republicans rated Mr. McCain most likable, but nearly as many — 23 percent — chose Mr. Obama as most likable.”

   I think the viewpoint here is just wrong. It was not that Republicans liked Obama that much, it was that they dislike McCain that much. It really says something about how the system works when the presidential candidate for a party can’t even generate excitement or support from his own party.

   As a conservative, I would like my presidential candidate to have at least some of the same values as I do. His war time actions of 30 years ago, do not carry more weight with me than his legislative actions of the past decade.

   /soap box mode=off

   Jay Curtis (8f6541) — 3/4/2008 @ 7:25 pm

   
   

4. And speaking of “Finally”: the estimable Kevin Roderick is reporting tonight that one of the LATimes reporters who has opted to take the buyout is….Henry Weinstein. If you don’t know how great this news is, you’re not reading your Patterico.

   Scott Kaufer (adb969) — 3/4/2008 @ 7:42 pm

   
   

5. Whoa. Awesome.

   Patterico (4bda0b) — 3/4/2008 @ 7:42 pm

   
   

6. Jay Curtis:

   The unfortunate part of all this is that we will be left with two Democrats running for president and nobody that even 50% of Republicans were willing to get behind.

   Newsflash: McCain got a lot more than 50% of the Republican vote yesterday.

   He may make the right choices on Supreme Court justices, but with the current climate in the Senate and the House, I doubt that a conservative justice would ever win approval.

   Another newsflash: the House is irrelevant to the judicial nomination process, and judging how the 109th Senate voted on the Alito confirmation, today’s Senate would confirm him, too (Roberts wouldn’t even be close). But no Senate will confirm a justice who isn’t nominated in the first place. That alone is reason enough to get over one’s MDS already, and support the 84% conservative candidate rather than either of the two liberal Democrats.

   Xrlq (62cad4) — 3/5/2008 @ 4:00 am

   
   

7. It’s about freakin’. And next time, he won’t sneak up on anybody.

   L.N. Smithee (d1de1b) — 3/5/2008 @ 8:53 am

   
   

8. “Newsflash: McCain got a lot more than 50% of the Republican vote yesterday.”

   When given a fait acompli, many people will just jump on the bandwagon and support that decision, no matter their true feelings. As evidenced by the many posting on this board where people have stated that they don’t want McCain but he is better than Clinton or Obama.

   When we had a choice of Romney, Huckabee or McCain, i don’t think he broke 40% of Republican support in the primaries. (I am too lazy to look it up right now.) I would venture to say that he will be getting more votes from people that are voting against the Democratic candidate than he will get from people voting for him.

   And if you read the interviews with people who are now endorsing him, you will find that many of them are making statements to this effect. Many are say things just like DRJ.

   “He’s not my first choice either, Jay Curtis. Remember that even Ronald Reagan supported tax increases but he eventually saw the light. I think McCain is more likely to see the conservative light than Obama or Hillary.”

   I understand the logic here. I will probably have to hold my nose and vote for him, then pray that he doesn’t give me sufficient reasons to regret that vote.

   “Another newsflash: the House is irrelevant to the judicial nomination process.”

   Yes, I am well aware of this. I was merely trying to illustrate that our entire legislature is currently controlled by Democrats. And with so many Republican seats going up for grabs in the next election, it is highly likely that the Dems will have a veto proof majority in the Senate next year. I come to this conclusion because the Dems are fired up to create history with the first _____ President.

   And the Reps are feeling largely morose about our options. Not a good scenario for the conservatives in the audience. Remember how we belittled Al Gore and his followers when all they had to run on was how the other guy was worse than their guy? Anyone else getting a strange sense of deja vu?

   Jay Curtis (8f6541) — 3/5/2008 @ 9:30 am

   
   

9. When we had a choice of Romney, Huckabee or McCain, i don’t think he broke 40% of Republican support in the primaries. (I am too lazy to look it up right now.)

   So am I, but that’s because it’s not central to my point. Of course McCain didn’t do as well when there were multiple choices. Neither did anyone else! Query how well GWB would have done in 2000 if he had had more than one credible opponent back then. Considering that his opponents included such rock stars as Rudy Guiliani and such true blue conservatives as Fred Thompson, I’d say McCain did pretty damned well in the primaries, including the closed ones. And I’m saying that as one for whom McCain was not my first choice, nor my second, nor even my third.

   Yes, I am well aware of this. I was merely trying to illustrate that our entire legislature is currently controlled by Democrats. And with so many Republican seats going up for grabs in the next election, it is highly likely that the Dems will have a veto proof majority in the Senate next year.

   Yet another newsflash, of which you’re undoubtedly also aware: Presidents don’t veto Senate confirmations or borkings. Too bad, really; Reagan could have used that power in 1987.

   I come to this conclusion because the Dems are fired up to create history with the first _____ President.

   At most, that means that the first _____ President gets some coattails for the first 2 years of his/her/its tenure. The other Clinton got that in 1992, but how long did it last? In any event, such coattail effects are unlikely to work if the first _______ (unless, of course, “________” means “born outside the U.S.”) President loses. We are discussing the Senate President McCain would face, right?

   Xrlq (62cad4) — 3/5/2008 @ 7:00 pm

   
   

10. Okay I looked up the Texas primary results. Where there were only two serious candidates and one of them had mathematically already been eliminated, McCain only got 51.23% of the Republican vote. Looks like a mandate to me. (heavy sarcasm intended)

    “Yet another newsflash, of which you’re undoubtedly also aware: Presidents don’t veto Senate confirmations or borkings.”

    Yes, I am aware of this. But you already knew that. I should have started a new paragraph so that you would know I was no longer discussing judicial nominees. I can see where you might have interpreted what I wrote in this way. I apologize for confusing you.

    ” And with so many Republican seats going up for grabs in the next election, it is highly likely that the Dems will have a veto proof majority in the Senate next year. I come to this conclusion because the Dems are fired up to create history with the first _____ President.

    At most, that means that the first _____ President gets some coattails for the first 2 years of his/her/its tenure. “

    For the record, in my opinion, with the excitement that the Democrats have for trying to elect the first Black/Female president, it is likely that many of the available Senate seats will turn over and become Democrat seats instead of Republican due to higher than normal turnout from the Democrat voters. Their excitement combined with the lack of Republican excitement for McCain make it quite likely that they will win the White House. I see very little reason to be upbeat concerning the next 4 years based on this premise. I make no assertions that my theory is an accurate prediction of the future, but simply my interpretation of the likely sequence of events.

    But I am sure you knew this also. What I don’t get is why people feel so comfortable being so passive aggressive when posting on blogs and internet discussions when they are probably quite nice, polite people in person. I doubt that you really didn’t understand my points. The last time I had someone use the phrase “Newsflash:” I was in sixth grade and the person saying it was being very condescending. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and not assign that motive to you as I don’t know you.

    So have I clarified my points enough to make them sufficiently unambiguous to avoid further misunderstandings?

    Jay Curtis (8f6541) — 3/6/2008 @ 12:39 am

    
    

11. I doubt that you really didn’t understand my points.

    I thought I understood your points in the original post, as they seemed clear enough in theory, just horribly uninformed. Your subsequent “clarifications” of these once-clear points now leave the original points as clear as mud. Maybe I’m just a little slow, but I’m heaving a hell of a time reconciling this:

    He may make the right choices on Supreme Court justices, but with the current climate in the Senate and the House, I doubt that a conservative justice would ever win approval.

    with this:

    Yes, I am well aware [that “the current climate in … the House” is irrelevant to whether or not “a conservative justice would ever win approval.”]

    And I’m having an equally hard time reconciling either statement with this:

    I was merely trying to illustrate that our entire legislature is currently controlled by Democrats. And with so many Republican seats going up for grabs in the next election, it is highly likely that the Dems will have a veto proof majority in the Senate next year.

    Which I am in turn asked to reconcile with your assumption that the “veto proof majority” contemplates a Democrat winning in November, in which case it’s unlikely anything would get vetoed in the first place.

    If your point is that a McCain loss in November means President McCain won’t get any conservative Justices confirmed, I agree. If your point is that a McCain loss in November would likely be accompanied by Democrats picking up a few extra seats in both houses of Congress, I don’t necessarily disagree; I just don’t know enough about the close races in this year’s election to know one way or the other. If your point is that McCain wasn’t popular enough to get an absolute majority in early races, I don’t disagree with that, either; I just think it’s an odd thing to expect of any candidate in a 3- or more way race. If your point is anything else, maybe your best bet is to stop “clarifying” and start over from scratch.

    Xrlq (62cad4) — 3/6/2008 @ 4:17 am