403 Forbidden

403 Forbidden

403 Forbidden

Nine Moons » Blog Archive : A Huckabee Nomination Would Make This Much Easier For Me » A Huckabee Nomination Would Make This Much Easier For Me

A Huckabee Nomination Would Make This Much Easier For Me

Rusty - December 10, 2007

His opponent would get my vote. And most of the center would do the same. Mitt, Rudy, Fred, Obama and Hillary all have a reasonable chance of getting the middle, undecided voters (those who will determine the presidency). Huck doesn’t have a prayer.


  1. In fact, the conspiracy theorist in me wonders if Huck’s surge is somehow coming from the Left…

    Comment by Rusty — December 10, 2007 @ 10:18 pm

  2. Amen.

    Comment by Geoff J — December 10, 2007 @ 10:29 pm

  3. Same here.

    Comment by Mephibosheth — December 10, 2007 @ 11:45 pm

  4. It is an open secret that Huck could be a vice-p for Rudy, so it will be a strange choice for conservatives to make – sooo liberal president….

    Comment by ViK — December 11, 2007 @ 3:40 am

  5. I’ll tell you what that surge is coming from…

    The man can play a really mean bass!

    Actually, the cynic in me agrees with you Rusty. I saw this happen in Washington State’s 1996 gubernatorial race.

    Comment by fregramis — December 11, 2007 @ 7:03 am

  6. Same here. This is not a serious man. I can’t really see him winning the nomination, but his perfectly-timed Iowa surge could well sink any chance that Romney has at the nomination. Which means that nobody would benefit more from a Huckabee win in Iowa than Giuliani. And Giuliani may be the only Republican with a chance in the general election. So my conspiracy theory is that the Huckabee surge is being orchestrated by Republican elites who don’t want to lose the White House.

    More likely is that it’s not a conspiracy, but that people want to vote for someone they like and Huckabee is superficially likable.

    Comment by Tom — December 11, 2007 @ 7:29 am

  7. I have a question:

    I was told about the Huckabee releasing a murderer on parole thing last night. (Keep in mind, I am not into politics) What was interesting to me was that I was told Huck did this because he was receiving pressure from ministers because the murdered had “found jesus”. Is this true? Is this getting media attention?

    Comment by Matt W. — December 11, 2007 @ 7:44 am

  8. Missing from your list of candidates who could carry the “center” are the two identified in the latest poll as doing the best against candidates of the other party: McCain and Edwards.


    McCain I understand–he’s the only Republican I could see myself voting for. But Edwards seems to be running to the left of both Hillary and Obama, so his appeal to the center (or anyone else for that matter) escapes me.

    Comment by Last Lemming — December 11, 2007 @ 7:44 am

  9. I haven’t heard the “finding Jesus” thing as motivation for Huckabee pushing for the release of the rapist/murderer. What I’ve read indicates that he was responding to pressure from the ridiculous “Clinton is Satan” crowd. One of the victims was a distant relative of then-governor Clinton, which was apparently all evidence some crazies on the right needed to believe that the rapist/murderer was the real victim and that he should be released. Huckabee disputes that he pushed for parole, but four members of the parole board attest that he did so. Not under dispute is the fact that at this time, Huckabee was receiving letters from other victims warning that the rapist/murderer would attack again if released, which he did.

    The Huffington Post got the scoop on the victims’ letters to Huckabee.

    Comment by Tom — December 11, 2007 @ 7:58 am

  10. LL,

    I think the argument for Edwards is that Edwards is more populist than he is leftist. Sure, he’s taking a more left tack than Clinton, and perhaps than Obama on certain issues. But on globalization and trade issues there’s a significant portion on the right that favor isolationism as well.

    Also, let’s not underestimate power of the visceral dislike of Clinton and Obama from the right. Perhaps because Edwards hasn’t been so much in the spotlight yet, he hasn’t generated the same intensity of hate.

    Comment by JKC — December 11, 2007 @ 8:02 am

  11. I’m just having a difficult time with all those who want a “likeable” president. Sure it would be nice that our president is a nice guy, but shouldn’t that be way down the list of qualities we need in a president? He’s not campaigning to be our uncle, we’re never going to sit down and have a (root) beer with him, why do so many people want that quality in the leader of the free world? He’s the guy (or gal) that will be negotiating with other politicians, the guy that will be vetoing bills, the guy that will call Supreme Court Justices, the guy that will determine foreign policy, etc. Why does he have to be likeable?

    Comment by Rusty — December 11, 2007 @ 9:20 am

  12. the guy that will call Supreme Court Justices

    Are you referring to his use of the telephone, or do you mean “nominate”? Perhaps you have just been a Mormon too long.

    Comment by Last Lemming — December 11, 2007 @ 9:33 am

  13. Huck is dead meat in a general election. To Southern Religious populist for other parts of the country.

    Will lose Ohio, Florida and a few other swing states handily. Down in flames. Mark my words.

    That is the way to judge any potential candidate. Look at the swing states and how they will run there.

    Comment by bbell — December 11, 2007 @ 10:07 am

  14. LL,
    Hilarious. You’re right, I’ve been a Mormon too long.

    Comment by Rusty — December 11, 2007 @ 10:19 am

  15. This makes sense:


    Comment by Fregramis — December 11, 2007 @ 10:32 am

  16. The funny thing about Huckabee is that he has a fairly moderate record and was elected governor of a swing state. I can see Huckabee shifting gears in a general election after he’s convinced the Christian Republicans that he’s kooky enough for them. But his competency will be challenged daily by who ever is the Demo nominee.

    Frankly, I’m hoping for the opposite to happen Rusty. I’m hoping for a Rudy vs. Hillary show down just to wake America up to the fact that the two parties are essentially the same…

    Comment by cj douglass — December 11, 2007 @ 10:47 am

  17. cj-
    If it ends up being between Rudy and Hillary, I might cry.

    Comment by Cheryl — December 11, 2007 @ 11:50 am

  18. Don’t give up people! We can still win this! Remember in 2004 when Howard Dean was the poll-leading Democrat going into the Iowa caucus but then came in third place.

    If you have any friends in Iowa please e-mail them and tell them to vote for Romney.

    Comment by California Condor — December 11, 2007 @ 12:10 pm

  19. I feel like Yossarian: I see everything thrice!

    As one who hoped for a Rudy-Hillary bash back in 2000, and was sorely disappointed when Rudy’s womanizing and prostate cancer caused him to withdraw, I wouldn’t mind a Rudy–Hillary election campaign next year. It’s just I wouldn’t want to have either of them be our President.

    As to likeability, Dick Nixon sure was a friendly guy. Let’s exhume him and run him again!

    Comment by Mark B. — December 11, 2007 @ 1:53 pm

  20. Do we really want another candidate from Arkansas? Since when did the Ozarks become the new Virginia?

    Who’s the Bull-Moose party candidate this year?

    Comment by Bret — December 11, 2007 @ 3:35 pm

  21. Agreed.

    Comment by Aaron B — December 11, 2007 @ 4:13 pm

  22. Hey, I am still looking for the “LDS for Huckabee” website.

    Must be that “Baptist Minister” thing is factored in partly.

    Rusty, I can’t put my finger on it. But I think many LDS teens live in horror of Protestant ministers (even when some have never even met a pastor.)

    I am going to try to explore the conspiracy behind this, sometime.

    Comment by Todd Wood — December 11, 2007 @ 4:54 pm

  23. I hope this doesn’t sound blasphemus to anyone but even though I would almost NEVER vote for Romney, I hope he gets the nomination. What I wish for the American public is that they have to make a choice between a Mormon and a black man (Obama). Yes, I know there’s only one woman in the race and that would be equally as provocative but even for me, a die hard Democrat, Hillary is so easy to dislike. Black vs. Mormon – that’s what I’m hoping for. (FYI – Obama would get my vote – easily)

    Comment by Lamonte — December 12, 2007 @ 5:42 am

  24. #18:
    Don’t give up people! We can still win this! . . .If you have any friends in Iowa please e-mail them and tell them to vote for Romney.

    Ugh. Is this an election, or a high school pep rally? The LDS church is not running for president. The membership of the LDS church is not running for president. One incredibly wealthy, incredibly ambitious man is running for president, who happens to be a member of the LDS church. Romney’s campaign is not a giant LDS “we.” Many faithful LDS would see Romney’s election as an enormous defeat.

    Comment by Nick Literski — December 12, 2007 @ 8:12 am

  25. cj-
    If it ends up being between Rudy and Hillary, I might cry.

    Me too Cheryl. I hope that didn’t sound like I wanted Hillary or Rudy as our next Pres. I just think there are so many in this country who draw party lines. I think its stupid and would love to see some people on both sides squirm a little…Yes Lamonte, the Mormon and the black man would do that very well…

    And here here Nick. I have nightmares about a Romney administration. Of course I’ve been listening to LDS like Condor all of my life who associate voting against a Republican with resigning my church membership. Can you imagine the outcry from the same people if I vote against a MORMON Republican. Heresy!

    And Mark B.,
    Stop being coy. We know you’re on the Ron Paul bandwagon…

    Comment by cj douglass — December 12, 2007 @ 10:04 am

  26. Rusty, I think you overestimate the appeal of Romney, Giuliani, and Thompson. They don’t poll too badly now, but large portions of the electorate don’t know Romney’s a Mormon, and they don’t know much about the bad side of Giuliani’s record as mayor.

    Thompson is an acceptable enough candidate but as he has already shown, a terrible campaigner. It’s Thompson, not Romney, who has lost the most support as Huckabee has risen. You think Hillary can’t run laps around that old guy?

    Romney has the Mormon thing, which is a deal breaker for a small but significant minority (it only takes a few percentage points). It’s also a problem because the engine of Republican get-out-the-vote efforts are the white churches. Bush would not have been elected, either time, without their enthusiastic support. But Thompson won’t get as much out of them, and Giuliani and Romney definitely won’t have them going full-force.

    Giuliani happens to be a creep personally. Some people care about this, myself included. He used the NYPD to escort him to his several trysts and his police chief used housing set aside for 9/11 workers for *his* mistress. As Matt Yglesias once remarked, Giuliani makes anyone in the world look like a “values” candidate. He’s also not moderate at all on some of the least popular aspects of the Republican party: torture and the war in Iraq. Almost all of the big neo-con advisors have gone over to Giuliani. Also, his combination of an extremely liberal *record* on immigration and his current, extremely harsh *rhetoric* on immigration will probably manage to turn off almost everyone.

    Huckabee, for his part, is the mirror opposite of Hillary Clinton in one interesting sense. While she’s generally thought of as more left than she really is, Huckabee’s Southern evangelical thing will almost surely mark him as more conservative than he really is. So I agree he has problems too, but they may not be any greater than the rest of the GOP field.

    “just to wake America up to the fact that the two parties are essentially the same”
    Are you kidding me? Just sit back and imagine how different things would be in the U.S., for better or worse, if Gore had president, and you’ll get a glimpse of it. We have two mass parties in America that get almost all of the votes. So each one is going after centrist voters, and each one can’t take the radical positions of parties that are never in power. And yet they go after the center in very different ways.

    Comment by Jeremiah J. — December 12, 2007 @ 10:16 am

  27. cj douglass:

    Is he an open borders anarchist? If so, sign me up!

    Comment by Mark B. — December 12, 2007 @ 10:42 am

  28. JJ,
    You’re using the worst President we’ve had in the modern era and asking whether his opponent would have done a better job? Of course! But Bush doesn’t suck because he’s a Republican. He sucks because he sucks. My point is simply that there is still the sentiment in both party’s that one is good and one is bad. Rudy and Hillary (both polarizing views on key issues within their own party and both with plenty of skeletons in the closet) would shake things up a bit. The lines might be a little more blurred.

    Comment by cj douglass — December 12, 2007 @ 10:56 am

  29. Sorry Mark,
    I was actually joking. Ron Paul while a great advocate of civil liberties and privacy, is an isolationist libertarian who favors building a fence on the Mexican border.

    Comment by cj douglass — December 12, 2007 @ 11:06 am

  30. cj,

    I know you were joking.

    And, I’m for building that fence too, but only if we can stick Lou Dobbs and Tom Tancredo on the other side of it.

    Comment by Mark B. — December 12, 2007 @ 1:04 pm

  31. There’s only one thing about Giulliani that bothers me, and that’s his rabid, crazy-go-nuts foreign policy agenda. The abortion stuff and other liberal stuff bothers me not one wit. In fact, I’d love to see Giulliani elected if it would drive a stake through the heart of the great national threadjack otherwise known as the abortion debate. Of course, it wouldn’t. But single issue people who vote Republican solely on the abortion issue kind of piss me off. I’d love to see Giulliani just to rattle their cages.

    But alas, Rudy is just a danger to world society, so it cannot be.

    Comment by Seth R. — December 12, 2007 @ 3:14 pm

  32. Seth,
    Those are my exact sentiments, both on abortion and on Rudy’s foreign policy.

    Comment by Rusty — December 12, 2007 @ 3:21 pm

  33. “the great national threadjack otherwise known as the abortion debate.”

    Kind of like those simpletons in the 1800s who cared more about abstruse religious and moral issues like slavery rather than bread and butter issues like sailors’ rights and whiskey taxes.

    I happen to have a point of view on the abortion issue, but I respect that the other side of the issue also knows what’s at stake. We’re talking about nothing less than life and individual freedom. That’s true even if we admit that it’s quite a complex issue with multiple legitimate values involved.

    Yes, Giuliani’s foreign policy is the worst thing about him. Most of the neo-con advisors who want desperately to attack Iran have gone over to the Rudy camp.

    Comment by Jeremiah J. — December 12, 2007 @ 4:48 pm

  34. We certainly can find plenty of bad things to say about those running for president!! I do think Romney has plenty going for him…especially compared with the rest. He did more than an acceptable job as governor of a liberal state. He’s a successuful businessman that knows how to run and organization and has shown he can manage finances. The example of the SLC Olympic games situation shows some of what he has. He is moral. He’s by far and away the most honest, decent person running. And he’s a faithful family man. I have a difficult time understanding how offers more.

    Sorry, I just can’t stand any of the other people running and will have a very difficult time voting for any of them. Realistically I’m sure I will have to.

    Comment by Don — December 12, 2007 @ 10:29 pm

  35. Hey, I love the new banner! It makes me miss snow…

    Comment by Cheryl — December 14, 2007 @ 9:50 am

  36. @Nick Literski (24)

    You need to chillax. Romney is hands-down the most talented person running for president. And I don’t think he wants to implement a sweeping right-wing agenda (despite what he might say on the campaign trail).

    Comment by California Condor — December 17, 2007 @ 10:36 am

Leave a comment

RSS feed for comments on this post.
TrackBack URI