December 23, 2007
How the Democrats must love the Republican "base"
Is there any way for me to avoid having to write about Mike Huckabee?
Right now, the polls show Obama defeating him by more than 10 points. Interestingly, he does better against Hillary (losing only a six point spread -- which does not bode well for Hillary Clinton vis-a-vis Barack Obama.)
Seriously, I try to stay on top of political developments, but the Huckabee surge is as deeply disturbing as it is irrational and incomprehensible. I previously called him a "flash in the pan," but was I wrong?
Is the Republican Party hell-bent on slittting its collective wrists?
Rick Moran takes a long and thoughtful look at the Huckabee phenomenon, arguing that this represents the long predicted party crackup, and he concludes that if Huckabee wins, it will be nose-holding time for Republicans edged out by those who claim to be "the base":
The party now finds itself in a dilemma; defeat Huckabee and risk alienating the base of the party or embrace the former governor of Arkansas and risk losing big in the general election. While the latter is not written in blood, the former is a sure thing. And that's why in the end, if Huckabee wins through and captures the nomination, I suspect the libertarians, the federalists, the anti-porkers, and the hawks will end up holding their nose and supporting him.As someone with years of experience in holding my nose, I can probably hold it again, and maybe supplement it with a barf bag. But this really shouldn't be a question of libertarianism versus social conservatism. To win an election, everyone has to give something up. Typically, this means agreeing on someone who has enough broad appeal to the center that he can capture the "great silent majority" of voters who don't vote in primaries, but whose votes simply have to be captured in general elections.
I don't see how Huckabee can do that. Even if we discount completely whether his religious conservatism is palatable to the majority, he's a documented flip-flopper on many issues, he is ridden with conflicts of interest, and his foreign policy knowledge is pathetic. So pathetic that I agree with Ann Althouse that it alone should have doomed his candidacy.
The Democrats must be drooling in anticipation.
(I guess I can always cling to the hope that their base is nuttier, and that the GOP base will wise up before it's too late.)
UPDATE: My thanks to Glenn Reynolds for linking this post, and a warm welcome to all. Comments welcome.
Obama and the young hustler, John Edwards, for the Dems, and Huckabee and Some Sacrificial Lamb for the GOP, with the Donks winning in a landslide.I hope he's wrong, but the problem is, I'm afraid he might be right, and if I said what Bill said I'd hope I was wrong.
(It gets a little tedious hoping to be wrong, though.)
Also, more on the Rush Limbaugh kerfluffle here.
posted by Eric on 12.23.07 at 12:04 PM
Search the Site
Classics To Go
See more archives here
Old (Blogspot) archives
A knee sock jihad might be premature at this time
People Are Not Rational
No Biorobots For Japan
The Thorium Solution
Radiation Detector From A Digital Camera
This war of attrition is driving me bananas!
Attacking Christianity is one thing, but must they butcher geometry?
Are there trashy distinctions in freedom of expression?
Please Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood