Nov 30, 2007 | 2:01 PM
Category:
Political
Wow, I can't believe it's been 45 days since I last wrote a blog. I figured with about 5 weeks to go before the Iowa Caucuses (which is just insanely early in my opinion) I figured I'd write a little something about the Republican contest for the nomination. Why would I, someone who has professed his strong dislike for President Bush and eagerly supported one Deval Patrick, write about the Republican race for President? For two reasons, first and foremost it seems all but certain that Hillary Clinton is going to be the Democratic nominee. It looked a little dicey a few weeks ago after her horrible debate performance, but she rebounded nicely (for her at least) the next debate and couple that with Obama doing terrible and she seems to have regained her footing in the race. With Clinton as the likely nominee I am much more inclined to support the Republican in the race, unless of course Rudy G. wins the nomination. ( I know that probably infuriates you Graham, but if he gets the nod, that would be two morally bankrupt politicians representing the major parties, I'll vote third-party if that is the case.) Secondly, when I registered to vote at the age of 18, I originally registered as a Republican and in fact voted for G.W. Bush in '04, but the GOP's complete lack of spending disciplne and the mishandling of the war in Iraq for sometime lead me to a general dissatisfaction with the direction the party was heading. But alas, over the past year I have started to drift more to my conservative/libertarian roots and that is why the Republican field interests me much more than the Democratic side. So without further ado, here are my thoughts on the Republican race, roughly five weeks out from the first contests.
The mainstream media really wants to create a narrative of this being a two man race, when right now it is anything but a two man race. Maybe it is because their feeble minds can't grasp the idea that anywhere from 3 to 5 candidates have a legitimate shot at capturing the nomination. (Rudy, Romney, Huckabee, McCain, and Thompson, in no particular order) The media wants to make it about Rudy vs. someone else, when I think the dynamic is much more complicated than that. A lot of people on this site seem to like Mitt Romney and it isn't difficult to see why. However I think that his campaign may have peaked a tad to soon. Two or three weeks ago Mitt seemed to be headed on the right road to victory, with solid leads in Iowa and New Hampshire, competitive in South Carolina and doing well in his home state of Michigan. Romney was (and still may be) the safe bet to win the nomination. However, Romney's entire campaign strategy has been to win the first two contests and build momentum (and money) towards South Carolina and the rest of the contests, a strategy that has work well for many candidates in the past.
However, over the past week who was been coming on strong the last couple of weeks in the first in the nation contest of Iowa? The tortoise like Mike Huckabee (slow and steady wins the race). In a couple recent polls, Huckabee has been running either dead even or slightly behind Romney. Huckabee is the one true social conservative who was never a social libertarian (see: Romney) and he also has a hint of economic populism in his stump speech (He has stated that the Republican party needs to stop being the "party of plutocrats", and on more than one occasion bemoaned the high salaries of corporate execs) that will resonate with the electorate at large if, and that is an enormous if, he takes the nomination.
If Huckabee wins in Iowa, Romney is finished, done, dead in the water, however you want to put it Romney's candidacy would effectively be over. If Huckabee takes out Romney in Iowa, the candidate that gets helped the most (besides the Huckster) is Rudy Giuliani. Rudy's campaign has to be loving the fact that Huckabee is surging in Iowa because Romney is without a doubt Giuliani's biggest obstacle to the nomination right now. Should the aforementioned happen, it is entirely plausible that John McCain, left for dead months ago by the media could end up taking New Hampshire, his libertarian/maverick style plays much better in New Hampshire than Huckabee's more socially conservative philosophy. Then you roll into South Carolina, which would be completely up for grabs for either Huckabee, Thompson (his candidacy DEPENDS on winning southern states), and McCain. (I do not believe Rudy has been actively campaigning here, choosing instead to make Florida is first main battle). If McCain or Huckabee win South Carolina, then it really will be a two main race between Rudy and one of the above-mentioned candidates.
If I were a betting man, I'd bet heavily on Mike Huckabee taking the Republican nomination. Mitt has peaked already in my view and I expect to see his support decline over the coming weeks. Rudy Giuliani is a walking time-bomb whose candidacy could blow up in the Republicans face any moment. If he were to win the nomination, the campaign between Rudy and Clinton would almost certainly be an absolute bloodbath. It would make 2004 look like child's play in the negativity and viciousness that would be flying from both campaigns. A Huckabee nomination would pose a difficult challenge to Clinton. Huckabee is everything that Clinton is not in terms of personality. He comes across as a genuine down to earth nice guy, and when he speaks his arguments and positions sound rather reasonable even if you disagree with him. You come across thinking "Wow, he seems like a decent guy". I really think Mike Huckabee could take down Hillary Clinton in 2008. Of course, if a certain someone who is currently a Republican candidate for President decides to mount a third-party bid (*cough Ron Paul *cough) then the prospect of a Republican keeping the White House for a third consecutive term get even dicier than they are now.
What is RSS?
