In the aftermath of the caucuses I: Wherein the blogger comes clean
From what I read in the papers (and to a lesser extent in the comments), the Romney spin on Mike Huckabee's convincing victory yesterday here in Iowa is that, in former Congressman Vin Webber's words, "The evangelicals all came out- and they all voted for Huckabee."
No, they didn't. Some voted for Romney, too. Some voted for Thompson. Some voted for McCain. And some- heaven preserve us- voted for Ron Paul.
The bottom line here in Iowa is that, with all his gaffes and blunders, Iowa voters pretty much across the board liked and trusted Mike Huckabee more than they liked or trusted Mitt Romney, and by and large found his record and positions more acceptable as well.
There is another factor at work here, too. Local commentators said it over and over again last night, and I've heard national commentators say it, too: Iowans notoriously dislike negative ads. To a not-inconsiderable extent, they punished Mitt Romney yesterday for his profoundly negative campaign.
Now, at this point, I have a confession to make. For some weeks, I've been bothered not so much by Gov. Huckabee's actual positions on foreign policy issues, as by his seeming difficulty in dealing with matters such as the Bhutto assassination in regional and strategic terms, rather than simply discussing specific events in specific countries and then somehow bringing it all back to America and how lucky we are here not to have the kind of problems they have over there. On occasion his granulated, particularized and vaguely good-natured foreign policy seemed positively Carteresque. Foreign policy is not an area of great expertise for Gov. Huckabee. And his repeated campaign gaffes more than once made me think, "Hillary is going to have this guy for lunch." More than that, I was uncomfortable with Huck's grasp of security issues- and these were serious reservations for me (or anyone) to have about a candidate for the presidency in 2008.
All the while I was frustrated by Huckabee's refusal to respond decisively to Mitt Romney's negative and misleading ads. A basic rule in politics is that if you don't respond to the kind of charges Romney made in those ads, they will be believed. I've watched candidate after candidate who tried to keep to the high ground when his opponent took the low go down to defeat over the years.
When I finally received an email last week telling me that Huckabee had decided at the last moment not to run his one, belated negative ad against Mitt Romney (an ad which I'm told did run by mistake about ten times in certain specific parts of Iowa, btw, when word that the ad was being pulled didn't reach the stations in time), I was disgusted- the more so when I that I heard that Huckabee had actually showed the ad to the reporters at the press conference he'd called for the purpose of announcing that he was scrapping it- and quite understandably being laughed at for what came across as a bungled ploy as elegantly ineffective as naively cynical.
Last night I caucused for- and served as a spokesman at my precinct for- John McCain. After wandering all over the lot looking for a candidate whose positions and prospects both seemed to be acceptable across the board, my experience with Huckabee finally led me to realize that there is, in fact, only one candidate for the Republican nomination with the credentials to be president, and that's McCain. Certainly no other Republican candidate has his credentials in foreign policy or security matters, and he's frankly the only candidate whom Hillary couldn't plausibly claim was less experienced and qualified than she is.
And at the end of the day, there's simply no reasonable argument that can be made that McCain isn't the most electable of the GOP candidates. I disagree with the position that I understand that he and Mitt Romney share on use of even existing human embryos to be used for stem cell experiments (as opposed to creating them for that purpose, which both men oppose). Fortunately, though, the recent discovery that other adult cells can be used as effectively for the purposes envisioned for embryonic stem cell research and potential therapy goes a long way toward making the matter moot.
I am not altogether comfortable with his position on immigration (permit guest workers, with present illegals able to qualify only after going home to Mexico AND paying a fine). I'm glad, though, that he chooses not to pander to the wishful thinkers who believe that enforcement alone- and certainly not a fence the length of the Mexican border!- can ever, as a practical matter, solve the problem of illegal immigration.
I have always admired McCain's role in the "Gang of 14" masterstroke, in which- though conservatives as a whole still seem unable to see it- the Democrats were persuaded to forego filibusters against Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito in exchange for exactly nothing- except the retention of the fillibuster in case the Republicans, now in the minority in the Senate, ever need to use it. This the agreement accomplished without the huge political backlash which would have accompanied use of the "nuclear option" in an election year that was already going sour.
He's a pragmatist and an economic conservative who is pro-life, and will appoint that one additional justice we need to the Supreme Court. And I believe that he's the only one of the Republican candidates who can win this November.
Mike Huckabee is a good man. He's a very smart man. But I don't think he's ready for prime-time. I'd like to see him serve a term or two in the Senate, become a bit more accustomed to playing in the big leagues, develop some credentials especially in foreign policy and security matters, and run for president again. I think he'd make an excellent president; I just don't, upon reflection, think he's ready.
Which is not to say that he's not sitting pretty right now in the current campaign for the nomination, But that's another story.
Anyway, suffice it to say that the Huckabee widget on this blog didn't disappear by accident. I"ve been defending Huckabee and his position from the Romneyite hordes the past 48 hours or so as a closet McCain supporter.
But one more thing needs to be said. As it happens, when it comes to whether or not it was a smart move not to reply in kind to Mitt Romney's negative ads, Mike Huckabee knew my state better than I did. He was right, and I was wrong.
Pulling that negative ad was the right move. The proof is in the result last night.
No, they didn't. Some voted for Romney, too. Some voted for Thompson. Some voted for McCain. And some- heaven preserve us- voted for Ron Paul.
The bottom line here in Iowa is that, with all his gaffes and blunders, Iowa voters pretty much across the board liked and trusted Mike Huckabee more than they liked or trusted Mitt Romney, and by and large found his record and positions more acceptable as well.
There is another factor at work here, too. Local commentators said it over and over again last night, and I've heard national commentators say it, too: Iowans notoriously dislike negative ads. To a not-inconsiderable extent, they punished Mitt Romney yesterday for his profoundly negative campaign.
Now, at this point, I have a confession to make. For some weeks, I've been bothered not so much by Gov. Huckabee's actual positions on foreign policy issues, as by his seeming difficulty in dealing with matters such as the Bhutto assassination in regional and strategic terms, rather than simply discussing specific events in specific countries and then somehow bringing it all back to America and how lucky we are here not to have the kind of problems they have over there. On occasion his granulated, particularized and vaguely good-natured foreign policy seemed positively Carteresque. Foreign policy is not an area of great expertise for Gov. Huckabee. And his repeated campaign gaffes more than once made me think, "Hillary is going to have this guy for lunch." More than that, I was uncomfortable with Huck's grasp of security issues- and these were serious reservations for me (or anyone) to have about a candidate for the presidency in 2008.
All the while I was frustrated by Huckabee's refusal to respond decisively to Mitt Romney's negative and misleading ads. A basic rule in politics is that if you don't respond to the kind of charges Romney made in those ads, they will be believed. I've watched candidate after candidate who tried to keep to the high ground when his opponent took the low go down to defeat over the years.
When I finally received an email last week telling me that Huckabee had decided at the last moment not to run his one, belated negative ad against Mitt Romney (an ad which I'm told did run by mistake about ten times in certain specific parts of Iowa, btw, when word that the ad was being pulled didn't reach the stations in time), I was disgusted- the more so when I that I heard that Huckabee had actually showed the ad to the reporters at the press conference he'd called for the purpose of announcing that he was scrapping it- and quite understandably being laughed at for what came across as a bungled ploy as elegantly ineffective as naively cynical.
Last night I caucused for- and served as a spokesman at my precinct for- John McCain. After wandering all over the lot looking for a candidate whose positions and prospects both seemed to be acceptable across the board, my experience with Huckabee finally led me to realize that there is, in fact, only one candidate for the Republican nomination with the credentials to be president, and that's McCain. Certainly no other Republican candidate has his credentials in foreign policy or security matters, and he's frankly the only candidate whom Hillary couldn't plausibly claim was less experienced and qualified than she is.
And at the end of the day, there's simply no reasonable argument that can be made that McCain isn't the most electable of the GOP candidates. I disagree with the position that I understand that he and Mitt Romney share on use of even existing human embryos to be used for stem cell experiments (as opposed to creating them for that purpose, which both men oppose). Fortunately, though, the recent discovery that other adult cells can be used as effectively for the purposes envisioned for embryonic stem cell research and potential therapy goes a long way toward making the matter moot.
I am not altogether comfortable with his position on immigration (permit guest workers, with present illegals able to qualify only after going home to Mexico AND paying a fine). I'm glad, though, that he chooses not to pander to the wishful thinkers who believe that enforcement alone- and certainly not a fence the length of the Mexican border!- can ever, as a practical matter, solve the problem of illegal immigration.
I have always admired McCain's role in the "Gang of 14" masterstroke, in which- though conservatives as a whole still seem unable to see it- the Democrats were persuaded to forego filibusters against Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito in exchange for exactly nothing- except the retention of the fillibuster in case the Republicans, now in the minority in the Senate, ever need to use it. This the agreement accomplished without the huge political backlash which would have accompanied use of the "nuclear option" in an election year that was already going sour.
He's a pragmatist and an economic conservative who is pro-life, and will appoint that one additional justice we need to the Supreme Court. And I believe that he's the only one of the Republican candidates who can win this November.
Mike Huckabee is a good man. He's a very smart man. But I don't think he's ready for prime-time. I'd like to see him serve a term or two in the Senate, become a bit more accustomed to playing in the big leagues, develop some credentials especially in foreign policy and security matters, and run for president again. I think he'd make an excellent president; I just don't, upon reflection, think he's ready.
Which is not to say that he's not sitting pretty right now in the current campaign for the nomination, But that's another story.
Anyway, suffice it to say that the Huckabee widget on this blog didn't disappear by accident. I"ve been defending Huckabee and his position from the Romneyite hordes the past 48 hours or so as a closet McCain supporter.
But one more thing needs to be said. As it happens, when it comes to whether or not it was a smart move not to reply in kind to Mitt Romney's negative ads, Mike Huckabee knew my state better than I did. He was right, and I was wrong.
Pulling that negative ad was the right move. The proof is in the result last night.
Comments
Mr. Huckabee, a former Baptist minister, rode a crest of evangelical Christian support to victory on Thursday over his rival Mitt Romney, capping a remarkable ascent over the last two months from near the bottom of the Republican field. A poll of people entering the Republican caucuses on Thursday showed MORE than 8 in 10 of his supporters identified themselves as evangelicals.
The same surveys showed extraordinary turnout among evangelicals, who represented some 60 percent of Republican caucusgoers. In years past, Republican Party leaders in Iowa put evangelical turnout at about 40 percent [actually, this story reports that the 2000 evangelical turnout was 39%].
Mr. Romney’s advisers had been saying that if evangelical turnout rose to more than 50 percent, victory would be impossible for Mr. Romney, whose Mormon faith is regarded as heretical by many evangelicals.
According to Rich Lowry:
Here's one way to look at it: 60% of voters were evangelicals. Huck beat Romney among them 45-19%. 40% weren't evangelicals. Romney beat Huck among them 33-13%.
More than 8 out of 10 of his supporters identified themselves as evangelical...how can you not say that that had a huge part in deciding???
Anywayz, I want to commend you for getting off the Huckabee camp and moving onto McCain, I could if no other choice was left (except for Huckabee could never vote for that guy) vote for him, and i think that a lot of conservatives would have to choose either between him and Obama/Hillary would have to choose McCain (while plugging their nose) to prevent such a travesty, but it would be one of the hardest votes I have ever made.
The negative ads sure didn't help.
Is there a theme here?!?
First, a willingness to admit it when I make mistakes. And secondly, a recognition that you have to win for there to be any point.