The Occasional Observer

3 comments:

SheaHeyKid said...

I'd like to see some combination of those three as prez + VP candidate. I haven't watched the debates much, but I agree with your comments about libertarians. It's good to have their voices in the race to continually push for small 'c' conservativism, especially fiscally. In most cases given government inefficiency less is more, especially at the federal level. That's why I was glad to see that Romney was the first (and only?) GOP candidate to sign Norquist's tax pledge, and also to specify how he would hold the line on discretionary non-defense spending.

10/22/2007 12:07 PM

Fredo said...

SHK,

Huckabee, Hunter, Paul, and Tancredo have also signed the pledge. Fred, Rudy, McCain and all the Dems have not.

10/22/2007 12:47 PM

Fredo said...

Mitt has, until recently, remained my number one choice, b/c of all the realistic possibilities to win the nomination (sorry MB, I've got to leave Hunter out), he seems the most likely to unite the FiCon and SoCon wings of the GOP and avoid a 3rd party candidate.

By contrast, Rudy alientates SoCons and could lead to a disastrous 3rd party run from someone like Alan Keyes, or more dangerously, someone like Sam Nunn.

That said, there have been 6 debates at this point, and Rudy, Huckabee and McCain have clearly been the strongest performers.

The debates will be crucial for defeating Hillary. She will have endless resources to define herself via advertising, and the debates will be the best opportunity to expose her as shrill, ideological, and canned. We need a candidate who is articulate and capable, but also genuine and not a professional politician like Hillary. It is on this last point where Mitt has most disappointed me in the debates, as he appears very coached and trapped within his talking points. Huck, Rudy, and McCain are a true contrast, and speak their mind.

McCain has really rehabilitated himself in my mind by doing two things: (1) admitting that he "got the message," and supports sealing the borders before getting around to any kind of work visa amnesty program; and (2) showing real consistency and courage in his call for victory in Iraq (and his earlier criticism of the Rumsfeld "light footprint" approach). Because McCain has credibility in the eyes of independents and moderates, he also polls the best against Hillary, as the most recent FN/Dynamics poll showed. And unlike Rudy, he has a 20+ year track record of voting pro life.

Huckabee is an intersting case. He has consistently shown himself the most effective communicator of the entire group. He's won most of the debates, and constantly wins over the crowd when he gives speeches. This past weekend's values voters straw poll was a case in point. After all the GOP candidates spoke, Huckabee took over 50% of the votes from those in the room. Meanwhile Mitt won the straw poll on the back of a smaller plurality voting for him in the online voting.

Huckabee has no resources. Could he compete with Hillary in the general? It's questionable. But Huck would solidify the GOP in the south and the upper midwest, and his blue collar outlook will play well in swing regions like MI, OH, and western PA. Huck will not be able to compete in CA, NY, and New England, so his cap would be Bush's cap on EC votes, but that's enough to win.

Huckabee is the kind of guy who could lose in a landslide. Clinton could paint him as a religious extremist and hammer him as a redneck hick. Let's not forget, the Clinton's don't play nice and their warchest is bursting at the seams.

But then again, Huckabee could prove to be a revolutionary force at the national political level. He's shown me that kind of natural ability. He could totally refashion the GOP brand, and turn the party into an economically moderate, socially conservative populist party that could remake the political map.

I guess the way I look at it right now to boil it down:

-McCain is the conventional play who I'd be comfortable with.

-Mitt's an acceptable candidate ho has resources, but is not inspiring me right now.

-Huckabee is an against-all-odds underdog story who is proving himself the most capable campaigner by a mile, and with an idelogical outlook that matches my own to a tee. He could also refashion the GOP brand in a way that would help the party long- term. Huck meets the baseline requirement of viability b/c he's in second place in the most recent IA polls and withing shooting distance of Mitt. If you can win IA, you're viable.

-Rudy is an extremely effective campaigner, a typical FiCon Republican, and a guy I'd vote for in the general. I can't support him in the primary b/c his views on life are unacceptable.

-Fred is a good guy, but a horrible candidate.

-Hunter/Paul/Tancredo are not viable, but Hunter has an outside chance of winding up as someone's Veep (which I'd love).

My current top 3:

1. Huckabee
2. McCain
3. Romney

10/22/2007 1:12 PM