So Why's Huck An Early '12 Frontrunner?

It's very early to assume that Obama wins, but if he does, expect the GOP to engage in a circular firing squad.  Who's the frontrunner? 

The betting money is on Mitt Romney for his governing experience, talented pool of political operatives, facility with the economy and his, well, money.

But this column thinks that Mike Huckabee has an equally plausible shot. He'd be the most formidable opponent for Obama, other than Gen.Petraeus -- perhaps Obama will neutralize the Petraeus threat by making him head of the joint chiefs and befriending him as much as possible.

Anyway, Huckabee seems most like the friendly, forward-looking face of conservatism, especially if Obama, in office, makes a point about not being nasty toward his opponents.  Huckabee's gifts are closer to Obama's. And most importantly, Huckabee has fewer ties to the GOP establishment than Romney -- the same autophagic establishment that's getting the blame for eight years of messiness.

Now -- Huckabee's biggest challenge comes not from Gov. Romney at the outset. His populist economic policies will be challenged by the Pence/Shadegg axis of the party, although I wouldn't be surprised if the two reconcile, and Huckabee moves to the center-right on government, positioning himself squarely in the Douthatian/Salamian pro-family economic/moral suasion wing of the party that currently resides, I'm happy to say, on the 7th floor of the Watergate 600 building.

Note that Huckabee, like Pence, Shadegg and Huckabee's enemy, the Club for Growth, opposed the bailout bill. (Will the '08 bailout bill be for Republicans what the '02 AUF resolution was for Democrats in 2004 and 2008?)

Huckabee's second biggest challenge is raising money, but the rules are different now, and he may find sources of untapped activism and cash.

And what about Newt Gingrich? He wants it, clearly, and is already planting some seeds in Iowa and New Hampshire. Though he is deeply polarizing within the country and within his party, he'll be instantly credible as a candidate because of his stature and his financial backing, and you can't say the guy lacks ideas.

Comments

Sarah Palin will be the '12 nominee for the GOP.

Posted by Ron E. | October 2, 2008 9:38 AM

i would LOVE to see the GOP run Gingrich. the sheer volume of slime that would be revealed from his past would pile up so fast you couldn't keep up with it all. plus he has the personal charm of a pile of rocks.

PLEASE OH PLEASE let him run against Obama in 2012!

Palin in 2012? only if she doesn't embarrass herself further in the next 5 weeks. how's she been doing so far?

Posted by rob! | October 2, 2008 9:39 AM

Dear God, please stop this crap speculation about four years from now. It's pointless, silly, and points out one of the major problems with journalism: you can't tell the difference between this and talking about who's going to win the Heisman Trophy next year the minute after they award the current year's.

Stop, stop, stop. In the name of all that is holy, unholy, or merely good, STOP!

Posted by KevDog | October 2, 2008 9:46 AM

I hope Palin tries to run in the '12 primary. She will be devoured and spit out by the same people now defending her, and it will be beautiful. You think Mitt Romney would be able to hold his contempt in check during a debate with Palin? Or GINGRICH for that matter? With all of these respectable conservative men defending her, she has been able to maintain support and (some) respect. But once the firing squad trains their sights on her, it'll get really messy, really fast. Conservatives don't tend to do gender sensitivity very well, and so I expect there to be many gaffes and very public party infighting along the way to an eventual (and I agree with Marc) Huckabee nomination.

Posted by Craig | October 2, 2008 9:48 AM

Gen. Patraeus? Sounds like conservative wishful thinking to me. Do you even have any evidence he's a Republican, much less interested in political office?

That said, the rest of the article is sound. Although anything can happen in four years; who would have thought in 2004 that Barack Obama would be the Democratic nominee for president in 2008?

Posted by Darius | October 2, 2008 9:49 AM

On advantage Mitt will have in 2012 he will likely have in 2012 are the North Eastern states he hand over to McCain this time will be his for the taking meanwhile Huckabee will have fight Thurne, Pawntely in Iowa, and Perry, Sandford, Crist, and Jindal in the south.

Posted by Paul8148 | October 2, 2008 9:57 AM

With any luck - and at the rate people are abandoning them - there won't be a Republican party by 2012. Republicans have done enough to wreck our country, let's just wash our hands of the whole lying, ignorant, selfish crew and move on.

Posted by balthus | October 2, 2008 10:14 AM

I agree with KevDog; speculating 2012 is silly. But what isn't silly is examining the the GOP fractures. Here's my take, and I claim no expertise:

the Palin/Huckabee evangelicals - the world is coming to an end, and they aim to be on the saving grace of things;

the Romney capitalists - with stocks down and money to invest these guys will recover and be rolling in dough by the next election, likely heavily invested in green tech via the pickens plan and its ilk;

the Ron Paul constitutionalists, a growing movement that will pick up dissatisfied converts from the credit crisis, and the media really missed out talking about the schism in the democratic party while there were two conventions in MN this summer;

Gingrich Good 'Ol Boys - the last gasp of Reagan Republicans, hoping there's enough viagra to get through one more round of tax cuts and trophy wives and trickle down. Their numbers, unfortunately, are dwindle by ongoing Abramoff investigations.

Posted by zic | October 2, 2008 10:15 AM

"It's very early to assume that Obama wins, but if he doesn't, expect the GOP to engage in a circular firing squad. Who's the frontrunner?"

If Obama DOESN'T win, wouldn't that make McCain the frontrunner in 2012?

Posted by Kurt | October 2, 2008 10:25 AM

The problem with Huckabee is that he had no appeal outside of Evangelicals. I don't see any evidence he can break that mold. His appeal within Evangelicals was maybe 10-20% more than Mitts, but he will probably have Palin arguing for that spot, thus splitting his vote.

I see Hucks chances as very limiting, and becoming a commentator n Fox didn't not help alleviate the fact that so many voters did not take him serious.

Posted by Jason | October 2, 2008 10:27 AM

So much of this is going to be determined by rules that don't even exist yet. If you reverse the states that were winner-take-all in the primaries and the ones that were proportional, the nominee might well have been different this year.

My guess is that anyone associated with the party this year is going to be tarred. The next nominee is likely to be someone fairly unknown right now.

Posted by Curtis | October 2, 2008 10:36 AM

I agree with Jason. Huck is limited to the Evangelicals.

I think if you saw someone running on a large portion of Ron Paul's dissatisfaction with how the economy has been managed - and the anti-business sentiment that is anticipated to come out any Obama administration - they would do very well.

Wishful thinking perhaps - but somebody who actually took stands on getting us out of Iraq and out further entanglements, while cutting spending - AND AT LEAST ADDRESSING ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMs - would do well amongst conservatives and subsections of Obama supporters.

Remember when people addressed entitlement programs during elections? kind of quaint isnt it...

Posted by curt | October 2, 2008 10:41 AM

Gen. Patraeus? Sounds like conservative wishful thinking to me. Do you even have any evidence he's a Republican, much less interested in political office?

If he wasn't a Republican, why is he appearing on Hugh Hewitt's radio show? I don't know if he is interested in political office, but the fundies would throw McCain overboard in a second for him.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | October 2, 2008 10:45 AM

curt:
Would that include reducing military spending? You do realize that defense spending makes up the biggest part of the federal budget by far, right?

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | October 2, 2008 10:47 AM

For the love of all that is good in this world, are you telling me that elections are now starting before the last one even finishes?

Are we, as a society, incapable of electing a President with less than 48 months?

Posted by Eric | October 2, 2008 10:49 AM

The Republican Party was sunk by evangelical dead-enders. The last nail in the coffin (for the time being) will be the McCain candidacy, which sold out to evangelical dead-enders by picking as VP a fundamentalist evangelical. And the solution to this - the forward-looking choice - is another fundamentalist evangelical? Really?!

Posted by nobi yuno | October 2, 2008 10:54 AM

The argument can be made that Huckabee would have been a better option as VP than Palin for McCain. If all the McCain camp wanted to do was to energize the base, I'm sure Huckabee's socially conservative values and aww shucks persona would have done just that and without all of the baggage and question marks that Palin seems to have brought with her. Although, I'm not sure what Independents would have thought of him. They certainly don't seem to be taking a liking to Palin to any degree anymore.

Posted by BLeigh82 | October 2, 2008 10:56 AM

I'd like to make a prediction for the 2032 race: my Republican neighbor's 14-year-old son. I just have this feeling!

Posted by carrie | October 2, 2008 11:04 AM

Jeb Bush.

Posted by Ben | October 2, 2008 11:07 AM

Perhaps the speculation with 2012 has a lot to do with the dissatisfaction of the choices this year.

I think a lot of people are viewing 2008 as a choice between two evils with no real hope that either one of them has the capacity to right the listing ship that is America. So, their hope has shifted forward to the next contest.

My money for the GOP in '12 is on Romney. I agree that Huck's appeal is limited and many who voted for him in the '08 primary wouldn't do so again. He simply has lost respect and his folksy image has grown a bit tiring. His political comedy routine on Fox's HUCKABEE tv show will further erode any chances he has of being viewed as a serious candidate.

On the other hand, Romney has exuded class in defeat and his stock is growing. Over and over, I have read people saying they didn't support him in the primary but have come to respect him since his withdrawal. His intellect and economic prowess are more appreciated than ever.

The sentiment among McCain and many of his supporters in the primary was that Romney hadn't "paid his dues" with the party and there was some legitimacy in that assertion. Romney needed to be a good, loyal Republican first before the party returned that loyalty. He is now paying his dues in spades both with his PAC and constant appearances on TV and at fundraisers attempting to get McCain and other Republicans elected.

Romney is making the right moves for 2012 while Huckabee hired a Hollywood talent scout to get him a TV show. I can't imagine that Huck's strategy will prevail.

Posted by Ci2Eye | October 2, 2008 11:14 AM

I'm an independent who is voting for Obama this time around (McCain-Palin strikes me as an utterly morally bankrupt choice for 2008) but if Gingrich was running I'd probably be voting for him, and will look for him in 2012. I used to detest the man, but he seems far sager and more mainstream than he used to be. Huckabee is entertaining but a bit retrograde, and Romney is...are you f$&*#$&( kidding me? Ugh!

Posted by Hottie McSnotty | October 2, 2008 11:17 AM

Darius pretty well nailed it. This far in advance, looking at 2012 is an exercise in science fiction future history. Too many events will come along to change the situation. Too many new names will surface as well. Why bother . . . unless you are simply bored with the world today, and find time hanging heavy on your hands.

Posted by wj | October 2, 2008 11:17 AM

Caveats about there still being a month left aside, think about how accurate predictions about the Democrats at this point in '04 would have been.

No buzz for Jindal? He impressed the heck out of me during Gustav. As a center-left voter, he's the only one I might be interested in.

Posted by John M. | October 2, 2008 11:19 AM

It's hard to predict what will happen in 4 years, but Huckabee seems like a strong choice. I think he can broaden his appeal beyond the evangelicals. Palin struck a nerve with people because she seems like a regular person. Huckabee appeals to people for the same reason, but has the added advantage of being able to hold his own in debates and interviews. I think the "Fair Tax" is an impractical idea, but it appeals to a lot of people.

Romney will still be a terrible candidate. He's just not likeable.

Posted by Pronk | October 2, 2008 11:29 AM

Huckabee is a likeable evangelist. Some of his views may be batshit crazy, but he is able to present them in a way that somehow doesn't seem so bad. He reminds me of Obama in that he doesn't seek to demonize the other side. He was by far my favorite GOP candidate, and I'm a secular East Coast jew. He reminds me of Obama in that.

As far as 2012 if Obama wins...I know one thing for certain, it won't be Palin. Her brand is damaged for good, especially if McCain loses bad. My guess is Romney will be a plausible candidate, but most likely it'll be someone completely left(right)-field. Like a latino governor or an evangelical congressman. It'll be a hail mary.

Posted by PhillyGuy | October 2, 2008 11:29 AM

The problem for both Huckabee and Romney is that they will both have been out of office for 6 years by 2012. Now, Reagan managed that, but are either of these guys a new Reagan? I guess time will tell.

Of the two, however, I see Huckabee as having a stronger base. So I'd agree that if it's a battle of the '08 runners-up, Huck probably is favored.

Obviously if Petraeus enters the Republican race that would make things pretty wild.

As for Jindal -- he has to win reelection 2011 first, but I suspect he will only run if Obama looks beatable. Otherwise, he'll probably wait it out till 2016. (Although the GOP is kinder to their presidential losers than the Dems -- if Jindal runs in 2012 against a popular Obama and makes it competitive, then he might gain chits for a 2016 renomination.)

Posted by Andrew | October 2, 2008 11:35 AM

Strange as it may sound, I actually think Bobby Jindal might throw himself into the race. Given the success of the Obama campaign, and the complete self-destruction of the Republican Party, it's possible that we'll see younger, more culturally diverse GOP candidates emerge in Congressional and national elections. Sarah Palin wants to represent the fresh new face for the Republicans, but she's done enough damage to herself in the past month that I highly doubt she'll have a chance in 2012. Jindal, while still very conservative on pretty much all social and economic issues, has some troubles of his own -- namely his former participation in excorcisms. But if the state of Louisiana begins to recover more effectively from Katrina and other tropical storms, I would not be surprised to see Jindal become a real competitor against Romney.

Posted by Evan | October 2, 2008 11:36 AM

looks like a rematch of the change/experience Democratic race where Huckabee = Obama and Gingrich = HRC

Huckabee is an inspiring orator and Gingrich is a polarizing, but effective, DC operator

Posted by DS | October 2, 2008 11:40 AM

hmmm, how about a Huckabee-Jindal ticket? Or more generally, Jindal as VP in 2012 as a stepping stone to a later run for President?

Jindal seems to be well-liked by all the elite members of the party, but a non-white might still be a tough sell in the Republican primary, particularly one who isn't known at all on the national stage.
As VP candidate, Jindal would get a chance to establish himself on the national stage. Sort of like the chance that Palin is currently blowing. Win or lose, if he polled well during the race, he'd be a frontrunner for '16 or '20.

Yes, I just speculated about who will be running for President in 12 years (against Chelsea Clinton).

Posted by Pronk | October 2, 2008 11:44 AM

What about Fred Thompson?

Posted by GL | October 2, 2008 11:44 AM

I doubt Governor Romney will be a serious contender in 2012. His support of the bailout will definitely hurt his economic image.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080926/NEWS15/809260379

Posted by Mrs. P | October 2, 2008 12:11 PM

If Obama wins, there will be a widespread swelling of support for a conservative candidate with economic credentials and business sense which would favor Romney.

If however, the country is longing for a Fox news commentator who likes taxes and big government and has wacky economic ideas (anyone remember the Florida Superhighway solution?) then Huckabee will top the list.

Posted by Alvinels | October 2, 2008 12:19 PM

Huckabee will never make it... he's too folksy, like Bill Clinton's bubba side but on steroids.

Four years from now (assuming an Obama win), I don't think any of the current crop will make it, and certainly not Palin. The GOP will see some serious realignment once this presidential race shakes out... look for someone who keeps the emphasis off social issues (as McCain does) but who brings a more populist-libertarian hybrid style economically and who's a cultural moderate.

Posted by R. Justin | October 2, 2008 12:34 PM

I agree with Craig that there will be rich irony in seeing the conservatives who are sucking it up and pretending that Palin is competent tear her apart in 2012.

As for Huckabee, I don't see it. He'll have been out of office for many years and, in fact, will have launched a new career as a FoxNews pundit. That's not exactly a springboard to the presidency.

Posted by Howard NY | October 2, 2008 12:49 PM

Huckabee has no future on the elected national stage. He's just a regional, cultural play. If Obama wins in 2008, surely Huckabee runs in 2012, but his candidacy was a gimmick and the law of diminishing returns that saw the far more vialbe H. Ross Perot plummet in 1996 after his wild success as a third party in 1992 will be teaching ole Huck a lesson. If Obama wins, 2012 will be all about Romney as he'll be the face of the out of power Republican party, rebuilding it as he's done so well so many other times, articulating like an ace and playing the perfect foil to Obama on tv for 4 years.

However, if McCain wins then the party's screwed and he's the nominee in 2012. Why everyone seems to think he only wants one term is baffling. One, I've only heard that speculated. Two, there's not an ounce of the man that would lead me to believe he would only want one term when the time for reelection comes up. He'll be like any other president and want two terms. He'd love to be older than President Reagan in office, damn it. Hell John McCain would rather die in his second term at 77 than to only serve one term and live until he's 95. Not saying that's bad, but it's just who he is and stating the facts.

And I feel so badly for Palin. None of this is her fault. Her lousy selection is a reflection on McCain's stupid decision making, not her viability or future potential, each which is being damaged by her premature elevation to the national stage. She has to get back to Katie Couric on what regulatory reforms John McCain has efforted for? You gotta be kidding me.

You guys, what will we miss if there's no President McCain? McCain-Feingold; McCain-Kennedy; McCain-Lieberman. In other words, if there's no Pres McCain we will miss an agenda that is Democrat-minus-one. No thanks. I'd rather have the genuine democrat doing democrat things than a Democrat Lite McCain doing longer term damage to our party by obligating, forcing all our congressinoal guys to be phony and advocate for McCain's nonconservative agenda. Let's use this mess of 2008 (our nomination fell into the idle lap of Senator McCain b/c of the crowded field, a broken brand, open primaries and religious bigotry; we made government its largest; added pointless bureaucracy and new entitlements when entitlement reform and bureaucratic streamlining were needed most; ripped up property rights and gave terrorists constitutional rights by placing 7 of the 9 justices on the Supreme Court; etc.)...let's use this trainwreck of Election 2008 as the wash that it is. Take a knee, fall on our sword, hit rock bottom, emerge leaner, stronger, faster, smarter, better for 2010, 2012. Mark Twain couldn't fictionalize a better character to oversee our re-emergence than Mitt Romney and I'm willing to wait 4 more years for him rather than settle for McCain, who by the way wrote much of that bad legislation that Bush failed to veto, making him much more GOPlike than Mitt, who, as the only non-career politician was the only true, viable outsider in 2008.

Posted by Richard Mave | October 2, 2008 12:52 PM

As an Obama supporter who lived in New Orleans this past summer, I have to say Jindal ought to be the future of the GOP, and assuming he keeps doing what he's doing, he'll be a formidable challenger in 2012.

-He's a very strong social conservative, with a conversion narrative the Christian Right will love;
-But also a Rhodes scholar, which will neutralize some of the elite media skepticism that has ultimately crushed Palin's credibility;
-And a Catholic, a crucial swing demographic the GOP has never put on a national ticket before;
-And a person of color, which will rebrand the GOP as a 21st century party and help deflate some of Obama's advantage (not with blacks, but with whites who want to vote away their racial guilt);
-He'll draw on fundraising from the wealthy Indian-American community
-He'll be 41 years old, and in many ways more accomplished than Obama was at 47; he'll bring freshness and energy and excitement, and he'll play great on TV
-His handling of Hurricane Gustav was not only professional and effective, it showed up his Democratic predecessor and demonstrated he knows how to evacuate millions of people in a fast-moving crisis; he could reasonably argue that this prepared him for a major terrorist attack
-He's passed impressive ethics reforms in one of the most corrupt states in the country, attracting new business as a result
-He has four years to beef up on foreign policy; and like Obama, his exotic, Third World ancestry will reassure foreign policy elites that he's not provincial.
-His state economy relies heavily on offshore oil drilling, which will excite his base; at the same time, he has experience governing a much more populous, diverse, and urbanized state than Palin's Alaska.

I'm a Democrat and a social liberal, so I won't be voting for him. But I think he's the best candidate in the GOP right now, and teamed with Huckabee, could represent a new generation of leadership.

Posted by David | October 2, 2008 1:13 PM

I'd add that Mitt Romney is never going to be the GOP nominee, for the following reasons:

-He made his fortune laying people off, which makes him a terrible choice for a party whose future may lie in middle-class populism.
-He is a Mormon, which makes him a terrible choice for a party that can count on the Mormon vote and depends on Evangelicals and devout Catholics, both of whom seem to openly despise Mormons.
-His political record is too liberal; moreover, he gets around that record by flip-flopping that is blatant to the point of comical.

I've no doubt he'll run again, and win a few state primaries (essentially New England, Michigan, and the mountain west). But he'll never get the nomination, and no one would ever pick him as a running mate. He's anathema to everyone who isn't either a Mormon, a New England conservative, or a Wall Streeter.

Posted by David | October 2, 2008 1:19 PM

Huckabee ... Romney.. Gingrich ... All incredibly weak candidates.

The party will get crushed with any of them. And that's even if Obama is as bad as Bush times three.

Jindal might have a shot. And perhaps Palin could rehabilitate herself. (We'll see tonight.)

McCain is the only real electable contender the GOP has at this point in time and he's not doing a particularly good job of electing himself.

Posted by noho1 | October 2, 2008 1:25 PM

This all seems rather pointless as very few would have predicted Barack Obama, John McCain, John Kerry, or George W. Bush becoming nominees four years out.

Posted by Jayhawk Max | October 2, 2008 1:30 PM

Count me in for Jindal as being a strong candidate in 2012. I think Obama caught a lucky break when McCain passed over Jindal to go for Palin. He would have excited the base almost as much and assuming the timing of the pick was the same, he would have been front and center during the hurricane emergency in first few days of his nomination. He would have returned to the Republican convention as a hero. Of course, it goes without saying he would not have been the liability Palin has been in front of the press.

The danger of Jindal is that he is fundamentalist Christian--of the Catholic kind, maybe, but there isn't really that much difference. While Catholics in general are a little more in line with some Democratic issues -- like opposing the death penalty -- fundamentalists like Jindal have no problem minimizing those issues and focusing solely on things social issues like abortion, gay marriage, and birth control -- i.e. fully inline with the extreme right-wing of the Republican party.

The advantage for Jindal in 2012 could be that a McCain loss in 2008 will be blamed on McCain not being conservative (enough even though someone even more conservative would have lost more heavily!) and Republican base will be looking for someone on the right of their party.

Picking Palin as the VP nominee may taint the fundamentalist brand somewhat, but I suspect that her patent inexperience and unreadiness will shield it from too much harm. It may take a least one more cycle of hard right-wing losses to bring the Republican party back more in tune with the rest of the country.

I don't think Jindal's race will be an issue. I think right-wingers will have a similar cognitive dissonance with Jindal as they do with Palin. Much of Palin's life story runs directly counter to their idealized view of how women should be--homemakers, submissive, etc. yet they are immensely proud of the fact that they have a woman -- a Republican woman -- running for the White House. The same will go for Jindal. While more many right-wing Republicans are leery of brown people in general, they will be extremely proud that he is *their* brown person -- a Republican die-hard. Race will not be an issue for Jindal.

Posted by tacitus | October 2, 2008 1:49 PM

David's wrong on several points.

1) Venture Capital / Crisis Management does not = firing people. Venture capital provides seed capital, money investment and consumer banks are unwilling to lend, to entrepreneurs. That is, small business, which accounts for 70% of all business in America. In Romney's record there were small companies and large, and some that started small and grew very large. That is it goes from no company, to supporting a company that is small (or struggling in the crisis management side of things) and seeing it grow from there, employing more and more people. Of course there are times where to save a company that employs 10,000 people, as an example, you have to fire 2,000 of them. That's better than not taking action and watching all 10,000 go under, surely you agree.

2) Hate to break down the impact of religious bigotry, which sadly was a player this time and a damaging one for Romney, but the results were Romney got more evagelical votes than even did Mr. Baptist Huckabee. So if that's any guage then the hatred of mormons is only fairly said to lie in about 40% of evangelicals, at the very most since it cannot be fairly concluded that all who voted for The Huckster did so out of contempt for mormons. The assertion there is some similar divide between Mormons and Catholics is unfounded and laughable. Mormons and evangelicals are geographically competing for members, which is the crux of the rivalry between the two. However, despite all the efforts of radical evangelicals who did love Huckabee, there are constant efforts between the two churches to unite and form better relations.

3)Mitt hasn't got a liberal record nor his he a flip-flopper. The bases of Romney being liberal and flip-flopper are his change in political stance on abortion. As a Governor who has no weight on the matter, he had no position, which is to say he wasn't part of the crusade to overturn Roe v. Wade. When theory came to reality and the stem cell bill hit his desk, he sided on the side of life and wrote of his reasoning in the Boston Globe to explain why. The title of flip-flopper truly only belongs to Kerry since it means you go from A to B and back to A again. Having a mere change of opinion isn't incriminating, especially on Life when the whole point of that debate is to win converts. Afterall GHW Bush and Reagan each were both not pro-Life at first, and hell Reagan was once a Democrat....using your logic he wouldn't have been a viable nominee since he "flip-flopped" parties.

Posted by brock | October 2, 2008 1:50 PM

Huckabee? That Phoney? Might as well re-elect Obama if the GOP is stupid enough to elect a RINO libtard like Huckleberry.

Posted by Bill Beahan | October 2, 2008 1:54 PM

I should add that if Jindal does decide to run, then Huckabee and Romney will have no chance since Jindal will siphon off the majority of the evangelical vote.

Romney's only hope in that case is that the country is still in a deep recession and that practical issues of keeping your head above water trumps ideological social issues.

And spare a thought to Jeb Bush who was a very popular governor in Florida. He was in prime position for a run at the White House this time or even in 2012, but with his brother cratering like no other president before him on his way out, it will be tough for the country to entrust their leadership to another Bush. With two failed presidencies behind them, I don't see how another Bush can win no matter how much more competent he may be.

Posted by tacitus | October 2, 2008 1:59 PM

I would LOVE to see Huckabee run in 2012. I think he is the most gifted and intelligent guy on the GOP side. Like Obama, he is gifted in relating to people - but UNLIKE Obama, he actually has the experience to back up his relatability.

Posted by Robert | October 2, 2008 2:02 PM

Here Here Richard Mave! lol...i like the name btw...get it Richard Mave--Rick Mave--Mave, Rick--Maverick. I only picked it up when i went to your site though...be the maverick... Rick Mave, doing in John McCain from inside his own party, being the maverick to john mccain....love every word of it and couldn't agree more. Well done.

And brock, you spared me from correcting David on all 3 of those points. But I will hve to add that McCain has flip-flopped like a mother in this election. And someone's saying he's a viable candidate with the best chance of winning? LMAO...yeah right bro. Hey, the guy won the nomination basically by being the one candidate who didn't get hit by a ricocheting bullet. and yeah he sucks. Palin pick = stunt. Suspension of campaign to save the bailout bill = stunt + debate duck. He's an utter embarassment and there's no way I want him at the helm of the Republican party, much less the nation. He's done plenty of damage playing the moderate senate role writing all that bad legislation Bush couldn't figure out how to veto. He hasn't earned and doesn't deserve my vote.

Posted by SD | October 2, 2008 2:03 PM

get this man a Life Alert !

Posted by Harry H | October 2, 2008 2:08 PM

Huckabee stood out from among the other So-Con's because he was sincerely religious, talented, and FAIRTAX! This plan still has no academic opposition, but only "it will never get passed". Not good enough. Let's see how hot this single issue is in 2012. It will make or break Huckabee. (I hope it makes him).

Posted by Vanno | October 2, 2008 2:09 PM

Why speculate about 2012? If Obama wins, there will NOT be a 2012 election and all you KoolAid drinkers know it.
Start kissing America goodbye effective 5 Nov 08 should Obama win.

Posted by bob | October 2, 2008 2:14 PM

What difference does it make? Obama will play ball with Wall Street just like he played ball in Chicago. McCain and Obama both voted for the Wall Street bailout that no one yet has said will work. We only get a great president once or twice in a lifetime otherwise the puppets are just riding cultural or economic waves.

Jindal or Palin would be the best bet. Huckabee is OK. A populist conservative (Reagan) always has the best chance to win. Rino's like Bush or McCain provide bad governance anyway so who cares if they get elected. After Obama runs the country into the ground by being liberal maybe the GOP can purge enough Rino's to be conservative again.

BTW good luck liberals running this turd of a government and slipping economy. If it wasn't for Russia screwing with Obama, I'd have zero problem with a Dem. taking the fall for this one. I just hope you purge the Wall Street dems like Frank, Dodd, Clinton or you'll be bought just like our Rinos. I'm praying for you. I really am.

Posted by newagegop | October 2, 2008 2:15 PM

I don't want to turn this thread into yet another Fair Tax argument, but to say "This plan still has no academic opposition" is patently silly. One quick scan through the Wikipedia article will give you all sorts of links to academic reviews of the Fair Tax that make claims that it will not work at the proposed 23%/30% rate.

And it's no use dismissing the "it will never pass anyway" argument either. How *do* you pass a sweeping reform of the tax system when just about all interested parties are lined up against it? Selling a 30% sales tax on top of a state+local sales tax that can top 10% in places will be difficult enough.

Bottom line, Huckabee will get nowhere with his campaign if he stakes it on the Fair Tax proposal.

Posted by tacitus | October 2, 2008 2:24 PM

Why speculate about 2012? If Obama wins, there will NOT be a 2012 election and all you KoolAid drinkers know it. Start kissing America goodbye effective 5 Nov 08 should Obama win.

LOL. You must have gotten your tin-foil hat from those Democrats who predicted the same when Bush got re-elected. Remember all those people who claimed they would leave the country? Still here.

(At least they had some place friendly to their political ideas to go to, with America being by far the most conservative democracy on the planet, there is nowhere nice for Republicans to go! They will just have to grin and bear it.)

Posted by tacitus | October 2, 2008 2:28 PM

I was once unfortunate to be represented in Congress by Mr. Gingrich. He's a man of ideas, all right. Some were indeed good but then if you dream up 50 ideas a minute you're bound to hit the mark every once in a while. There was a reason Mr. Gingrich and his cronies in Washington were known as Newtie and the Blowhards.

And anyone who is familiar with his truly creepy personal life can guess the bottomless depths of his vanity, narcissism and selfishness. He makes Bill Clinton look almost decent.

Posted by Mandy Cat | October 2, 2008 2:31 PM

This is like the 1976 election. While Bush has not had to actually resign like Nixon, the movement toward the Dems is about party not philosophy. The country is similarly torn apart with one party taking all the blame.

But, like Carter, Obama is a nice guy who is everything Bush is not - opening, thoughful etc. But just like Carter, he allows America to take the fall for every problem, which will kill national morale and he is also naieve and unable to be decisive. The nation will be ready to believe it itself again in 2012.

The question is, who is the Reagan lurking to pounce in 2012, the next 1980? I hope it's Palin, but she has to survive this round. Hmm, maybe Ford did everyone a favor by NOT putting Reagan on the ticket as VP in 76.

Posted by Vern | October 2, 2008 2:34 PM

I don't think that some of you are drinking kool aid. I believe you've gone straight to inhaling the powder.

Posted by GarandFan | October 2, 2008 2:45 PM

Huckabee wasn't nasty towards his rivals?

Mike Huckabee?

The one who ran for President this last year?

You sure we're talking about the same guy?

Not to claim any expertise in the matter, but I do live in Iowa, and I saw him work close up. He's a master at character assassination, but he's smart enough to delegate most of that to willing subordinates.

Don't get me wrong, I think he's likeable enough once you get to know him, but I'd NEVER vote for him on a national ticket. He's just not experienced enough in foreign policy matters, he's not smart enough to realize that he's not good in foreign policy matters, and he's bad on immigration.

Posted by Russ from Winterset | October 2, 2008 2:45 PM

Thanks SD! Glad you agree and you did out the namesake.

Now, looking past the known talentpool for '12 GOP prospects and the next-gen probables, it is really made up by just Romney and Huckabee for reruns (Fred didn't want it this time, and Rudy was a disaster and hey he's pro-choice) and Jindal as a potential, but probably at best as a bottom of the ticket name. Palin, if not VP (which if she is then all this is wrong anyway), is likely wounded and stuck as damaged goods b/c of how poorly she's performing on the national stage, which is in large part McCain's fault--though there is no excuse for not knowing McCain's regulatory causes. So looking past this cast, there is Eric Cantor of Virginia whose name got some very late and light pub this time. Probably more impressive than him, though, is Paul Ryan from Minnesota.

So if McCain goes down in 2008, and we hope he does for the sake of our party's tenets and future direction, potential, and longevity, I'd expect to see a 2012 field dominated by Romney as the establishment favorite trying to rescue the party from sams's-club-populism that liberal Republican Huckabee exploits, with names like Jindal in the mix while introducing rivals to Bobby in Paul Ryan and Eric Cantor, as the three leaders of the next generation republicans. Palin, we'll have to see her prove herself b/c she looks like a total lightweight compared to these three fellow newbies.

Posted by Richard Mave | October 2, 2008 2:46 PM

The GOP is about to spend 30 or 40 years in exile in the political wilderness.
Perhaps that will purify them.
Poor Palin is right now forcing a cleave in the GOP along the faultline of IQ.
Perhaps there will be three parties....the Democrats, the Republicans, and the Theocrats,,,,, by then.

I for one welcome Our New Liberal Alignment Overlords.

Posted by griefer | October 2, 2008 2:48 PM

Now griefer, I see you working. The conservatives in the pundit class pushing Palin as if she would be Reagan if she didn't have to conform to McCain's inadequate ways are absurd, I agree. They're just towing the party line, which is actually damaging to true party loyalty as I've written at my bethemaverick.blogspot.com blog, lol.

This isn't to say there isn't a large portion of actual voters who are excited by Palin. Nor that she hasn't got a future in the Party. But I'm willing to bet the Sarah fanfare (which we've already seen wane by the way) that some claim will pass as a novelty of the 2008 campaign, and will be analyzed by historians and pundits as a McCain mistake, or at least a gamble, even though her poor performance isn't entirely her fault. Anyway, I'm just saying that she'll have her hands full, at least, with Jindal, Ryan, Cantor.

Posted by Richard Mave | October 2, 2008 2:56 PM

Jeb Bush is the only person in America who goes to bed every night knowing that he can wake up the next morning and be President if he feels like it. If he ever decides to run, he will be unbeatable. Imagine if W were extremely smart and articulate. Impossible, you say? Feel free to Google Jeb and it will become much easier. The fact that he's a Bush is not a liability to the GOP base, on the contrary, as W's first election proved, most of them are closet monarchists. He has an unlimited financial pool due not only to his lineage but also the fact that he is perhaps the ultimate Friend of Business. He would happily drain the entire Everglades if an associate wanted to replace it with a gated community. He is deeply religious. His wife is Hispanic. And my friend who is a state representative in Florida, and who is slightly left of Engels on the ideological scale, has told me on several occasions that while she found his policies anathema, she loves him personally. Mark my words - he will be your President before his father dies, even if it means running in 2010. You think the GOP wouldn't figure out a way to make that happen? Ask Gray Davis.

Posted by djc | October 2, 2008 2:56 PM

Sarah is going to do well tonight. I just saw her exit the plane and she seem relaxed and ready to go. The more I think about it I think she struggled because she was trying to hard and she didnt have her family around her. Now she has her family and I think she has a score to settle tonight. I think shes going to be fantastic and McCain will win. If its Huckabee in 2012... I don't even want to think about that.

Posted by Nancy | October 2, 2008 2:58 PM

...her hands full with Jindal, Ryan, and Cantor, who each will be vying for the VP slot on Romney's ticket. Depending on what's going on in foreign affairs, we'll have to wait and see if Petraeus or some other military-background individual factors in.

Posted by Richard Mave | October 2, 2008 2:59 PM

If Palin even gets close to the Republican nomination in 2012 then I know for sure the Republican party is doomed. Fundamentalism is slowly on the wane in America -- the long term demographics are in favor of a much more secular nation in the future. While a majority of the Republican activist base may still be willing to vote for one of their own, the rest of the country will not be, and increasingly so.

Karl Rove caught the Democrats by surprise with Bush and his turnout machine. Obama will more than countered that problem this time around. The next Republican nominee to win the White House will look more like David Cameron (the leader of the British Conservative Party) than Palin or Jindal. The question is will that be in 2012 or 2032?

Posted by tacitus | October 2, 2008 3:03 PM

McCain surrendering Michigan already

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/1008/McCain_pulling_out_of_Michigan.html?showall

Boy oh boy I bet he's wishing he could've found it inside himself ot swallow his pride and pick Romney now. From trying to suggest Romney to oversee the financial bailout to sending him off on all the tv shows to make your case better than your VP Palinp can, to now this dark reality judging hard on you like this, McCain is paying the price of being petty & personal, a lesson he should've learned long, long ago.

Posted by Rick Mave | October 2, 2008 3:19 PM

Simply repeating it doesn't make it true, djc.

Posted by tacitus | October 2, 2008 3:21 PM

I read the fist several comments and tired odf them, and the last was consonant. The notable thing, and it's true on both ends of the political spectrum, is the ineptitude and unwillingness to even try to understand the reasoning and sentiment from within t6he constraints of a "foreign" perspective. But, that is what is required to begin to understand and appreciate another perspective. In philosophy, reasoning from the constraints of a different perspective is what is known as a "thought experiment." Undertaking such an effort is the minimum of grace and sympathy required to understand the logic of an alternative perspective. And the lack of it is a great deal of the explanation for the largely mocking and derisive nature of most of today's debate.

Let me say out front that I am a conservative, which will no doubt flag me to many as to some degree irrational or immoral. For the most part, I regard liberalism not as a signal of irrationality and immorality but as blinkered ignorance. And, I mean that in the most non-aggressive way. :-)

I supported Huckabee in the primaries and saw the scorn and misunderstanding of him as the misjudgment noy primarily of liberasls, but of conservatives. The Club for Growth ran a year-long campaign labeling Huckabee as a tax and spend liberal, and Romney and Thompson picked it up and repeated it for political advantage. But, Huckabee is more conservative fiscally than either f them. And, the Club for Growth's campaign was a mercenary payoff to some of their largest contributors, who had either a political or personal axe to grind. Huckabee said he found it an odd novel experience to be attacked as a liberal.

It's true that he advocated and practiced the engagement and concern for Main Street more than Wall Street. But, it's a caricature to assume that that is incompatible with conservatism. Paranoid conservatives flinched and reacted to the mere rhetoric.

I'm supporting McCain because, though he is often philosophically incoherent, I think his basic conservative sentiments are way stronger and more assertive than were Bush's, for whom I never voted. I do hope we are spared tha calamity to liberty and economic prosperity that Obama represents. But, I have hoped that Huckabee's FOX commentary might lead some conservatives to rethink their misjudgments about Huckabee. And, if he's never president, he will be fine personally, and a positive contributor to the American discussion for several years. Incidentally, I see no clarity of thought or public promise in Romney, whom I watched all year and sawe at my state Republican convention.

I like Sarah Palin, hope she performs well tonight, and rides into the vice-presidency to stick it in the ear of the presumptuous and provincial political establishment.

Posted by Larry Perrault | October 2, 2008 3:46 PM

GOP in 2012 will be Pawlenty vs. Romney. Jindal could dip his feet in the water if Obama is looking weak (and would be the most formidable if he can duck the exorcism issue), otherwise I agree that he will wait until 2016. Gingrich will be the GOP's John Edwards, or maybe its Dick Gephardt-with-Edwards-baggage.

Huckabee could have been the Republican's Howard Dean, but instead of selflessly remaking the party in his image, he went and snagged a TV show instead. Oh well, GOP's loss I guess. Not that I'm going to lose any sleep over it.

Palin will not run, and if she does, expect her to meet the same fate as Quayle '00 and we all remember how that turned out.

Posted by fifty four | October 2, 2008 4:13 PM

Bobby Jindal in 04, if McCain doesn't pull it out.

Posted by James | October 2, 2008 4:16 PM

Jindal in '04? Planning on investing in a time machine?

Posted by tacitus | October 2, 2008 5:03 PM

Mike Huckabee...The Dems have a whole book on him, waiting to use it at the right time. Think about his horrible comment he made at the NRA convention about Obama. However, none of that really matters. If Obama wins our Republic will end. Obama, the Communists will NEVER GIVE UP POWER. Some are so naive of what is going on as I type.

Posted by Max | October 2, 2008 5:03 PM

I'm sorry but this totally forgets all Huck's negatives. He is at his core a fatally corrupt politician. No one who pretended to renew wedding vows to get money and gifts for personal use will ever be a nominee of the Republican Party.

Plus, he is not conservative by any stretch of the imagination. Being right on social issues is just not conservative. Huck is wrong on sooooo much. If he was the nominee I vote Democrat. I would chance Obama before Huck. Huck is a power hungry nut with no moral conscience.

Posted by Metoo | October 2, 2008 5:07 PM

If Obama wins our Republic will end. Obama, the Communists will NEVER GIVE UP POWER. Some are so naive of what is going on as I type.

Hey -- tin foil hat award number two on this thread! It's amazing how many people don't even understand what communism is. Obama isn't even a very good socialist -- he supports free market economics and private ownership. Any real communist state would probably send him to the gulag for espousing such heresies.

All you are doing with such silly claims about Obama is making yourself look uneducated and out of touch.

Posted by tacitus | October 2, 2008 5:16 PM

Obama winning would make the 2012 election meaningless.

Obama would have already stacked the court for the next 40 years with far left liberals on the supreme court.

Obama winning with Pelosi and a filibuster proof reid will make every law in our nation a liberal law that will never be overturned.

Forget 2012, we now live in a one party nation.

Obama, reid, pelosi, media. The fix is in.

Posted by James | October 2, 2008 5:35 PM

Huck was down by 25 percent to Obama when Obama wasn't the incumbent.

Huck would lose by 40 percent.

If Obama wins we will have 8 years of Obama and 8 years of Clinton.

With Obama's affirmative action policies for illegals, no ICE raids for illegals, no border fence, the demographics of this country will be permanent for a democrat.

Obama will allow open borders and we will never again ever ever have a republican as president.

We now live in a one party nation. The media has flexed their muscles.

Posted by James | October 2, 2008 5:38 PM

I'm sorry such an idiot shares my name -

but how would Obama stack the Supreme Court for the next 40 years exactly, especially given the Bush appointments?

Will he have the current ones killed, as part of the one world order?

You fucking moron.

Posted by James | October 2, 2008 6:18 PM

Funny how bitter the Romney people still are.

Posted by Ben | October 9, 2008 6:46 PM

Mike Huckabee was right last winter when all the other Republicans were wrong. They all insisted the economy was in great shape, but he said it was not. They all wanted to give American families $400 from a $150 billion loan from China, but Huckabee said that the people would just buy Chinese products and make the Chinese richer. He wanted to use the money on infrastructure projects and create jobs. He was railing against excessive CEO salaries and bonuses when others were praising the excesses of free market capitalism. His campaign was destroyed by the media on the right who were afraid that he would stop the party, and by the media on the left who hate religion, at least the Christian religion. The Republicans destroyed their chances to keep the Presidency when they destroyed Huckabee. Now the whole country is going to pay for it.

Posted by DavidE7 | October 9, 2008 11:33 PM

I would actually vote for a Republican more often than not if they could find someone who didn't align themselves with groups who wish to cram religious beliefs down our throats.

Its okay if the candidate is deeply religious but can the GOP find the guts to tell the hardcore religious folks to back off?

Posted by Steve | October 10, 2008 10:44 AM

Mike Huckabee was governor of Arkansas for 10 years. Over all that time, there was not one instance in which his personal religious views ever intruded into his governance. If there had been, you can be sure it would have been trumpeted all over the place. True, he is beloved by the evangelicals, but he is also beloved by a lot of people who are not evangelicals, because he has realistic ideas about how to solve America's problems that have nothing to do with religion.

Posted by David Anderson | October 10, 2008 6:14 PM

i know that i will get blasted for this b/c of his personal life, but Newt is the best hope America has. I think if Obama wins and governs as he says he will, the country will be starved for conservatism as it was after Jimmy Carter, and Newt seems to truly have the country's best interests at heart. most other politicians have advancing their career at heart. He is a big supporter of Jindal too. As a matter of fact, i dare say that most of you who arent from LA or AK probably heard of Jindal and Palin from him. wooo hooo. conservatism is back Gingrich/ Jindal in 2012... NEWY for Prez

Posted by Ben | October 22, 2008 1:51 AM