Monday, February 04, 2008
Tonight they said that the "conventional wisdom" is that Huckabee is taking "conservative" votes away from Romney. I think what they are really saying is that social conservatives are tending to support Huckabee over Romney because they don't trust Romney on account of his seeming inconsistency. But Huckabee is not that conservative. Were he to really share the vote with someone of a truly similar political view, I'd say he'd be taking votes from McCain and not Romney. At least that's what SHOULD be happening.
So why is Huckabee really taking votes from Romney and not McCain?
What I think is happening is that Evangelicals are biasing against Romney, a Mormon. Evangelicals see Mormonism as an aberration of the Truth. And I think that that is the REAL reason why (though no one has had the nerve to say it) Romney - and not McCain - has been negatively affected by Huckabee's remaining in the race. And for Huckabee to remain in the race when there is no chance for him except to act as a spoiler to Romney is an attrocious behavior in my view, though I find Huckabee witty, amusing, clever but mostly incorrect on matters of fact and policy, particularly foreign policy, an absolutely vital necessity in this race.
When the dust clears, I think a huge political rift will open and deepen between conservatives from western states like Utah, Nevada, Idaho and Arizona and Evangelical Christians Republican activists. And this rift will play beautifully into the hands of Left leaning liberals in November. In the end, our brethren will stay home in November due to this bad behavior.
Here's my "unconventional" wisdom, if you want to even call it "wisdom" per se:
I personally find Romney hard to believe. I also dislike his incessant criticism of his opponents. But I have to agree with El Rushbo that generally speaking he's really much more conservative on the issues than McCain or Huckabee.
I also find John McCain's ads and speeches rather disingenuous, and all the more upsetting coming from someone who keeps telling me that he won't lie to me.
Here's why I say that. Today, McCain was in Massachusetts complaining that Romney raised taxes there. But McCain opposed the Bush's tax cuts. And he's always maintained that if we are given a tax cut, it has to be paid with spending cuts - being the "neo-supply sider" that he is (that's a joke, son). So if Romney had to raise taxes to cover the veto-proof, left wing legislature in Massachusetts from their wild spending, what's wrong with that coming from McCain's view of the economic world?
So to those voting tomorrow who ask the question fellow Blogman Dave Todd keeps asking: "what to do?" I say, with some reluctance, and a hard pinch to the olfactory nerves, that Romney's is the right box to check. Romney "now more than ever."
And by the way, Romney will nominate originalist judges (which is very important). And though he is not a Giuliani or McCain when it comes to the war on Terrorism - he is miles away from the cut-and-run view of Mike Huckabee.
And to say that McCain ought to win because he is the leader with momentum, having beat Romney by a few percentage points in Florida and New Hampshire, going into "Super Tuesday" is like saying the New England Patriots deserved to win last night in their "Super Bowl" due to their previous "momentum," having won their previous 18 games. If Romney fights with the determination of the NY Giants, surely he could inch out McCain tomorrow. But I don't suspect he will.
Listening to McCain today, though, he sounded like he's the right man for the job. Like his ads are saying, he's the only "True Conservative." Ahem.
If I could only believe the man who says he will never lie to me.
Labels: 2008 Election
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]