Saturday, March 8, 2008

The Republican Party Death Knell?

In my recent post "A Flood of Thoughts and Feelings," I pointed out that, if McCain picks a true conservative to be his running mate, I'd probably vote for him. But it has come to my attention that there is another factor which may come into play.

A sense of uneasiness is hanging over the world of avid Huckabee supporters, as they wait to see whether the Republican party will invite the Republican nomination's runner-up to speak at the convention in Minnesota six months from now. In my personal opinion, to not do so could be to commit political suicide. I know one thing: the party would be killing its chances to attain my vote.

For all the talk about "reaching out" to social conservatives and evangelicals, this would be a clear indicator that it's all just that: talk. Mike Huckabee regularly racked up a high percentage of the votes of evangelicals and values voters. Through plurality circumstances, he competed very strongly among voters describing themselves as "very conservative," and, when the field thinned to only two candidates, Huckabee repeatedly defeated McCain among this constituency.

Huckabee won the reddest of red states--Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee. He would've won South Carolina and Oklahoma, too, if it hadn't been for a split in the conservative vote between Huckabee and Thompson, and Huckabee and Romney. Missouri would also have gone his way.

Huckabee won his home state of Arkansas, a state that the GOP will struggle to grab if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee. If Obama is the Democratic nominee, most states, including the traditionally red ones, may become a challenge for the Elephant Party, as large turnouts threaten to change the outlook of the nation.

Huckabee won the second-highest number of delegates among Republicans. Following Texas, another deeply red state in which he garnered over half-a-million votes despite the media and the establishment practically refusing to admit he still was in the race, he surpassed Mitt Romney. Some may say that's the only reason Huckabee remained in the race, and, therefore, the delegate count is not legit. But I think it is legit when one candidate spits out some blood and puts his fists back up again, whilst the other candidate throws in the towel. I think it's legit when one candidate continues to run and place well on a shoestring budget, while the other drops out after having spent $35 million of his own fortune and millions more from donors' coffers.

I don't care if the Republican establishment feels that Huckabee stayed in too long. If they use that as an excuse to disinvite him from the convention, they might as well come out and say that the Human Life Amendment is not important enough to keep fighting for until someone actually has the nomination sewn up; the Federal Marriage Amendment should be abandoned at the first sign of a "presumptive" nominee; the First Amendment and Second Amendment should be stocked away in order to honor and "rally around" the frontrunner; a truly revolutionary plan for lower taxes (a.k.a., the Fair Tax) should be forgotten so that we can raise more money for the leading candidate.

The fact is, voters in Kansas and Louisiana wanted Huckabee to keep on keepin' on. Even in states where he lost--like Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin-- voters showed their support for the continuation of his effort (or, at least, took the opportunity to chastise McCain).

Implying that Huckabee somehow disqualified himself from a favored spot at the convention also suggests that voters who egged Huckabee on have disqualified themselves from voting Republican. But holy election, Batman! The Republicans don't want to leave you with that impression!

More than a handful of evangelicals, conservatives, and Huckabee supporters have already vowed not to vote for McCain (Of course, for the latter, that might change if Huckabee was selected VP). Others have barely persuaded themselves to vote for McCain. Some haven't decided what to do yet, while there are those who have hoops which McCain and the GOP have to jump through. A good chunk of citizens will be voting for McCain, but not working for him.

The disregard, disrespect, and even disdain that would be demonstrated toward these Americans would be the equivalent of a wet blanket being thrown over two sticks being rubbed together. Such an act would seal some decisions against McCain, make others, and dampen any enthusiasm some are attempting to stir up within themselves. It could be the death knell for the Republican Party in 2008...and beyond. (Selecting a Joe Liebermann, Rudy Giulani, or Mitt Romney to be Vice President would likely accomplish the same end.)

The question is, how would Mike Huckabee and all these ensuing nomads of voters respond? The former governor of Arkanasas and Baptist minister seems like such a nice guy that he might try to shrug it off for the sake of the party--and his future in it. Then again, every once in a while, you'll see the tiger inside him start to claw its way out as he gets fired up about an issue.

At that point, I think it may be time to make a concerted effort to end the two-party domination. The system has used us for long enough, simply because it's been of some use to us. When the latter no longer remains true, why should the former?

A speaking spot at the convention can serve as a springboard for a future presidential run. One need to look no further than Reagan in '76. He convinced the delegates that they had chosen the wrong man--Ford. He essentially became the 1980 "presumptive" nominee...in 1976! Similarly, the unknown Barack Obama made a name for himself in 2004 at the Democratic convention.

If the Republican party won't give Huckabee this opportunity, I can't help but conclude that they don't want him now...or in the future.

However, let's remember that nothing has been decided yet. I am preemptively addressing this issue. And I recommend that you do the same.

E-mail the GOP (specifically RNC Chairman Mike Duncan), telling them what you think about this situation. Be sure to cover some of the main points in this post. Also, sign this petition asking Mike Duncan, Chairman of the Republican National Committtee, to invite Mike Huckabee to give the keynote address at the Republican convention. Keynote is aiming high, but it's better to aim too high than too low.

EDIT: I originally stated that Huckabee "majoritatively racked up the evangelical vote." Although Huckabee did very well among evangelicals, oftentimes receiving the highest percentage of their vote, according to exit polls, he did not win a true majority.

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

I fall into the category of possibly voting for McCain (certainly will if Huckabee is the VP), but there is no way I will be working for him.

I do agree with you about Huckabee speaking at the convention. If they fail to invite him to speak, it will certainly show us where they stand on a possible Huckabee candidacy in 2012. If that happens, I agree also that a possible third party run would be something to consider.

Esther Hilling said...

I'm not sure about how I'll vote this November. It won't be for Obama or Clinton ... but it may not be for McCain either. My eyes have been opened during this primary about (1) how little research most people do about candidates on their own, (2) how much influence the media have on shaping the minds of those who do not personally research the candidates. The labels and half-truths that the media, including Rush and Hannity, have said about Huckabee had turned many of my evangelical friends towards Romney and Thompson.

I received a letter this week from the Republican National Committee. The first sentence said, "I don't want to believe you've abandoned the Republican Party, but I have to ask ... Have you given up?" The letter went on to state that I had not renewed my RNC membership for 2008. I sent back a response on the donation card that I have not abandoned the Rep. Party, but that they have abandoned me. Furthermore, I would not be donating until a true conservative candidate was at the head of our party's ticket.

I too agree, if Huckabee is not included in a prominent role at the Convention, it will be just one more slap in the face of Evangelicals, and it may be what pushes most of us off the Republican ship in search for another party.

Anonymous said...

Your article is very well written. Mike Huckabee is a great orator who doesn't use or need someone else to write his speeches. He speaks from the heart. The GOP would be foolish not to utilize his talent.

I am a Huckabee supporter that is not sure who I'll vote for in Nov. If Huckabee is the VP choice; I will vote GOP. If he isn't; I'll vote Independent if there is a strong moral conservative willing to maintain a strong military to protect our country from radical Muslim extremist.

For more of my views visit my blog at grannyt53.wordpress.com

Granny T

Anonymous said...

To talk about how Mike Huckabee has a great future in the GOP and then not include him at the convention would be a huge mistake. I will definitely not vote for a democrat but I cannot get excited about McCain. I don't feel he represents me. As a VP Mike is an asset and help to the party. Mike is a true conservative and has a demeanor that Sen. McCain lacks.
It won't hurt Huckabee to NOT be the VP choice though. He'll do well wherever God leads him.

larry said...

Yes, Huckabee dealt a death blow to the GOP. His presence in the race cost Fred Thompson the nomination. Fred was and is the ONLY one who could have united the Party. Huckabee should have gotten out when Fred got in, but he is too ambitious and selfish. His love for the USA does not extend to sacrificing his own personal political agenda and career. Now he will go down anyway, and take the rest of us with him.

We may wind up with Clinton or Obama (either is a disaster) and it will be Huckabee's fault. You can place the catastrophes of the next administration squarely at his feet.

Anonymous said...

Larry,
If the Democrats win the White House and if the Republican party is dead, Huckabee is not to blame. It will be the fault of the Republican party establishment and the conservative media who were too interested in manipulating the process, instead of electing a candidate who was for the people, not the party. In no way can this be laid at Huckabee's feet.

Kingdom Advancer said...

Whoa, there's some schizo stuff going on around here. :)

Anyways, the Larry signed in with a Blogger account:

Let me preface my comment by saying that I personally like Fred Thompson. I had some disagreements with him, and he didn't exactly inspire me, but I would've been happier with him than with McCain, Romney, or Giulani.

Having said that,your argument is even worse than the one which said that Huckabee should have dropped out for Romney's sake.

Huckabee came in first in Iowa. Thompson came in fourth. Huckabee came in third in New Hampshire. Thompson came in fifth. Huckabee came in third in Michigan. Thompson came in fifth (I think, or fourth).

Then, there's South Carolina. Actually, Thompson is more to blame for Huckabee not winning the nomination than vice versa, as demonstrated here. Thompson showed the first signs of energy during his "last stand." Yet, he, as a good friend of John McCain, essentially served as an attack dog for McCain the whole final week before South Carolina. He lambasted Huckabee continuously, but, on Hannity & Colmes, he refused to go after McCain, even though McCain and Huckabee were running neck-and-neck in the polls. Hmmm....

Still, though, Huckabee came in a close second, whereas Thompson came in at a distant third.

Thompson didn't run a good campaign. The overhype before he got in made him look lackluster. He didn't connect with and inspire voters. And his states' rights positions didn't resonate with social conservatives.

Blame those reasons, but don't blame Huckabee.

larry said...

Ah, I see that there is some disagreement. This is not surprising. But what I said before is absolutely true. Huckabee is to blame. He could not win, and all he could do was divide the Party, which he did!
He, therefore, prevented a TRUE conservative, Thompson, from getting the nomination, and handed it to McCain. We shall all suffer for this folly. It is not entirely Huck's fault, much of it belongs to some of his followers who fantasized that he had a chance. Huckabee's campaign (and I must admit that I like the guy) was destined to failure because too many Evangelical Christians (I am one) do not understand how others think, nor do they understand what we really need in a leader.

I realize that this is a point of view unfamiliar to most of the folks reading this piece, but the truth hurts.

Kingdom Advancer said...

**Let me correct a couple things I mistakenly said: Thompson came in third in Iowa, not fourth. He came in sixth in New Hampshire, not fifth.**

Larry, you have a right to your opinion, but I must say that it is not very logical. If a candidate can't finish better than third in any one state, his supporters have no footing to tell other candidates that they should've dropped out.

Thompson entered the race as a frontrunner, and he, somehow, let it all slip away. That's not Huckabee's fault.

And, again, Huckabee did not give the nomination to McCain. Thompson did more than Huckabee by running interference FOR McCain in South Carolina. Remember Thompson's rant about Huckabee in the SC debate, knowing that Huckabee would only have 30 seconds to respond to a boatload of accusations? Did you hear Thompson do that to McCain? Nope.

Anonymous said...

Your whole Federal Marriage Amendment is a wrong idea. It's going to fail just like Prohibition did. The Constitution is supposed to be about laying down the relationship between man and his government, not one segment of society against another segment of society. Just because you don't like something (i.e. alcohol, gay marriage) doesn't mean you can force it on everybody else.

Let them have their gay marriage. To me it's like the Special Olympics, not the real thing, but it keeps those involved feeling like they have something bigger to strive for.

wooga said...

You might as well invite Jesse Jackson to give the keynote at the Republican convention. The Republican party is first and foremost a political party founded on federalism, and Huckabee is an anti-federalist statist. Just because he gets support from a fair share of conservatives, he is doing so only because of his Christian faith, and not because of his political philosophy (and no, the fair tax idea does not balance the scales by any means). The Republican party should focus on those speakers who are both conservative and Christian, and not those who are only one or the other. Giving statists a speech at the convention is a bad idea, regardless of how devout they may be.

Kingdom Advancer said...

PK,

I can't force governmental preservation of a God-ordained, nature-confirmed, tradition-upheld institution, but homosexual activists can force governmental recognition of their devaluing of marriage?

This is not about outlawing behavior or forcing beliefs on someone; this is about a government, in order to remain honorable and upright, refusing to sanction something that is not really marriage and preserving what is marriage.

I agree that it has the potential to fail like Prohibition, but potentially failing is no excuse for not trying.

Kingdom Advancer said...

Wooga,

I'm not going to say that I agree with everything Huckabee espouses, but, as you probably expected, I--and I would imagine many, many others--don't agree with you that he's interchangeable with Jesse Jackson.