...it's not dark yet, but it's gettin' there...

May 09, 2007

Republican Primary Update

On one issue, I am not a "big tent" Republican. I don't think there should be room for pro-abortion candidates in the Republican party. But I think abortion is a great moral evil, so it follows that I don't think there should pro-abortion candidates in the Democratic party either. Nevertheless, I don't live in a perfect world. Much as I am confounded by his illogical position on the abortion issue, Rudy Giuliani is still the front-runner for my party's nomination.

But the same can't be said of Mitt Romney, who even after getting rave reviews for his debate performance last Thursday night, still remains mired in fourth place. Gallup even has him losing ground after the debate.

What's the difference between Romney and Giuliani? Both have flip-flopped on abortion. (So did I, by the way. Although I came over from the dark side much earlier than Romney, who "says" he switched in 2004). Giuliani donated to Planned Parenthood three times. Romney's wife donated $150 only once, back in 1994.

Both men supposedly have an impressive record of accomplishments. Rudy's is better known to me. He fixed an unfixable city, I watched him do it. Romney did something or other with the Olympics and as far as I know he was a successful governor of Massachussets.

One might say it's anti-Mormon prejudice. It might be, there certainly is some of that going on. But I don't think that explains all of it. I personally don't have any problem with Romney's religion, yet I don't like him at all. What's up with that?

I think one reason I don't like him is that he polls so badly, and I badly want to win. Would I like him better if he were a stronger candidate? Perhaps. I'm open to voting for Romney in the primary (which is more than I can say for Rudy or McCain), if Romney could somehow prove that he can beat Hillary, but so far he hasn't proven that.

Then there's the intangible slickness factor. Romney seems slick. I'll admit that's a silly reason not to vote for somebody, but I doubt I'm the only one who has noticed it about him. I also doubt I'm the only one who's slick-averse after eight years of Clinton. Would America vote for slick over shrew? I don't know. But I do know Romney's got a lot of work to do if he's going to get my vote.

For now, I'm leaning towards Mike Huckabee. He impressed me* during last week's debate, although he's not good on tax policy from what I understand. He has zero chance in hell of winning the nomination and Hillary would crush him like a bug anyway. But I always vote my conscience in the primary, and save my pragmatism for the general.

* And a lot of people.

Posted by annika, May. 9, 2007 | TrackBack (0)
Rubric: annikapunditry


"But I always vote my conscience in the primary, and save my pragmatism for the general."

Great. I feel all warm and fuzzy now.

If all the one-issue voters do that we could end up with Huckabee or Brownback or [insert any other pro-life, "I love Jesus", uninspiring, white male]and get our asses handed to us by Hillary or Obama.

I know we've already had this debate, but I think '08 is a different sort of year. The country does not support this war, and, fair or not, they are not likely to vote for a person that closely resembles George Bush in social policy or that sounds exactly the same on the GWOT. (Don't get me wrong: I think Bush is correct on the GWOT, but he is probably the worst possible salesman for the job.)

We need a person who is socially moderate enough to attract independent voters - who we have been losing lately - but not so moderate that he loses the conservatives. Rudy fits that criteria pretty well. Yeah, he's pro-choice but so is most of America. Abortion is just not an issue that the majority sit home and worry about.

I, personally, will spend a lot more time worrying about a candidates view on the GWOT, his fiscal policy, his view on illegal immigration, and his ability to kick Hillary's fucking ass. Rudy is the only Republican - currently declared -that can beat Hillary. Nobody else has a fucking prayer.

Reps need to decide if they want to be "right" or if they want to win. Do you want 75% of what you like or 10% of what you want?

I wanna win.

Posted by: blu on May. 9, 2007

Greetings Annika,

I like Mitt for a number of reasons and not because he's a mormon, which I happen to also be, but for all the other reasons. I like what he did for the Olympics and that he was a governor of a state. Sadly, he has the same kind of experience that Jimmy Carter had in 1976. I think we are more savy at choosing elected officals than we were then.

I like Rudi, warts and all. No slickness about him that's for sure.

Posted by: Drake Steel on May. 9, 2007

Just found your blog and you rock! Sucks that you are ending this stellar commentary in a few days, I wish I'd discovered it sooner.

Your political commentary made me stand up and cheer, and laugh out loud. Good stuff! Best of luck to you ~

Posted by: Lalah on May. 10, 2007

I agree with Blu, and I will go even further.

The last two Republican Presidents were both selected partly because of their strong anti-abortion stands and what did it get us? Two clueless blue-bloods with nearly zero fiscal responsibility.

Maybe its time to draw a little from the other side of the big tent.

Posted by: kyle N on May. 10, 2007

Of all the candidates currently in the race, I, too, like Huckabee's politics best. However, we all know he's pretty much dead in the water. I am, however, still holding a place in my heart for Fred. I think that when he finally jumps in, he is going to dramatically alter the landscape for '08. And, we get someone from our side of the tent who is definitely electable.

Posted by: Frank on May. 10, 2007

Woe unto him who ignores the wisdom of Hewitt, and that other prescient Buckeye, Casca.

A poll doesn't tell you shit, unless you have the question asked, and the crosstabs. Without those two ingredients, you know nothing.

Posted by: Casca on May. 10, 2007

Yes, the slick factor likely makes a number of people leery of Romney (though one of my sheep is a Romney).

Good of you to stand up for your principles and vote your conscience; if only more people did that instead of acted just like sheep.

And I too like many of Huckabee's stances, especially his answer to this question in the last debate.

Posted by: will on May. 10, 2007

I didn't have time to read the entry today but I wanted to ask: how did some of you regulars find Annika's Journal (which I will really miss)? I found this blog while guest-blogging for Doug TenNapel about a year ago. I just wanted to say thanks for putting a good blog out, and you're really smart and talented.

Posted by: Joules on May. 10, 2007

I am just bewildered by anyone who thinks that Rudy is "Moderate". Rudy is as democrat as you can get. I would be completely shocked if someone as gun literate as Annika would give any support to a guy who would prefer to make guns illegal. (That's what he credits for his cleaning up of NYC. Nevermind the fact that it took a large police force to get the guns off the streets. But surely it was just the guns that made the difference. *rolleyes*)

Personally, Rudy and Hillary are synonymous in my mind. If Rudy wins the primary, I'll probably vote third party and that is WAY out of my character.

I really like Mike Huckabee. I think if the hard core Republicans out there actually did some research on the candidates, Huckabee would gain a lot of ground.

I agree with the "slick-factor" on Romney. He reminds me too much of Gore. (More in personality than in politics, but some of both.)

If Fred crashes the party, I'll be voting for him.

Posted by: Trint on May. 10, 2007

Yeah, Trint, it is a sad state of affairs that we are left with such shitty choices. If we're lucky, Rudy will go the "states' rights" route on gun control issues. BTW, remember that Bush originally pledged in 2000 to renew the "assault weapons" ban.

Anyway, I wish I would've been the first to say this to the Lefty shitheads. Thank you, Ed Kline.

[Oh, and let's be clear, my feelings about Bush in general are very similar to Lee’s, but I hate it when liberals chime in with their “I told you so” bullshit. It's like all of the sudden I am supposed to agree they were right all along. However, I don't remember liberals warning me in 2000 that Bush wasn't sufficiently conservative enough for me.

I don't like Bush now because half the reasons liberals hated him aren't even true.(not that they ever give him credit for being a big government guy like themselves) And most importantly I don't remember the Democratic party giving me a viable alternative to Bush. As much as Bush’s second term has been a bitter pill for me to swallow, I would still prefer him over Gore or Kerry.]

[Well that's just it, Bob, I didn't do that. I addressed the whole ‘Bush was always incompetent’ thing. Bush turned 800,000 dollars into 15,000,000, in less than 10 years, so when you use his turn as a baseball owner as an indication of his ‘always being an incompetent’, I am going to call you on it. I also addressed the whole Sosa thing because you used that as well.

The problem Bob is you did NOT tell me so. You (and when I say you I mean liberals, the Gore-Kerry advocate press and Bush’s Democratic opponents) told me many things. You told me that Bush would appoint Supreme Court justices who would rival Taliban members in how backward they are. Guys like horror of horrors Sam Alito, (which was fine with me). You did not tell me he would betray me by trying to nominate Harriet Myers. You told me that compassionate conservatism was nonsense, and Bush would gut government progams designed to help the poor(again fine by me), not expand entitlement programs like prescription drugs for the elderly.

It's like I said before, you certainly didn't tell me that Bush’s conservatism was to be questioned. The case you made against Bush was that he was way too damn conservative. You were afraid he was another Reagan.(oh if only it were so) So you most certainly did NOT tell me so.]

Posted by: reagan80 on May. 10, 2007

Thank you Lalah and Joules.
Good find Reagan80.

Posted by: annika on May. 10, 2007

Yet one more tsunami of fascism in Chimpy/Halliburton AmeriKKKa!

Hillary 2008 - I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK!

Posted by: Che' is my muse on May. 11, 2007

"Rudy is as democrat as you can get."

"Rudy and Hillary are synonymous in my mind."

With all due respect, those are inane comments. Because a former mayor of America's largest city supports various forms of gun control doesn't make him a "Democrat." Neither does being pro-choice. Those are two policy positions that are supported by the majority of American citizens both Rep and Dem. Rudy's stated positions, however, on issues that matter more: GWOT, fiscal responsibility, illegal immigration, and judges are all solidly conservative - and distinctly different from Hillary and Obama's positions.

BTW, having several close friends that are cops, I can tell you that most police officers support various forms of gun control. Does that make them all "democrat as you can get"? I don't think so: Most are very conservative and vote accordingly. (I don't happen to agree with their position, but I'm not silly enough to think because their opinion on a single issue differs from mine makes them liberals.)

But, whatever, go vote third party and enjoy Hillary's 8 years. What kind of judges do you think she's going to select?

Posted by: blu on May. 11, 2007