Why a leading tea party group just slammed Mike Huckabee

The Washington Post's Post Politics Blog ^ | January 5, 2015 | Jose A. DelReal and Sean Sullivan

[ObamahatesPACoal]

Club For Growth and Freedom Works are both pro-amnesty or not concerned with the issue.

Senate Conservatives and Madison Project are anti-amnesty.

http://www.freedomworks.org/content/pence-plan-no-amnesty-immigration-reform

https://www.numbersusa.com/content/nusablog/beckr/march-15-2010/dick-armey-stuns-his-tea-partiers-open-borders-advocacy-see-his-immigra

http://blogs.rollcall.com/218/club-for-growth-and-freedomworks-to-sit-out-immigration-fight/

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/06/amnesty_and_the_tea_partys_libertarian_friends.html

I dont have a huge problem if Bob Perry and the big tech donors to these groups support amnesty provided the small donors know what’s up.

I have a bigger problem if Tea Party Express or some other group with Tea Party in the name is taking donations from grandmothers and spending it to promote amnesty with Grover Norquist.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Who is the most electable, in the GOP field? Respectfully, not your favorite, but the one most able to prevail, in 2016. Thank you, in advance.

I think none of them has a really high profile compared to Jeb Bush. But the question you are implying is, “Who should we rally around to prevent Bush from winning with a plurality??

I fear that we - I include myself - are hanging back waiting to see who looks good, and sounds good, on TV. That is a terrible criterion for selecting a president, but it’s what the voting public has grown up with. The correct way to look at it is to make a list of the issues you think Jeb isn’t good on, and then the issues that you think he is good on. Then make a list of the Republicans who have a respectable profile, and add to your list of issues anything you think any of them may have as liabilities.

Next, we need a cross-tab of the candidates and the issues, with room for more than a “go” or “no go” indication on each. Maybe a number code from 0 to 10 . . .

Ultimately I think that each candidate should fill out each of those boxes for himself. Bush, apparently, thinks himself above answering those questions. But it wouldn’t hurt to ask . . .

Another good idea would be for Rush to dedicate an hour to each candidate, and get responses on all the issues.

But maybe we should start now with the list of issues?

• Borders, and the enforcement thereof.

• Common Core in particular, and the Dept. of Education in general.

• Abolition of ObamaCare.

• Foreign policy.

• Gitmo.

• Laffer Curve. (which tax rates are above the point of diminishing returns - or rather, which ones are not?)

• IRS abolition.

• Freedom of the Press (abolition of “Campaign Finance Reform”)

• Freedom of Religion (freedom from anti-Christian mandates)

• ”Racism” charges and the Republican response. (fight or flight?)

• Republican response to Propaganda Journalism. (fight or flight?)

• Republican response to the precedent set by Obama lawlessness. (What to do to make sure that the next Democrat president isn’t more contemptuous of the Constitution than Obama himself is?)

• Title IX (for Sarah Palin or any other woman candidate).

• Abolition of supervision of the southern states’ districting by attorney general on the basis of the presumption of racism.

Want to add to the list?

[Dr. Sivana]

I think Huck knows he’s not going to win, but finishing in the second tier gives him cred for VP.

[SharpRightTurn]

That’s true, the Club for Growth doesn’t get into social issues. They oppose the Huckster because he is a tax-and-spend politician.

And you’re right that the SCF and the Madison Project are the gold standard in choosing solid conservatives.

[jttpwalsh]

Thanks for a well thought out reply. Off the top of my head, the only topic I would add, would be military related, the candidate’s vision for the future role, funding, etc.

I haven’t voted for a Presidential candidate in the general election, since Ronald Reagan, that really generated any personal enthusiasm. I voted for the first term of both Bushes, willingly (not enthusiastically), but had to hold my nose, to vote for them, the second time they both ran.

Dole wasn’t Clinton, McCain and Romney weren’t Obama, but that isn’t what I wanted, in a candidate. I will say, I was enthusiastic about Kemp, and Palin, but that only goes so far, during ordinary times.

This election just seems to be SO much more important; it really feels as if the fate of our nation, and the world, hang in the balance. I can’t fathom the consequences, if a Dem takes the Oath, in 2017.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Sincere question, to all. Who is the most electable, in the GOP field? Respectfully, not your favorite, but the one most able to prevail, in 2016. Thank you, in advance.

Respectfully, I don’t think there is a difference between the "most electable” and “my favorite.” I mean that sincerely:

only about half of Americans vote, even in high turnout years. Those who vote do so for a reason, and that reason is always that they care about something, or someone. You must motivate people to turn them out. Annoy them and they stay home. There's always room to expand either group. And the guy who turns out more of his supporters always wins.

See, I Told You So
vanguard ^ | November 5, 2004 | Rod D. Martin

That’s why a “moderate” Republican isn’t anything like a sure thing. And why “electable” is a slippery concept. If Romney was so electable, why is Obama still POTUS??

So who would be my favorite? Quite simply, my favorite is whoever is the best, most convinced, most determined salesman of conservatism. Thirty years ago, Thomas Sowell would have been my ideal candidate. But he is in his mid-eighties now . . .

Sarah Palin is by now a known quantity, but we know that she has suffered a brutal PR beating from Propaganda Journalism. But we also know that any other effective salesman of conservatism can expect the same treatment, so . . .

I suspect that Ted Cruz may be the one. Ted Cruz with Scott Walker’s resume would be the ideal. But, I haven’t heard any of the hopefuls in full “salesman of conservatism” mode.

[ez]

“Most electable” is an invitation to let the media choose the R candidate. Best to go with the best conservative, even if the media calls them unelectable, like they did to Reagan 35 years ago.

[jttpwalsh]

I understand that point of view, but I also find this to be worth some consideration, as well:

“National Review will support the rightward most viable candidate.”
William F. Buckley Jr.

Thanks for your reply.

[jttpwalsh]

Oh yes, I agree. Especially about Dr. Sowell, but somehow, I don’t think he would have had the stomach for retail politics.

I am concerned about the Palin template, basically, it will get dusted off, and used in an attempt to destroy any conservative.

I like Cruz, and Walker, though I think Walker would be more resistant to the destruction angle, having survived two scorchings, in Wisconsin. I’m curious about Jindal, he seems appealing, but I don’t know much, about his shortcomings. I suspect we’ll find out soon, if he runs.

Thanks!

[ez]

The point remains though... We cannot let the media determine who is viable. I would argue that Cruz is as viable as Bush but the media, and many who follow politics would say different. In fact, I believe Bush is less viable due to “Bush fatigue” while Foxnews et al try to convince us otherwise. I’ll reiterate my point that we were assured that Reagan was unelectable.

[ez]

http://m.nationalreview.com/the-feed/285893/flashback-gerald-ford-calls-reagan-unelectable

[jttpwalsh]

Yes, the media did try to bury Reagan.

When I referenced the W.F. Buckley quote, I was thinking of WFB, the man, as opposed to the Founder of National Review. I can see how that would be taken as media bias.

Thanks again, for the reply.