Posted on 01/20/2008 9:46:01 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Where Now From Here?
The South Carolina primary turned out to be a clarifying event after all. Instead of the potential for five front-runners in the Super Tuesday contest in two weeks, it appears we will have at best three viable candidates for the nomination, and only if Rudy Giuliani proves his strategy correct by winning Florida. What will be left will be the three candidates that the conservative blogosphere has relentlessly criticized for their lack of lifelong fealty to the Ronald Reagan legacy, but whom voters have nevertheless trusted enough to support in the primaries.
First, the failure of Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson to win in South Carolina signals the end of their campaigns, whether they recognize it or not, especially for Fred. He made South Carolina his explicit firewall, the place where he had to have a great showing in order to retain credibility as a candidate. A third-place finish among one of the most conservative groups of voters in the primaries does not bode well, nor does the fact that he actually placed fourthamong self-professed conservatives in the CNN exit polls. He became the first "front-runner" to fail to win a must-win contest, and he will likely withdraw sooner rather than later.
Huckabee's dream took a beating last night. The Arkansas governor should have won the first Southern primary, especially given the high numbers of evangelicals turning out for the election. He took 43% of them, but McCain got 27% to mostly negate Huckabee's big advantage. His populist rhetoric ran out of steam in the Palmetto State, and although he made it close, he failed to convert. And if Huckabee can't win in South Carolina, where else can he win? What is his path to the nomination? Without the kind of name recognition that McCain has or the money that Romney and Giuliani can command, he's probably reached the end of the line as well. He'll stay in the race and collect delegates from proportional contests, but he won't win a significant state.
That leaves Romney and McCain, and possibly Giuliani. Rudy needs Florida to keep the delegate gap from getting too large and to maintain credibility in the large coastal states that could carry him to the nomination. All three of these candidates have significant issues with the party's base, McCain most of all -- and yet these are the three left standing as the smoke begins to clear.
My e-mail sounds the frustration of this situation. Messages and comments on the blog have become filled with declarations of sitting on hands, the destruction of the party, and so on. However, the plain fact is that the actual party -- the people voting for the candidates -- have made it clear that they have a high level of comfort with Romney and McCain, and potentially Rudy as well.
I'm actually a lot more optimistic than most about the result. If these three contend for the nomination, we have two candidates who employed conservative principles in very liberal settings as executives and showed remarkable success, and a Senator who at least understands the nature of the conflict of this age and knows how to fight it. All of them have more applicable experience than any of the Democratic candidates, and perhaps more than all three of them combined.
Rather than focus on the negatives, the Republicans still left to vote should focus on the positives. Which of these three can lead this nation in war, can implement conservative policies on economics and foreign policy, and work to reduce spending and taxes in meaningful ways that expands liberty rather than constraining it? Which of them have actually done this successfully, and which can use that experience in a general election to beat either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama?
From where I sit, I'd say we have good candidates, any of which are easily supportable by Republicans in a general election. Instead of declaring that the sky is falling, let's keep our eyes on the prize. These are the candidates that have resonated with the voters, and so these are the choices. The party only disintegrates if we keep wishing for a resurrection of Ronald Reagan rather than working pragmatically to find the best in what we have.
“Rather than focus on the negatives, the Republicans still left to vote should focus on the positives. Which of these three can lead this nation in war, can implement conservative policies on economics and foreign policy, and work to reduce spending and taxes in meaningful ways that expands liberty rather than constraining it? Which of them have actually done this successfully, and which can use that experience in a general election to beat either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama?”
This sounds like the farmer who just got the go-ahead to buy a new self-closing barn door and the money to replace his prize brood mare from the insurance man.
He may have lost his best horse but at least he ain’t walking yet.
I can’t see a candidate who won’t outjones the other at this point; the housing collapse shifted voter’s attention to the larder and big government has the key to the grocery store.
Four years of hillary would be a huge setback for our country. Four years of Obama would probably be even worse.
But I WILL NOT vote for Giuliani, Huckabee, or McCain under any circumstances. Romney? Possibly. I haven’t decided.
If it’s hillary against one of these losers, I certainly won’t vote for hillary, but I cannot in good conscience vote for the others, either. And I am convinced that many, many Republican voters will feel the same way. It would make the 2006 election fiasco look like a picnic.
But better to be set back for four horrible years than to see the conservative alternative completely destroyed.
After all the progress we have made, this is very disappointing. Let’s hope the Republican party comes to its senses.
Sure was, McLame lost 8% of the support he had the last time he was in a primary there......41% then and 33% yesterday.
I like your tagline...I’m depressed.
My wife and I went to an gallery showing last night and all we could talk about was how bad Fred did....damn
Ordinarily I’d agree, but with the alternatives of the Hildebeast or Obama. . . It MAY be the year to vote the lesser evil. . .
Nope. He's in the "Play the Hand You're Dealt" camp.
When the dust settles, there will be a reality to deal with, regardless of what any individual or group had hoped for. The mature thing to do at that point is take an honest look at the candidates who've made it to the general, and cast a ballot for the one who can do the best job of the two.
This time around it's slim pickins', for sure, but there will be a clear choice even so, and it's not likely to be Hillary, Obama or the "son of a meel worker."
No
Thanks... next question, are there any winner take all states in the GOP caucus ?
There are 9 on Super Tuesday out of 21 contests that day. Honestly, the lack of WTA States is why I think we are heading for a brokered convention.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.