Who Needs Lions? Just Throw the Christians to the Christians.
Aug 12
I’m kind of digging the Republican primary race. My take on it is that it should go on for as long as possible, and the fringe candidates are only helping. Normally, the standard GOP murderers’ row of whackos scares me, but this year I think it’s all to the good. I’m shamelessly rooting for an internecine religious war, and they’re going out of their way to provide one. My reason, of course, is that the crazier they look the better the chance the public will finally wake up to what the Republican party stands for, and the longer they claw at each other the more money they spend and the more damage they do to the eventual front-runner. Even if that turns out to be Giuliani (as it likely will), letting the religious nuts work themselves into a frenzy, only to be disappointed when none of their candidates gets the nod, will have the effect of keeping them from the polls in disgust in the general election. And if one of the nutsos does get the nomination (very unlikely), the others will have spent so much time fracturing themselves along denominational lines that the same thing will happen to a large degree. Either way: a Democratic victory, a GOP schism, and the harsh light of publicity on how crazy, how dangerous, and how vicious the religious right is.
From that hopeful perspective, the current campaign has been surprisingly rewarding, and the Iowa straw poll was almost a gift.
The three weirdest religious candidates dominated the poll, with the no-hope Romney leading and Huckabee making a surprisingly strong showing for second place, just ahead of Brownback. Noam Schreiber (link above) sees this as Huckabee’s path to victory. First, he notes that Huckabee paid for poll entrance (it costs $35 to vote in the straw poll - who would pay on their own?) for far fewer supporters than Romney or Brownback, but wound up getting more votes than he paid for, while both the other two got fewer - and most of the defectors seemed to come from voters who’d heard Huckabee’s red-meat-whacko speech about abortion, guns, and gays.
[I]t’s hard to overstate the significance of Huckabee’s performance here. Combined, Huckabee and Brownback–the field’s two leading social conservatives–outpolled Mitt Romney today 33 to 31.5. If, as the results suggest, Huckabee emerges as the lone standard bearer for this group, he’ll probably end up with a block of support to rival Romney’s. . . . It will be interesting to see what he can do with the fundraising boost he’ll enjoy after today. On top of that, there seem to be a lot of social conservatives currently supporting Romney because he’s running as the most conservative of the top-tier candidates. Now that Huckabee has demonstrated his viability, it’s not hard to imagine him peeling off a decent number of Romney’s conservative backers.
(Bizarrely, Schreiber reports that the press is all pro-Huckabee because “he can banter with the best of them”. That’s hard to believe. BooMan has a good take on this, by the way.)
But, even if Huckabee does have traction on the religious right, the other two aren’t going to give up easily. Romney, in particular, is in this for the long haul - he’s got the money and the delusional confidence to ensure that he’ll never have to quit, and will never be willing to.
What this means is there’ll be a three-way race between Romney, Huckabee, and Brownback for whacko-of-the-year, with Romney carrying a 10-pound handicap because he’s Mormon. H & B will be running neck-and-neck “whisper campaigns” (that phrase has already become a Romney campaign slogan, by the way - and there’s more to come!) for nomination as the only “real” Christian in the bunch, but Romney is better-looking, hugely rich, and better at pandering. That basically means H&B are competing for the right to challenge Romney in the long run - Schreiber is probably right that one of them will drop out soon, though why everyone thinks it’ll be Brownback solely on the basis of this poll I don’t know. Romney can’t win because the evangelical right will drop him like a Latter-Day hot potato, and the other two can’t win because (a) they’re the crudest kind of scary wingnut and people are finally getting tired of that, and (b) Romney will have them flogged and keelhauled before he finally throws in the towel. But I do think we’ll have at least two of them, and almost certainly Romney, in the race at least until the nomination is sewn up - and if they run strongly enough, they can keep Giuliani from sewing it up for a long time, thus giving the religious right more time to learn to hate him.
I see good times ahead.
#1 by Stormy Dragon at August 12th, 2007
| Quote
Is there anyway we can get an RSS feed with just Kevin and tgirsch’s articles?
#2 by Rachel I. at August 12th, 2007
| Quote
Eh, I’m still sorta hoping for Ron Paul to win the Repugnican primaries, but it’s a tough call whether I want that so much that I’ll do a switch-and-return during the primaries. Need to research both him and the varied Dem candidates more first. (This will probably happen a couple of days before the vote. :P)
Seriously though, if the I’m-more-Xian-than-you crowd can beat each other up enough, and the Dems are smart about who gets picked, maybe just maybe the final vote could be a real progressive versus a real conservative, not some neocon swine. That’d be awesome.
#3 by janusz at August 13th, 2007
| Quote
“Even if that turns out to be Giuliani (as it likely will)…”
Do you really think he’ll get the nod? He may be pro-choice and pro-gun control (this week), but he scares me more than the rest of Republican candidates. At any rate, I don’t see him doing well in the South and Mid-West…
#4 by KTK at August 13th, 2007
| Quote
I think the religious right will split among several candidates (note that Tancredo was not far behind Huckabee and Brownback in the Ames poll - you could throw him into the mix also). The big-money Republicans will see Giuliani as one of them, and also as the most electable in the general race. McCain’s boat is leaking like a sieve, plus nobody likes him - that leaves only our li’l Benito as a realistic candidate. Unless the religious vote scuttles him, and throws the election to the Democrats, out of sheer pique, it’s got to be him.
#5 by janusz at August 13th, 2007
| Quote
KTK wrote: “The big-money Republicans will see Giuliani as one of them, and also as the most electable in the general race.”
Giuliani is riding on his 9/11 fame, and the fact that people outside of the New York area really don’t know much else about him. Once the stuff about his messy Donna Hanover break-up, association with Bernie Kerik, questions about moving the emergency command center to the WTC etc, as well as the fact he comes off as too abrasive for most of the country (plays well in New Yawk but not most places) he may well be more of a liability than anything.
Giuliani doesn’t have the breath of vision to work the international stage. While mayor he managed to alienate the entire African-American community, not an auspicious start to working with a diverse milieu on the world stage. He went one-on-one with an unknown minister from the Nation of Islam, not only conferring legitimacy on someone who no one cared about, but managed to make himself look extraordinarily petty to boot. He threatened to deny funding to the Brooklyn Museum (has one of the most complete Egyptian collections in the world etc.) over a piece of artwork he had never seen, resorting to bullying at the expense of diplomacy. Will the old-guard Republicans want to risk someone like this again? I’m not so sure. Are they willing to risk losing the Christian-right hoping to gain the moderate East Coasters? It seems to be a bit of a gamble.
#6 by tgirsch at August 13th, 2007
| Quote
Stormy:
I don’t know what your beef is. By KTK standards, this is pretty tame. And I don’t care who you are, “Romney can’t win because the evangelical right will drop him like a Latter-Day hot potato” is pure gold!
KTK:
Don’t underestimate Huckabee; he’s been on the Daily Show and Colbert a few times, and in those venues, has done an excellent job of hiding the crazy. In fact, every time I’ve seen him, he’s come across as a fairly reasonable, even likable guy, without so much as a hint of Santorum, for lack of a better term. So it would seem to me that his pandering skills are better than you might think.
#7 by tgirsch at August 13th, 2007
| Quote
Janusz:
Sad to say this, but all the cons you list about Giuliani are things that will hurt him in the general, but many of them actually help him in the GOP primaries.
#8 by Don Beury at December 18th, 2007
| Quote
Tell me why - - The most important thing to most voters should be the least important thing: The depth of their belief in god. Comeon cant we get out of the dark ages and recognize this as a little more than institutionalized superstition? If candidate ignores fact and science in favor of his fear based beliefs, he is an unqulified scary dude.