Anyone who would like to see the POSSIBILITY of a Huckabee nomination, need look no further than:

Right Smart

Personally, I think it would be a mistake…once again…to count this man out. At the VERY LEAST, he’s a serious factor at the convention for pulling together the party. Especially given a) Dobson’s endorsement, b) the demographic makeup of the majority of the States left, and c) the fact that there’s another GOP debate scheduled toward the end of February.

It is absolutely impossible for McCain to have the needed 471 delegates between now and the next debate at the end of February, because there are only 308 up for grabs between now and then…which Huckabee will undoubtedly win many of…conceivable a majority.

And thank you to Chuck Todd…who is actually paying attention to the Huckabee factor and not simply ignoring it to start writing about the general election. Considering the Obama factor, if Huckabee were to pull off winner-take-all Virginia (maybe a long shot, but with my Loudoun “Bully Pullpit”, and the millions of hits I get a day…) then this gets REALLY interesting.

Here’s my comment on Chuck Todd’s site:

Here’s the deal…Huckabee is NOT going to exit the race whether or not he loses Virginia…He’s going to stay in and gather up at least as many delegates as Romney has. Why in God’s name wouldn’t he do that?

He will DEFINITELY win more total delegates than Romney if he stays in…therefore he will DEFINITELY have significant clout at the convention.

McCain CANNOT win more than the needed 471 before March 4th…period. He will have to debate Huckabee (and Paul) later this month…period. There is good reason for this to happen because if Huckabee is GOING to concede, then the two can have a little GOP love-fest to unite the party around McCain’s Iraq agenda (while pissing off Ron Paul). Everybody wins.

But if Huckabee makes (yet another) comeback…(and winning Virginia would probably be required) then who knows?

Mr. Huber seems to think that the fat lady is clearing her throat, but the question is: Who is she voting for?

Take a look at this:

OK, this link is now a little outdated…

Now, how is it that having the “Anti-McCain vote” split with Romney in the race doesn’t make it HARDER for McCain to clinch the nomination WITHOUT Romney in the race. It seems a little contradictory to me. Yet again, the Huck is being misunderestimated. Admittedly, it’s probably “one primary too late”, but it certainly doesn’t make it EASIER for McCain if Huckabee stays in…as he has sworn repeatedly he will…

McCain has probably just finished speaking at the same Conference that Romney spoke in. Mike Huckabee will speaking there Saturday morning. If only there was a McCain/Huckabee debate between now and then…

And why is it completely impossible to find a poll in ANY of the upcoming States (Louisiana, Virginia, Kansas–All States that Huckabee could potentially run strongly) in…newer than October?

Speaking at CPAC…in DC

He didn’t endorse anyone, though…

And as usual, the best speeches always come when someone is conceding a race.  Isn’t that just amazing?  The implications of this are HUGE, of course; not sure if Huckabee will follow suit, but I sincerely doubt it, and hope he fights on.  If Romney doesn’t endorse Huckabee, which I doubt he will, then McCain is still a clear front runner, but it does indeed mean that Huckabee will pull down several states that he may not have otherwise (WOOHOOO!).  Don’t count out Huck just yet.

And again, the assumption is we’re just mindless drones.  The Washington Post reminds us boastfully of their insane ability to “take down a Republican” with the repetition of one word.

Folks, this is exasperating.  “Macaca” did NOT cost George Allen the Senate seat.  George Allen’s apparent lack of ability to actually have a conversation is what cost him the Senate seat.  He treated the race like it was his God-given right to have that spot and when the Democratic party put a former (emphasis on former) Reaganite up against him, he didn’t have the ammunition.  He seemed to have no message, no real reason for being there other than a) he was already there, and b) he was going to run for President.

Someone please tell me in what world did he deserve to keep his spot, and if he would have squeaked by and kept it, why he would deserve the Oval Office.

Don’t get me wrong…I voted for him.  I’d vote for him again, and I’m sure he’s a good conservative…but if anyone here followed that race, did anyone but me get the impression that he didn’t really have a whole lot to say and Jim Schwebb had a WHOLE LOT to say.

First of all, what iffing is useless, because the if is over.

Second, one word or one statement or one gaffe is only a campaign killer if the campaign has not really said much else…and that’s what happened.

Third, when are we going to start expecting from our “Conservative” candidates what we should expect from them–the consistent sale and push for Conservative ideals–as opposed to what we’ve been getting from them–inane pap and a sense of entitlement.

A few things we should take from last night:

Obama has the momentum.  If California hadn’t been voting for weeks already he would likely have picked up more votes there.  He wins almost everytime he has a chance to show up and on a night with very little chance to show up everywhere, he still won the majority of the States in play.

Huckabee proved a couple of things.  “Front-runners” aren’t necessarily front-runners in Middle America.  A few thousand votes in Missouri and this would have become a VERY different race.  Romney supporters can rest assured that if anything HE ruined HUCKABEE’s chances at the nomination and not the other way around.  The person responsible for Romney’s lack of success is (well…other than Romney) Rudy Giulliani, who engineered winner-take-all-ism in the Northeast, and endorsed McCain.

Huckabee is less of a factor in Romney’s demise than anyone is willing to admit for three reasons:

1) Polls have shown that the majority of Huckabee supporters’ second choice is not Romney, but indeed John McCain…the assumption that Huckabee supporters automatically dislike McCain is flawed and is born of ignorance of the media about how Southerners really think.  No big surprise there…except possibly to members of the media.

2) Huckabee WON 5 states yesterday.  Winners are not “spoilers”…third place finishers are spoilers…and in many cases it was Romney who finished third, thus making HIM the spoiler for Huckabee (Missouri being the best example, but Oklahoma as well).  And in those states where Huckabee finished third he was hardly even a factor.

3) Add up Romney’s, Huckabee’s, and Paul’s delegates and you still can’t equal McCains.

But number 2 is the rub.  Romney fans have forgotten that this is a National Election and winning a few key states (even handily) cannot win you the nomination anymore.  Delegate counts from Southern states in the Republican primary get bigger and bigger and bigger and will play a key role for years to come (it’s warm there…and there are jobs there, and people keep moving there–maybe global warming will help solve that problem).  If you doubt me look at the “Blue vs. Red” makeup in the previous two Presidential General Elections.  All the “big-important” states are blue…sometimes heavily blue…and yet there’s still a southern redneck Republican in the White House.

So what lessons should we all take from this:

1) The South is still important…and will continue to be more and more important (Thank God.)

2) Nothing against Mitt Romney; I actually like the guy…but a smooth-talking New England governor who is only recently towing the Conservative line does not do well in the South.  Believe it or not Southerners read the paper and consistency is fairly important to them.  They prefer Huckabee AND McCain over Romney, because they TRUST them.  Right or wrong, that’s the deal.  And I’m saying this as someone who in a two man race between McCain and Romney would DEFINITELY support Romney.

3) Not a lesson, but instead a position.  I have decided that if Obama gets the nomination he actually has LESS of a chance to get the Presidency than Hillary Clinton.  The reason I believe this is because once the nominations are over Obama can (thankfully) begin to talk about issues…and the Clinton machine will be less of a factor.  Once real issues are being discussed again (finally–hopefully)…Conservative ideals will win the day.  Either of the three on the Republican side can win the argument on ideas.  Obama’s blatant liberalism would finally be on full display, while Hillary can continue to hide around her faux-Moderateness “If I would have known…”

The reason I believe this is simple:  Many people are dissatisfied with the current administration NOT because President Bush has adhered to Conservative principles, but because he hasn’t. But he WON on them…twice.

I managed to catch a bit of an event with the Commonwealth Club of California where Huckabee was laying out his views on various issues. And after 30 minutes, I lost the ability to disagree with the guy on anything of substance. And believe me, this did not come without effort.

So I’ve decided to endorse Mike Huckabee for President (even have a little button on my little corner of the site).  Now thousands and thousands of LogiReaders will blindly go to the polls and vote for him because I SAID THEY SHOULD.

Most of you know my reasons for doing it…traditionalism, tenth amendment, executive experience, blah, blah, etc…Truth is, the guy just makes sense to me.  He approaches ideas like I would and even if we were to disagree on a couple of things, I essentially trust his judgment.  And when it comes to the Chief Executive spot, that’s the deal.  McCain has some foreign policy kudos, and Romney has some business acumen, but I simply don’t trust either of them.  Huckabee strikes a much more realistic note.

So there you go.  Go Mike.

There’ll be a press conference eventually, I’m sure.  Still working out the details.  :o)

This strikes me as only slightly odd, but it’s more evidence that the old blue-blood Republican guard is retaking the Republican party from the “Reagan coalition.”

Meanwhile, the old guard is attempting (with measurably less success so far) to take over the Democratic party from the Clintons, by backing their new golden boy.

So, does this mean the “adults” are retaking the country?

Got this in the email this morning:

…With the debates, people dropping out, rumors, rhetoric, etc. it’s interesting to see which candidate actually lines up with your leanings. Go to the website or click link below. Answer 10 questions and it tells you which candidate’s positions you’re most aligned with. Might surprise you. Later…..

http://www.votechooser.com/

I myself was not surprised, and it came down exactly as I predicted…but that’s because this stuff is my daily obsession. Take the quiz, and tell us how it goes.

Gentlemen:

I was actually at a loss for words (fairly rare), after watching last night’s debate.  What I can’t understand is why a 20-year Republican Senator has such little understanding of how business really works.  And I’m equally confused why a long-time business leader can’t put that Senator in his place.

I saw Anderson (et-al.) force a “two-man race” despite the obvious fact that neither of the two men had anything substantive to say, but the two of you did.  I do not agree with either of you on everything, but am convinced that both of you have a better understanding of true conservatism than either of your opponents.  Even though you represent different factions of the Conservative movement I want to make an appeal to you both:

Stay in.  Whatever you have to do…stay in.  I don’t care how many delegates you come into the convention with.  Fight your way to that convention tooth and nail and make sure the Republican party hears you both before they nominate anyone.  Republicans are more effective when they are underdogs.  Be underdogs and be effective.  That’s all I have to say…like I said loss of words.

Good luck.

WooHooooo!!!

I’m surprised he didn’t stick it through to the convention and cut a deal, but it’ll all depend on who he chooses to support, and when.  One would think, given his message of “Change, change, change, for the sake of change,” that he would support Obama, but that would assume a modicum of intellectual honesty that I would not credit the populist son of a factory worker.