Which Republican Candidate Would Be The Most Difficult To Beat?

on edit- added McCain

Fortunately Republicans are afraid to vote for a true conservative this time around.

that even Bush played to the middle in 2000.

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12205

Fourteen times, the ethics commission -- a respected body, not a partisan witch-hunt group -- investigated claims against Huckabee. Five of those times, it officially reprimanded him. And, as only MSNBC among the big national media has reported at any real length, there were lots of other mini-scandals and embarrassments along the way.

He used public money for family restaurant meals, boat expenses, and other personal uses. He tried to claim as his own some $70,000 of furniture donated to the governor's mansion. He repeatedly, and obstinately, against the pleadings even from conservative columnists and editorials, refused to divulge the names of donors to a "charitable" organization he set up while lieutenant governor -- an outfit whose main charitable purpose seemed to be to pay Huckabee to make speeches. Then, as a kicker, he misreported the income itself from the suspicious "charity."

Huckabee has been criticized, reasonably so, for misusing the state airplane for personal reasons. And he and his wife, Janet, actually set up a "wedding gift registry" (they had already been married for years) to which people could donate as the Huckabees left the governorship, in order to furnish their new $525,000 home.

According to the Arkansas News Bureau (Feb. 1, 2003), "Huckabee's personal lawyer, Kevin Crass of Little Rock, has said Huckabee believes there should be no limit on gifts short of a bribe." After all, said Janet Huckabee, public officials like her husband should be automatically trusted: "Until you absolutely positively know that the man has outright lied to you, it should be enough that the man's word is that everything was done appropriately, legally, to the best of his knowledge to the letter of the law."

Be corrupt ... or a hypocrite.

by Republican standards, Hucksterbee is only a social conservative--he's into nanny-state policies and received D's and F's from Club for Growth and CATO. That might not sound bad to us, but to a Republican, it's a fatal flaw, especially when Chimpy received such low marks for fiscal discipline. This is why Huck wouldn't win either the primary or the general--fiscal conservatives and the Wall Street crowd would probably find Hillary more appealing than Huck.

I was a Republican. I probably would still be if it wasn't for W/Cheney.

Huckabee is no more corrupt than Bush the father or the son, or Bob Dole ... and Reagan wasn't exactly a pillar of fiscal responsibility. If Huckabee somehow managed to win the nomination, Republicans would most certainly turn out to vote for him. He is conservative, and he is likable.

he creeps me out. He's bat-shit crazy.

My parents are bat-shit crazy. Lot's of people's parents are.

What are you doing on DU? No wonder you're pimping for Huckabee.

with him. lol.

He said "W/Cheney" ...umm, who do you think "W" is?

I'm not saying the guy's a loyal convert to the Democratic party, but that's not a particularly good reason to chase him away either.

And yes, a lot of people do find Huckabee "likable." For the same basic reasons that they find Dubya likeable. And that likability, with a few tapped voting machines, was enough to get him elected to two terms, wasn't it?

Huckabee is very dangerous. He's very much like what Bush claims to be, which in many ways is scarier than what Bush actually is.

Plus Huckabee is smarter.

but you're entitled to like him.

Edit to add: I am pretty familiar with Hucky's record and statements--I have been keeping up on the Repub candidates. And that's why I don't find him "dangerous"--he's quite stupid, AND corrupt. And if the spotlight should shine on him, he'll blow it, big time.

I don't like Bush either, but that didn't stop him from getting elected. And it doesn't take Sigmund Freud to realize that most Americans do like him, for pretty much the same qualities that Huckabee has.

And as far as I can tell, stupidity and corruption seem to help Republicans win elections, not harm them.

All Huckabee has to do to win is have enough money to buy the machine. If the GOP powers that be decide he's the guy, then he'll have plenty of money. What might stop him is that those same powers that be might decide he really believes that religious shit, and so might be hard to control in a pinch.

mostly Romney, and that helps Rudy (and McCain somewhat). Rudy is not competing for so-con votes with Huck--Romney, and to a lesser extent Thompson, are. My theory is that Fred was deliberately put into place to split the social-conservative vote with Romney, so that Rudy (the Neocon candidate) would get the majority of the R vote (note that Fred has the "support" of the Cheney family). But Fred is tanking, and did not take down Romney. Huck might do it in Iowa. Look for Neocons to start pimping up Hucky as an "alternative" to Rudy--then you'll know that they're just promoting him as a stalking horse. The "money" guys want nothing to do with Huckster--articles came out today in WSJ and National Review lambasting Huck for his record as Gov--even going so far as to suggest he shouldn't even be considered for VP.

read carefully when I am at work. So that was mean to question his/her motives. But Huckleberry still wouldn't be their strongest candidate in the GE in my opinion.

but it is not about the best pol or the most sincere Conservative, but the best stooge acceptable to the Coup powers. The question is academic until he does better in the polls or votes. Then they will work to destroy or own him. A distant plan B among the only voters that count in the GOP, the top gods.

We differ though, because I think his support will grow. He just hasnt come on most of the Reps radar yet.

and his fundraising is sub-McCain horrible.
He doesn't worry me.

And all but dead in the water. Plus he never really had a base on the right. Republicans don't like McCain. He's a lose cannon and he puts himself ahead of the party. In some right wing circles he is referred to as McTraitor.

Not that Republicans would ever insult or disparage a war hero. :eyes:

if he were the nominee. The Repubs would certainly support Mr. "Bomb Iran" over Hillary.

is beating the drums louder than Rudy .. . .

If Barack Obama gets the Democratic Nomination, it won't matter who the Republicans run!! He'd be the winner, hands down!!!:patriot:

He was a minister before he became governor. Giuliani will be the most difficult to beat because he's already proven to appeal to liberals. In fact, if it's him and Hillary, I think he'll win. I think he's the only one who can beat her.

Giuliani's got more skeletons in his closet than you can shake a stick at--up against Hillary or Obama (especially Hillary), he'd get creamed. Plus, as appealing as he might be to the middle (which is debatable), he is that unpalatable to the James Dobson-types.

Trust a New Yorker on this - you ain't seen nothing yet. Everything is being held until the general (why waste it now?). Most people in flyover country (no dis intended) don't even know he's pro-choice, let alone all of his other questionable (by conservative standards) positions.

after 9/11? Faulty radios? Command center in the WTC? Too-hasty cleanup of ground zero? Three wives? Cross-dressing? Notice of divorce from Donna Hanover by press conference? Ferrets? What skeletons am I missing?

Louima was not his only problem mouthing off before getting all facts (Dorismond), his children barely speaking to him) - believe me, there are dozens of things that will trickle out - one by one - it'll be death by 1000 cuts. I really don't have time to do this homework for you - try the NY Daily News or the New York Post for all the years he was mayor.

I know his kids barely speak to him. He has lots of flaws, but they're known. Not asking you to do homework for me, just trying to see if you knew something big that hadn't been previously written about. I think we certainly have enough ammo on Rudy, even if there won't be a big, fatal bombshell revelation during the general campaign.

somebody who obviously takes politics seriously (by that I mean you post on a political board and are informed). You think the average voter knows, or even cares at this point, about all this?

I just saw another thread where 41% of the voters can even name who the frontrunner for the pubs is. It's too early for people to be tuning in. All most people know about Rudi right now is that he was mayor in NY during 9/11. He's got to get the base for the pubs out - these people hate dirt - especially of a personal life nature. They loved being able to throw it in the dems face that Bill was a cheat - now they're going to have to vote for one who can give lessons on sleazy behavior. And that doesn't even include his other decidedly not conservative positions on guns, immigrants, abortion.

At the very least, he would massively depress evangelical turnout.

The only one that evangelicals consider more offensive is Romney.

some evangelical-leader support. The "father" of the pro-life movement recently endorsed him. Don't discount Romney--he'll prove more acceptable to the fundies than anyone would expect.

I am more than a bit suspicious of Romney's performance in the online portion of that straw poll when he hardly had any support among those who actually attended the conference. Huckabee ran away with that vote.

were in attendance that day--makes sense that he won the "in-person" part of the poll. Romney sopke the day before. Plus, that was Hucky's crowd, not a Mormon's crowd.

local security and national toughness. The religious stuff is preferable, but not required. I'm also beginning to think Hillary won't even win Arkansas. People will be sick of Clinton baggage within a month of her winning the primary.

it will not matter--we will lose to any Republican.

If Hillary is to drive all the GOPers to the polls, they will need a fundie-friendly candidate to vote for. Only Huckabee fits the mold.

With the rest of them, we are looking at Dole '96 all over again. No enthusiasm for the top of the ticket = you get beat handily.

but I think depending on events between now and the general election, Guliani could play the fear factor along with his more socially liberal views to swing NY, NJ, CT, and maybe some other Dem or swing states. Huckabee couldn't do that, and reliably red areas will stay red regardless of the candidates.

he's received no scrutiny whatsoever, but he's a weak candidate, aside from a friendly demeanor and good speeches. Ghouliani would be tougher--his flaws are pretty much out there, and he's a fucking street fighter, and still has an aura of heroism. But McCain is more admired than anyone else in the field. If he were the nominee, the only thing that would seriously hamper him is his age.

But you may be right. I voted for Ghouliani.

If he wasn't a preacher and he had a different last name, I'd definitely go with Huckabee, though.

He can be ingratiating in a way that none of the other candidates can. If religious conservatives suck it up and decide to support a Mormon (in the belief that Huckabee can't win it), he could be formidable.

But he is just not charming, and charm goes a long way toward softening other flaws (like flip-floppery and Mormonism). Otherwise, with his looks and background, he would have had this thing sewn up--although he does lead in some of the early states.

He's way too "nice." A lot of people would not dig deeper.

The nimrods will vote for him solely based on name recognition.

On edit:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3649179

...he needs to sell to get elected.

Everything about him says "Used Car Salesman of the Year" to me.:scared:

on one hand, there's no getting around the fact that he's not very likable. On the other, he's ruthless and determined, and very willing to do what it takes to win, as you say. If his campaign ever figured out how to pull a "Hillary" and make him look warm, charming or beer-worthy, we'd be in trouble.

From what I've seen, unless the Republicans choose Giuliani AND the Democrats choose Clinton, the odds of a Democratic victory are very good indeed.

Unfortunately, that scenario seems more likely than any other, but even there I reckon Clinton has more than a 50% chance of winning.