That’s what Matt Lewis calls them, and I think he’s right. It’s not too early to start thinking about what that scenario might mean. My battle-weary, less optimistic side does not think it will be pretty. My deeply-scarred optimistic side dares to believe the nation might actually learn some important things from such a campaign.

Consider:

• Huckabee has formed HuckPac, clearly a presidential candidate-style operation.
• Romney has made no secret of his willingness to accept the vice presidential nomination, and is actively campaigning for McCain. (Just yesterday I received a request from Romney’s operation that I raise $10,000 for McCain.)
• Huck supporters, seeing what a setback it would be for their guy’s 2012 chances for Romney to be the veep nominee this year, have mounted a “no to Romney” campaign.

What a fascinating set of events. Assuming that the presidency is in Democrat hands in 2012, these questions are only the first that come to mind:

1. Will Mike Huckabee continue to run as “the Christian candidate?”
2. Regardless of whether Huck does so, will rank and file voters divide up by religion anyway, with Evangelicals falling in behind him? (I am doubtful about that.)
3. Will Evangelical political leaders simply pick and back a candidate, or simply hold back until it is too late, like they did this year?
4. Will “flip flopper” still be code for “Mormon,” or will four years of Romney speechifying and writing cause that issue to fade?
5. Will Huckabee still be angry about Romney’s comparison ads in Iowa?

Of course, the answers all depend on a number of variables that won’t be known for some time — and many that will remain unknown until 2012. No one saw Huckabee coming, for example, and Hillary Clinton certainly didn’t see Barack Obama in her rear view mirror.

But the idea of Romney v. Huckabee does provoke a lot of thinking.

John Speculates: Four years is a life time in politics, almost none of the “predictive factors” we look at today will be in play when decision time actually comes. That said, here are some of the things I am going to be watching.

• Huck’s campaign could not raise money, how does he expect his PAC to? Evangelicals have a lot of energy for campaigns, but not a lot of money for anything but the plate in church, or energy for the hard work of politics.
• Huck always struck me as liking the limelight more than job, and he has signed with a Hollywood talent agent. The PAC could be all about “keeping his cred” while he is shopped for a Glenn Beck, Hugh Hewitt, or Pat Robertson type job.
• If Evangelicals don’t wise up a bit, they are liable to find themselves on the sidelines in the next election cycle. Where would Huckabee be without his base? He barely scratched votes outside of Evangelicals.
• Now that Romney has national name recognition he has the next four years to capitalize. If it is about the two of them next time, it will not be about first impressions. Religious labels matter in first impressions, but not so much when the candidates are known.
• Politics is often about mistakes. We are currently watching Obama blow up. In all seriousness who do you think is more mistake prone, Romney or Huckabee? If you really think Romney, I suggest you research again.

Bottom line is this, running for president is a very serious undertaking. Huckabee played at it - he enjoyed far more success than the average person that just plays at it, but such does not lay a base for strong future efforts.

Oh by the way - with Obama imploding and Hillary working as hard as she is to help, I am not particularly looking at any Republican in 2012 other than an incumbent.

Thursday Humor…

The Boston Globe recounts a “Top Ten” list that Romney gave to a correspondents dinner on why he dropped out:

No. 10: There weren’t as many Osmonds as he thought.
No. 9: Got tired of the corkscrew landings of his campaign plane while under fire
No. 8: As a lifelong hunter, I didn’t want to miss the start of varmint season.
No. 7: There wasn’t room for two Christian leaders in the presidential race
No. 6: I’d rather get fat, grow a beard and try for the Nobel prize.
No. 5: Got tired of wearing a dark suit and tie, and I wanted to kick back in a light colored suit and tie.
No. 4: When his wife realized he couldn’t win the GOP nomination, my fundraising dried up.
No. 2: I took a bad fall at a campaign rally and broke my hair.
And the No. 1 reason Romney dropped out: His campaign relied on a flawed campaign strategy that as Utah goes, so goes the nation.

Self-deprecating humor as weapon - I like it. (I can hear a bunch of people howling over no. 7 right now.)

Lowell:  Those who are upset about no. 7 have no sense of irony or humor.  But what else is new?
Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Political Strategy, Religious Bigotry | 3 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Recently:

• Legality, Religiousity, Post-Prop 8 Ugliness and the Case Against Huckabee
• Prop 8 and religion: A moral or political issue, or both?
• RED MEAT! Hewitt, Huckabee and Anti-Mormonism
• Say What?!
• In The Wake Of Prop 8
• A Catholic Defense of Mormon Support (and other religions’ support) for Prop 8
• Being The Target
• Encouraging?
• Proposition 8: Multi-Faith Press Conference Speaks Out Against Attacks
• And Now…Terrorism!?