It seems strange to relitigate a fight from the 2008 GOP presidential primary, but perhaps many Republicans’ minds are on the notion of multiple conservative candidates dividing the vote in South Carolina, leaving the “Establishment” choice a path to victory.
Mike Huckabee said on Fox News yesterday that John McCain asked Fred Thompson to stay in the race in South Carolina, in order to divide the conservative vote. McCain beat Huckabee in South Carolina by 3 percentage points.
“John certainly encouraged Fred to stay in,” Huckabee said. “I think everyone understood, Fred knew he wasn’t going to get the nomination . . . Many people in the McCain camp have since confirmed, he said, ‘please stay in, I need you in South Carolina,’ primarily in the upstate where I had my strength, but you know, that’s politics. That’s what happens.”
“Minding my own business, having my second cup of coffee, contemplating the election in general terms and the future, and Mike wanted to revisit the campaign last time,” Thompson said, smiling. “What Mike said is fine, except for one thing: there’s not one shred of truth to it! Senator McCain and I never had a conversation about staying in the race, staying out of the race . . . Mike’s been around long enough to know not to inhale that stuff too deeply . . . It’s just a little rewriting of history that’s unnecessary.”
When Huckabee made his charge, he said it without any visible bitterness. Perhaps believing this claim is part of how Huckabee made his peace with the experience of running for president, enjoying some early victories, and then falling short. Even for the most thick-skinned and confident candidate, an electoral defeat must be an intensely personal rejection. After all, the name on the ballot isn’t your campaign manager, your advertising director, your press secretary, or anyone around you; it’s your name. So it’s not surprising that a candidate might look for some explanation that would shift the cause of the defeat from their own mistakes, missteps, or overall inability to persuade voters to some outside force or confluence of events.
People in politics, like people everywhere, often choose to believe conclusions that are convenient or reassuring and tend to ignore inconvenient facts and harder truths. The candidates who fail to win the Republican nomination in 2012 may very well conclude that their bid was unfairly impeded by the collusion of their foes. (Quite a few times on Twitter, I’ve seen Michele Bachmann referred to as a stalking horse for Mitt Romney, a surrogate attack dog who takes on the unpopular duties in exchange for reward later. But if she were an agent of the Romney campaign, why would she drop out so early? Why wouldn’t Romney keep her in the mix to attack his rivals to South Carolina and beyond?)
Well the issue is not McCain Thompson collusion, it is that Thompson had no chance to win, and preferred McCain to Huckabee, and stayed in while if he preferred Huckabee to McCain he may have dropped out. But to be fair, Thompson probably thought he had a chance until SC.
How did "Solvemedia know I needed to spruce-up? (ironically, I thought the "v" in solve was a "y.")
Anyway, my philosophical take is pretty simple on Huck's *need* to over-explain his losing...and "exaggerating" the facts. Ego is an obvious driving force....unless the intent is to make us all think he *is* a qualified to be President. Oh geez. Are we witnessing a preemptive sales pitch?
At this point, nothing would surprise me. I mean, I fully expect Obama to announce Newt is replacing Reggie Love.
As the wise Benny Hill used to say "Just because nobody complains doesn't mean all parachutes are perfect."
Hey Fred, You quit while you were still in a statistical tie with McCain, you took a damned f'ing dive and everybody knows it, now sit down and shut up.
I don't watch Huckabee or really pay attention to him but I can say I like him a lot more now than I liked him as a candidate. I think a good portion of the party feels that way. There's really no need for him to remind us of Huckabee the candidate. None of it matters, though. Obama wasn't losing that election.
Actually listening to the tone of Huckabee's voice in that brief clip that was played, and the speed he spoke at, etc. and how quickly he jumped to the "oh, I'm not upset by it" revealed to me he was still annoyed by it now, and he was deeply disturbed by it then. It's a close count the SC race came down to last time around and Huckabee played typical dirty politics as much as possible within reason. Similar to Gringrich this time around, but Gingrich has lost all reason.
Huckabee can't have an opposing politico on his show without trying to force an apology from him or her. It's embarrassing. Makes one think he has an Obama-sized vanity.
Saw Huckabee interviewed by Kelly on Fred's response. He alluded to his campaign manager, one Ed Rollins, who relayed this to Huckabee after talking to three different sources in McCain's campaign. So, either A) McCain's campaign was lying to Rollins (possible), B) Rollins was lying to Huckabee (most likely), C) Huckabee was lying to us about his information (least likely), D) all three are telling the truth but communication was done by staff (2nd most likely), or E) McCain & Thompson did directly coordinate and are now lying (2nd least likely) Funny, I'd forgotten Rollins was with Huckabee, but there you go.
To see the embarrassing hubris of another politician like Mr. Huckabee?
Does he really believe he was a conservative candidate?
Mr. Huckabee taxed, spent, pardoned, etc., far more than Bill Clinton over the same length of tenure as the Governor of ARK.
Also, Conservatives including those within the mighty NR, Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, etc., all endorsed Mr. Romney as the Conservative Candidate in 2008 (some far too late responding in desperation seeing the inevitable McCain weakness winning the Nomination).
Huckabee was only a Social Conservative relying on image. He was never going to win the Nomination, and could not even step aside as the classy Mr. Romney did, when it was clear John McCain regretfully won the Race.
Yet, Huckabee used the Primary, as many politicians do, to grow a brand and further their career.
The irony of it all, is Huckabee, Rudy, McCain, etc., all the Public Sector Products began to team up against the Private Sector Entity of Mr. Romney in the 2008 Election, because they could not handle his offering.
So we would have been better off if Huckabee or Romney were the nominee in 2008? I still think we would have ended up with Obama. Why not have better republicans run in the first place? Is Mitt, Newt, Perry, Paul and Santorum the best we have? Were McCain, Mitt, and Huckabee the best in 2008? Oh well. Happy Friday the 13th
EBL, I agree with your sentiments, but I then reflect and ask myself the following, "after the 'vetting' or onslaught of negative ads or comparisons, is there anyone who wouldn't be considered lacking?"
I would bet even Rubio, Daniels or Jindal will look the same after the 'vetting'.
This is especially ironic when others think Huckabee stayed in the race so long to hurt Romney. Granted his support wouldn't all have gone to Romney, but still, without him, Romney would have been the clear "conservative alternative".
Well the issue is not McCain Thompson collusion, it is that Thompson had no chance to win, and preferred McCain to Huckabee, and stayed in while if he preferred Huckabee to McCain he may have dropped out. But to be fair, Thompson probably thought he had a chance until SC.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow did "Solvemedia know I needed to spruce-up? (ironically, I thought the "v" in solve was a "y.")
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnyway, my philosophical take is pretty simple on Huck's *need* to over-explain his losing...and "exaggerating" the facts. Ego is an obvious driving force....unless the intent is to make us all think he *is* a qualified to be President. Oh geez. Are we witnessing a preemptive sales pitch?
At this point, nothing would surprise me. I mean, I fully expect Obama to announce Newt is replacing Reggie Love.
As the wise Benny Hill used to say "Just because nobody complains doesn't mean all parachutes are perfect."
The captcha for this was "foul play." A sign?
The more interesting question was why didn't Fred Thompson catch fire as a candidate?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHey Fred, You quit while you were still in a statistical tie with McCain, you took a damned f'ing dive and everybody knows it, now sit down and shut up.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't watch Huckabee or really pay attention to him but I can say I like him a lot more now than I liked him as a candidate. I think a good portion of the party feels that way. There's really no need for him to remind us of Huckabee the candidate. None of it matters, though. Obama wasn't losing that election.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseActually listening to the tone of Huckabee's voice in that brief clip that was played, and the speed he spoke at, etc. and how quickly he jumped to the "oh, I'm not upset by it" revealed to me he was still annoyed by it now, and he was deeply disturbed by it then. It's a close count the SC race came down to last time around and Huckabee played typical dirty politics as much as possible within reason. Similar to Gringrich this time around, but Gingrich has lost all reason.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHuckabee can't have an opposing politico on his show without trying to force an apology from him or her. It's embarrassing. Makes one think he has an Obama-sized vanity.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSaw Huckabee interviewed by Kelly on Fred's response. He alluded to his campaign manager, one Ed Rollins, who relayed this to Huckabee after talking to three different sources in McCain's campaign. So, either A) McCain's campaign was lying to Rollins (possible), B) Rollins was lying to Huckabee (most likely), C) Huckabee was lying to us about his information (least likely), D) all three are telling the truth but communication was done by staff (2nd most likely), or E) McCain & Thompson did directly coordinate and are now lying (2nd least likely) Funny, I'd forgotten Rollins was with Huckabee, but there you go.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIsn't it just truly entertaining?
To see the embarrassing hubris of another politician like Mr. Huckabee?
Does he really believe he was a conservative candidate?
Mr. Huckabee taxed, spent, pardoned, etc., far more than Bill Clinton over the same length of tenure as the Governor of ARK.
Also, Conservatives including those within the mighty NR, Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, etc., all endorsed Mr. Romney as the Conservative Candidate in 2008 (some far too late responding in desperation seeing the inevitable McCain weakness winning the Nomination).
Huckabee was only a Social Conservative relying on image. He was never going to win the Nomination, and could not even step aside as the classy Mr. Romney did, when it was clear John McCain regretfully won the Race.
Yet, Huckabee used the Primary, as many politicians do, to grow a brand and further their career.
The irony of it all, is Huckabee, Rudy, McCain, etc., all the Public Sector Products began to team up against the Private Sector Entity of Mr. Romney in the 2008 Election, because they could not handle his offering.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"...they could not handle his offering."
Well, that maybe, and the fact he was an two-faced back-stabber. They all disliked Romney for how he acted, not his policies.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo we would have been better off if Huckabee or Romney were the nominee in 2008? I still think we would have ended up with Obama. Why not have better republicans run in the first place? Is Mitt, Newt, Perry, Paul and Santorum the best we have? Were McCain, Mitt, and Huckabee the best in 2008? Oh well. Happy Friday the 13th
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEBL, I agree with your sentiments, but I then reflect and ask myself the following, "after the 'vetting' or onslaught of negative ads or comparisons, is there anyone who wouldn't be considered lacking?"
I would bet even Rubio, Daniels or Jindal will look the same after the 'vetting'.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is especially ironic when others think Huckabee stayed in the race so long to hurt Romney. Granted his support wouldn't all have gone to Romney, but still, without him, Romney would have been the clear "conservative alternative".
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse