Brand X wrote:blatham wrote:Brand X wrote:blatham wrote:This is getting interesting. The Washington-centered republican crowd aren't happy with Huckabee's rise and they are tossing up ads against him. What I wish to see happen is the evangelical community getting very enthusiastic about their boy Huck but then finding that the money core of the RNC will knife him in the back without blinking.
ps...A month or so ago, Bill Clinton suggested that folks watch Huckabee.
blatham, in your opinion...who are they killing him off for?
.
Are you asking which other candidate would be preferred?
ja.
It is playing out now.
Two considerations appear to be paramount...winning the election, and then having someone in place who will forward the interests of the Washington/Republican/corporate crowd.
Bush was really a perfect sort of candidate for them because of his projected electability, his membership within the monied republican business elites, because of his high predictability regarding future policies and personnel appointments and because he could be 'managed'. Contrary to Rove and Mehlman's insistance that Bush is a man of principle, he's really exactly the opposite. And that's ideal. A principled individual may act, out of his principles, as a barrier or counter-intention to corporate of partisan interests.
McCain, by contrast, is clearly disfavored by these folks. He has forwarded and fought for bills and policies which acted to diminish corporate power, their insulation from legal challenges and financial penalties, and their acces to power and manipulation of power through lobbying and election funding. Relatively, McCain is principled and that's the problem. He can't be predicted to acquiese to financial/corporate interests (or even to goals for party dominance), in fact, he can be predicted to work in opposition to those interests where his principles conflict.
Tancredo, aside from being inelectable, is clearly acting in opposition to serious money interests in the US. It seems a vulgarization to claim Tancredo is driven by principle (as opposed to racism and fear/distrust/hatred of the outsider) but in this context, it functions in the same way.
I suspect they had, though now not so much, hopes for Thompson. There's not much I know of to suggest he has the sort of strong principles which might work to obstruct. His poor performance to this point leaves him looking unelectable.
Again, I think Huckabee is not merely unpredictable (from the viewpoint of the interests we are discussing) but he's likely unelectable too. The only significant positives to this group (and they are significant) is his appeal to the evangelical part of the party along with a certain ease of manner that comes across well. Look to see Huckabee on the VP ticket because of those positives and because as VP he can be controlled. (Note how this is 180 degrees the converse of the present situation...you'd get a return to the weak VP. The 'revolution' Cheney has wrought re VP power is entirely utilitarian, there's no principle nor political philosophy behind it).
Which leave Romney and Giuliani. I confess that I can't read Romney well nor am I very clear on how this oligarchy/corporatocrasy I'm speaking of thinks about him. So I need to get better information/perception on this.
But Rudy is clearly their fellow at this point. The big texas oil money is behind him, the conservative party/movement infrastructure in Washington is behind him, the neoconservatives love him to pieces (as does a larger community of pro-Likud activists, centered mainly in New York but not exclusively and with a lot of money at their disposal), and broad financial and corporate interests find his ideas (and his crook identity) just what the doctor ordered. He looks possibly the most electible. He's a foil for Hillary.
That's how I see it presently.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace