Huckabee’s Victory: What Does it Mean?
Governor Mike Huckabee won yesterday… bigtime. It wasn’t even close. What does his victory, and Romney’s defeat, mean for the GOP?
Governor Mike Huckabee won yesterday… bigtime. It wasn’t even close. The main reason for his victory? 60% of the GOP voters who showed up were Evangelicals. The question now is what his victory means for the race for the Republican nomination and for the Republican Party as a whole. In this post I will try to answer both questions.
As said, Governor Huckabee was able to win – with such a big lead – because 60% of the voters were Evangelicans, in other words: Conservative Christians. That’s his base. When these voters show up in droves, he’ll win. That was clear before the caucuses, it has been proven to be correct after them.
His victory means that Romney – who appealed and appeals to far more kinds of conservatives than Huckabee – is in trouble. Major trouble even. He now has to win in New Hampshire. The bad news for Romney with regards to NH, however, is that he’s now behind John McCain in the polls. If Romney loses in New Hampshire he basically toast, although he could still make a comeback if he wins in Michigan. He has the money to compete on Super Tuesday. If he loses in the Granite State as well it’ll be almost impossible for him to make a comeback but not completely impossible. If Romney, however, loses in Michigan as well – which is possible – he may as well drop out: he won’t probably because he has the money to go all the way, but he won’t win.
Where does that leave the party? It means that the GOP has no real compromise candidate. Romney can unite the party like none of the other candidates can. The only one who comes close is Senator McCain, but he’s unpopular among the conservative base. They’ll support him in the general elections, but not very passionately.
In other words, Huckabee’s victory means that it becomes increasingly like that the GOP has to choose between a moderate Republican, a social conservative populist and a fiscally conservative yet socially liberal.
The downside is, obviously, that if the Republican Party nominates Rudy Giuliani social conservatives will revolt. If, on the other hand, the party nominates Mike Huckabee fiscal conservatives, libertarian conservatives and moderate Republicans will either revolt, or stay home on election day. And if the party nominates McCain? Well, that’s probably the best choice after Romney.
One gets the impression that McCain and Huckabee are more than willing to join forces, by the way. It seems very likely to me that if McCain wins in New Hampshire and continues to do well, we’ll see a McCain / Huckabee ticket for the GOP. Such a coalition would unite social conservatives and moderate Republicans… and other kinds of conservatives would hold their nose and vote. Such a ticket would rally the Christian conservative base because, for the first time, they’ll have a VP of their own. And McCain is doing great nationally, especially among Independents, meaning that a McCain – Huckabee ticket would be difficult to beat for the Democrats, whoever their nominee will be.
Internally the Republican Party now has a problem. Richard A. Viguerie – one of the intellectuals behind American conservatism and behind the conservative coalition – already published an article saying that Huckabee’s victory “is bad news for the Republican Party.” The reason is that “Mike Huckabee is a Christian socialist. He is a good man, but with a Big Government heart. He is the most liberal of all the Republican presidential candidates on economic issues.”
Viguerie goes on to say that “Huckabee’s approach to every problem or perceived problem is to pass a law and launch another government program. If you like President George W. Bush, you’ll love Mike Huckabee.”
A Huckabee nomination would, Viguerie says, leave the Republican Party in disarray: the GOP has been able to win elections because of the conservative coalition. “In the 1970s, we conservatives had two legs on our stool—economic responsibility and a strong national defense—but that wasn’t enough to win many elections. It wasn’t until we added the third leg to our stool—social issues—that conservatives were able to win elections consistently,” the author of “Conservatives Betrayed” says. “Now Huckabee wants to go back to a two-legged stool—social issues and defense. He would saw off the economic leg. That’s a recipe for disaster for the Republican Party. Economic and traditional conservatives would stay home in droves, turning the country over to the Democrats.”
Dan Riehl agrees with Viguerie arguing that “as things stand, the Republicans don’t have a candidate that can win nationally in 2008.” He also says, however, that “Iowa has settled nothing. It’s just given a lot of people something to talk about, and not much more” because the “Republican race is wide open – it’s anyone’s to lose, or win.”
And that’s the good news, really, for traditional conservatives. Yes, Huckabee won, but that doesn’t mean that Romney’s out, nor does it mean that Republicans have to choose between a moderate Republican, a Christian conservative and a fiscally conservative but socially liberal candidate. Romney’s still in, as is Thompson. Thompson finished third, which was the goal, but with less support than he hoped for. His candidacy won’t receive a boost – yesterday’s winners are Huckabee and McCain – but it wasn’t a defeat for him either. His candidacy, therefore, is still alive.
The Republican Party is in chaos right now. Other states will have to decide whether they want to continue the war between the different conservative groups, or whether they’d rather have someone who can unite the party, thus someone who’s a bit of everything. Huckabee’s victory means that Christian conservatives finally have their own candidate and are rallying behind him, but also that Republicans now have to choose – not just between candidates, but also between directions.
One thing has to be said though, and that is that some people are overdoing it a bit. I know that I’ve criticized Huckabee in the past, but the Republican Party won’t be destroyed if he becomes the nominee. It will however, mean that an ideological battle will take place within the GOP and that the GOP will have no chance of winning in the national elections, especially not if Obama is the Democratic nominee.
More at PowerLine, Michelle Malkin, Wizbang and the Weekly Standard.
Romney is NOT uniting the party, even if you think he should be. Fiscal conservatives are divided, yet they want to scapegoat their own failure to field a great candidate on the evangelicals. Romney (and his supporters- hint, hint) are reminding me more and more of a GOP version of John Kerry. If Romney and his supporters want to pull this off, they need to stop blaming their sluggish campaign on everyone except Romney- he’s simply not connecting with people and not convincing the fiscal conservatives to rally behind him.
Forgive the expression, but ‘Amen’ to that. First of all, fiscal conservatives have sat by for a decade or more and were happy enough to use the religious conservatives to help propel the party- and meanwhile they ignored it when their own paleoconservative elected leaders acted irresponsibly and blew any chance to claim the high ground on spending.
Second, if Iowa is any indication, voters want change and they want someone who’s younger and more energetic, and who appeals to centrists. Despite Huckabee’s religosity, he DOES have broad appeal because of his populist message and softened rhetoric.
As I’ve said before, I have misgivings about him on several issues, but the attacks on him have been way over the top. I’m hoping (and I’ll even stick my neck out now and predict) that McCain takes NH and they both do well in SC- and by Super Tuesday I’m hoping that McCain will be the clear frontrunner and Huck will eventually become his running mate.
If I would be a betting man, I’d put my money on that scenario.
I’m kind of divided on the Huckabee win. On the one hand, I want Obama to become president, and Huckabee as the Republican candidate would make that more likely, since his Christian Leader rhetoric would energize democratic voters and possibly put off some Republican voters. On the other hand:
a- I made a bet like that before, with Bush, being sure there was no way he could win. That turned out badly, and I would NOT want it to go the same way again.
b- Even if it made terrain more difficult for the Democratic candidate, it would be better as a whole if BOTH candidates could be someone I could trust for running the nation.
B is especially important. I’d much rather not be biting my nails for 10 months worrying about making another Bush-sized mistake. In that sense I’d rather McCain or even Romney became the Republican candidate. Hell, if Clinton recovers and wins the nomination, I’ll even consider voting for McCain.
That’s because your underlying suppositions are fundamentally flawed. There just aren’t as many people motivated to vote against a Christian conservative as there are Christian conservative voters motivated to come out and vote FOR such a candidate- particularly if they’re convinced he’s the ‘real deal’.
I think there are great number of Democrats and Independents who aren’t happy about the religious message in Huckabee’s campaign, but they aren’t motivated with the same passion to vote against this phenomenon as you seem to think they are. And turnout is what it’s all about- too often we seem to think it’s a fixed sum game, and what Rove proved is that it’s anything but that. Getting people to the polls who traditionally never voted ends up changing the whole dynamic.
Good grief, there is no pleasing Viguerie!
To be more precise Christine, I bet Bush wouldn’t win the last time around not because he was religious, but because I thought there was no way the country was going to vote for such an idiot frat-boy, even if his name WAS Bush and he was running against a robot. I was obviously wrong.
As for the Christian Conservative vote, time shall tell. At this point, I think I’d rather not find out which of us is right. I agree with both of you that the Republicans best bet is a McCain-Huckabee.
Me, I’m hoping for an Obama-Biden.
Viguerie’s three legged stool analogy is absurd (and a perfect illustration of the kind of scapegoating within the GOP that sickens me.)
The social conservatives added the third leg to the stool- Viguerie is correct about that. The economic conservatives then completely abdicated their responsibility to keep to principles of fiscal conservativism. They made the entire litmus test for fiscal conservatism into ‘tax cuts’, rather than expecting their candidates to reduce spending. They allowed their leg of the stool to rot away and collapse- it wasn’t sawed off by religious conservatives, it withered from neglect. If economic conservatives don’t like that they’ve become irrelevant, they need to fix this instead of pointing the finger at other parts of the coalition.
Christine: that doesn’t mean that he’s wrong about the conservative coalition. In fact, he’s right. This is something everyone who has studied the phenomenon can tell you.
Yes, these are really the three conservative groups who form the coalition. The fact that Republicans, once in power, didn’t behave very fiscally conservative doesn’t mean that Viguerie is wrong to say that these are the conservative voters who form the foundation of the GOP’s success.
And he’s also right that if Huckabee becomes the nominee, many fiscal conservatives will stay at home, just as when Giuliani becomes the nominee many social conservatives will stay at home (note, by the way, that the only conservatives who have threatened to start a new party are the Christian conservatives).
All of that doesn’t mean, of course, that Republicans in office behaved fiscally conservative. They did not. That’s one of the reasons they lost in 06: fiscally conservative voters – whether very or moderately so – didn’t support the GOP but turned to the Democrats.
The conservative coalition is dependent on all three groups. Never forget that.
Huckabee won’t be the GOP nominee. He’s had very little media scrutiny up to now; few people have paid that close attention to him until the last 2 weeks. Once the spotlight turns up on him, his negatives (a serious temper and pardons and other skeletons in Arkansas) will be revealed more and more and he will fade away.
It’s interesting to see how many people are trying to make the caucuses mean something significant, when over the past week we’ve seen plenty of stories pointing out how unrepresentative they are of the country as a whole. They’re not secret, there’s no absentee voting, there’s little rigorous ID checking, etc., etc. For these and other reasons, as David Broder pointed out in a recent column, the Iowa caucuses tend to support the more ideological candidates.
I agree it was very bad news for Romney, just because he has spent SO much money for so long in Iowa. But for everybody else, I don’t think the caucuses say much of anything.
Michael: As I already stated, I agree that the coalition needs three legs. My complaint is that he (and just about everyone else who speaks for the fiscal conservatives) insist that it’s the social conservatives’ fault that the economic leg is shaky. I’m quite honestly getting alarmed and angry that the people who lead that coalition won’t take ANY responsibility for having broken their leg themselves! They’ve continued to support faux economic conservatives, and instead of acknowledging that it’s their own fault for doing this, they want to blame the social conservatives.
The dominance of social conservatives has happened because the economic conservatives weakened their own coalition. They weren’t able to convince centrist voters, so Rove’s strategy was to reach farther to the right on social issues. So, you can look at one leg getting stronger and say that’s the problem or you can (more correctly) look at the leg which has been weak and say it NEEDS TO BE REPAIRED!
Of course the coalition needs all three legs, and that’s the point. The fiscal conservatives are now acting just like the errant social conservatives who said they’d leave the party if Giuliani was nominated. Instead of accepting compromise and just insisting on where lines need to be drawn (so that social issues don’t eclipse economic ones or vice versa), each side is trying to saw off the other leg.
I really love it.
Honestly, I like both winners more then any other candidates.
Fresh faces , not connected with DC establishment in people’s mind.
I would not mind any of them to win.
I am not a religious guy, but I am not at all scared or dismayed with Huckabee candidacy. I think he will make a fine president,as well as Obama…
BTW did you guys watch MH speech last night, and how he handled the interview with C.Matthews ? I felt like an engineer unable to keep from admiring the German train system. He was hitting all the right notes — gentle, broadminded, conciliatory.
I actually thought his speech was more effective than Obama’s, who seemed a little off to me on his delivery (but that’s just me).
If he can get the Republican nomination – it won’t matter that the warmongerers and corporates hate his guts.
He’ll have the theocons, independents and conservative dems behind him, and the fact that the warmongerers hate his guts is going to help him with everyone else.
Stop using that word "warmonger" now. I’m not referring to you as a socialist dove am I?
I get your point here, but still, the focus should be on holding fiscally conservative leaders to the fire- make sure they deliver what they promise, or vote them out.
To be fair to Viguerie here, I don’t think he’s critical of Huckabee for being a social conservative, but he’s focusing on his economic policies. That’s a fair enough criticism, though I happen to think that Huckabee’s probably not as big of a spender as some would have us believe and I think he’ll move toward sending that message as soon as he’s shored up his support among social conservatives. I think he (or Rollins, actually) will see that he now needs to prove that he’s NOT the Christian socialist as Viguerie accuses. You can’t really look at a governor’s record on paper and say he’s a big spender because he agreed to raise taxes. Governors have to meet spending on programs mandated by the federal government, and in AR I believe there was a constitutional requirement to balance the budget- so he was between a rock and a hard place. I’d like to see Huckabee questioned much more thoroughly on his views on spending, but I don’t discount the possibility that he’s not for high spending at the federal level. In fact I’m surprised I haven’t seen either him or Romney yet make the case that as governors, they saw how the Washington mandates created these fiscal crises for the states and that this is why they’d fight for cuts to entitlement spending.
And I am not referring to you, Michael, as a warmonger.
you all know who I am putting here-neocons…
The practical question for the GOP is- who can stop Huckabee? Romney may escape with a narrow win over McCain in NH- where Huck’s populist charm won’t translate. But who can stop Huck in SC or FL? Huckabee’s identifiable base, the social cons, gives him a significant plurality in any contest- even through Super Tuesday.
The only way that the Huck Train can be derailed is if the GOP coalesces around an acceptable alternative- much the same way as the Dems chose Kerry over Dean in 04 (electability won out). That candidate won’t be Romney- but I don’t see it as McCain either. The challenge for Mac is that many mainstream Reps dislike him. This contrasts with Kerry in 04, who was favorable to the party’s base.
I also don’t get the exaggerated fear some liberals have of Huckabee. Somehow, because the guy thinks the Earth is 6,000 years old, we should all be quaking in our shoes at the thought of his being president.
Do presidents get to decide the age of the earth, or something? Do presidents get to mandate the teaching of creationism in all public schools?
The thing I like about Huckabee,he reserves his religious believes for areas in which the president has relatively little ability to make policy. Someone like Giuliani or Romney, on the other hand, bring their craziness to precisely those spots where presidents (at least now) are all-powerful: getting us into (and keeping us) in wars and expanding the powers of the police state.
P.S. to Michael. I could be the most anti-socialist guy on this blog, not just theoretically like the most of you, but from personal experience, so your remark missed the target…
I’m not sure why you completely rule out Romney being the alternative candidate. I don’t really think it’ll happen, but I don’t see it as less likely than any of the others.
The way I see it, the problem is that there are too many choices and not enough reason for any one of them to become the anointed choice to stop Huckabee. However, what I think it may come down to is electability, and McCain/Huckabee as a team would have that IMO (at least more than others.) Neither of them appeals to the fiscal base enough, but both of them could at least offer enough support from independents to stop a Dem candidate in the general election. And putting McCain at the top of that ticket would be a compromise from the social conservative coalition, to demote Huck to second place, and keep him from doing the kind of damage that economic conservatives fear. He’d add the charm and communication skills without being such a liability.
That’s why I’m guessing the party will begin to tilt toward McCain. I just don’t see any similar movement toward coalescence behind Thompson, Romney, or Giuliani. If Giuliani’s strategy begins to work, it could be a different story, but right now he doesn’t seem to have much popular support even in the states that he hopes to capture, so unless that changes I don’t see it happening for him.
Who then? Giuliani ain’t acceptable for Christian Conservatives!
No, for the sake of the GOP I hope it’ll be either McCain, Romney or Thompson.
I think so as well, but – as Kreiz said – it will take one hell of an effort to stop Huckabee.
I think it only seems that way right now because he did so well in Iowa, but that’s a natural base for him. He won’t do so well in NH, and then the picture will look much different. If McCain does well in NH and SC, I think he’ll look more and more like the choice to take the steam out of Huckabee’s run- and since I’m not the only one who sees that the two of them are a good match, the added advantage is that Huckabee’s supporters wouldn’t be lost because he’ll probably be on the ticket too. Seems like a win-win for the party to me. The only compromise is that people will have to get over being mad at McCain for campaign finance and immigration. While that anger is significant, it’s still probably a lesser hurdle than expecting social conservatives to support Giuliani or expecting fiscal conservatives to support Huckabee at the top of the ticket.
BTW, Michael, do you realize that a day or two you were saying that Huckabee was finished and now you think he may be unstoppable?
I’m gonna engage in some really superficial commentary here… be warned…
If it looks like the Democrats will nominate Obama, the Republicans might as well save their money for 2012 or 2016. Did you see that man’s speech last night? I think I got goose-bumps from watching it. Maybe the speech didn’t have a lot of substance (just a lot of repeats about "hope"), but damn it was inspirational.
Huckabee and Edwards are the only two candidates that can get anywhere near holding a candle to the charisma of Obama. When you see Romney speak, do you honestly believe anything he is saying? I sure don’t. McCain isn’t too bad, but something about him is wanting. Maybe it’s his age?
Um? I saw someone else I believe at this blog saying that Obama disappointed. About what rocks your boat I guess.
No – I don’t think he’s unstoppable. I said that it’ll take one heck of an effort, which isn’t the same thing.
And stop rubbing it in (still don’t think he’ll win the nomination though).
Heh. I’m quite sure that you wouldn’t have rubbed it in if Huck had had a really poor showing in Iowa, right?
I don’t think he’ll get the nom either. I’ve actually been surprised that he’s surged as far as he has, because the party insiders loathe him and except for a few attacks, it appears that some people are holding their powder. Ultimately they’ll let loose and that will derail him- but I think that if he continues to get as much popular support as he’s getting (and attracting young voters and independents), they’ll have to grudgingly allow him in the #2 slot which logically means backing McCain as the compromise rather than rallying behind Romney, Thompson, or Giuliani.
My question remains- who is going to be the GOP Kerry in the face of Huckabee’s Dean-like rise to stardom? And when is it going to happen?
I don’t think it’s going to be McCain. He meets the Kreiz Test: if I like him (as a moderate, I do), it means he’s too liberal to be nominated by the GOP.
kreiz,
Given the way ‘04 turned out, shouldn’t the question be "how do we avoid picking a Kerry?" The way I see it, Romney could very well be a Kerry type but hopefully the GOP will see fit to pick someone different than that. In Kerry, the Dems seemed to grudgingly try to find a compromise but in the end no one really liked the guy- and that’s the same dynamic I see with Romney.
Kerry barely lost, during a time of war to boot.
Barely doesn’t count in politics or horseshoes, ChrisWWW.
Christine, I’m looking at it from a pure horserace perspective. It looks to me like stopping Huckabee is easier said than done. McCain appears to be the only one in a position to do it- and he’s not widely liked by regulars in his own party.
BTW, I agree with you that Romney is a stiff in the Kerry/Gore/Mondale tradition. I used to think that the GOP would coalesce around Giuliani, but that’s remote now. That leaves Thompson (hit the snooze alarm) and McCain. Given Huck’s base and his personality, Mac’s got his hands full, put it that way.
Further, Mac’s bid to stop Huckabee has to be on Super Tuesday, as Huck is likely to do well in SC and FL.
So when is also an important consideration.
I hope you understood my point C Stanley
Yeah, I understand about the horserace but I just hope the party machine recognizes that it’s a long race, not a sprint- they need to pick the horse that can go the distance to November. In some ways I think Obama’s rise will help them see this; they’ll have to note that a lot of independents are going for him so they can’t ignore that- nor ignore the need to pull in the religious right wing to counter it. And, they’ll have to know that they can’t count on the anti-Hillary vote to propel their candidate in the general election.
Oops, 33 was in response to kreiz’s 30.
And yes, ChrisWWW, I did get your point but I still maintain that if you’re going to play at all, you have to play to win. You don’t choose a candidate in the hopes that he’ll make a reasonably good showing, you pick the one who you believe can actually win.
I imagine that people with better political minds than yours or mine are at work on that question right now.;-)
For one thing, remember that no one candidate has to do it alone. Maybe Giuliani will get some help in FL so that Huckabee won’t do as well as expected there- that helps decrease his momentum. If the party really wants to bring Huckabee down, they’ll pick whoever they want to come out the winner and then they’ll find a strategy to gradually deflate Huckabee’s balloon and allow their preferred candidate to build up his own head of steam.
Undoubtedly better political minds are at work- probably with as few clear answers as we have. Had to laugh at Matt Yglesias’’s line in the Huckabee general election context- citing Dr. Johnson’s dictum of how the prospect of being hanged in the morning concentrates the mind wonderfully. There’s a lot of GOP concentration going on right now- just as there was on the Dem side in 2004 with Dean.
LOL, true. I guess what I’m saying is that until now, really only Romney has been attacking Huck because it was the battle for the evangelical votes. Now all of the candidates will unleash their attacks against him- and more than likely, the powers that be within the party will coordinate the attacks to favor one particular candidate. I think if they have any sense of who could win in the general, they’ll do this to favor McCain, not Romney, Giuliani, or Thompson (and it’s beyond even mentioning that the party machine won’t throw any bones to Paul.)
Christine, I have some fun for you (i am sure you can appreciate it):
Stephen Green is having a aneurysm!
LOL, that is funny sashal- and I enjoyed the comments as well.
Christine, also please, check how , serious, knowledgeable and reliable our DC punditry class is:
Joe Klein, Time, December 31, 2007:
Mike Allen, The Politico, January 1, 2008:
Dean Barnett, The Weekly Standard, December 24, 2007:
Jonathan Martin, The Politico, December 31, 2007:
Hugh Hewitt, December 28, 2007:
Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds, December 20, 2007:
Kathryn Jean Lopez, National Review, December 21, 2007:
Michelle Malkin, December 20, 2007:
h/t G.Greenwald
Love it, sashal. Many of those same pundits become brilliant after the fact. A friend and I were just talking- 8 months ago, we both wrote off Huckabee as a Second Tier candidate with a goofy-sounding name. No one would vote for him. Of course, that analysis rates up there with my 2005 "George Allen is a GOP lock" prediction.
LOL, those are priceless, sashal. And sorry, Michael, but I can’t resist:
The "Culture of Life" (Ehah. Ehahahaha…) crowd wants it all. They think they represent conservatism. They do not – they are conservatism applied with a religious filter which deprioritizes fiscal freedom and prioritizes making the "usual" folk feel better about themselves.
Fiscal conservatives (whom I do not symphatize with even though I hope they come out on top in the fracturing of the party) have catered to these self-important crowds in order to get some tax cuts. Well Bush was catastrophic – not only has he screwed the budget and made socialism seem compatible with his christianism – he has failed to harm the rights of gays, single parents and pregnant women so the poor bedroom-invaders still have an appetite.
Well, there is no way the social conservatives are the "real" ones. Their scepticism is not applied rationally but stems from a book. They think their "values" can solve societal problems, but the only thing they are doing is using the bible as some sort of quilt, using it here and there and pretending this makes sense. That is not conservatism, but hubris. They don’t think gays getting adoption rights are bad because of unintended consequences – but since an old book that have been associated with good things since their minds were young and soft says that gays are inherently bad they demand that society respects their faith. No. First they want Leviticus to be relevant to gay issues. What else will they then demand from society regarding obeisance to the bible? Now THAT’S a slippery slope.
Fiscal conservatives, OTOH, are primarily concerned with a scientific approach, as if following Clausewitz’s warning about logistic problems. Their philosophical origins are modern, independent and firmly concerned with pure human nature as defined by reason. They are more based on reason, and are primarily set in the core of conservatism – pure simple scepticism.
The fact that some in the GOP are very negative towards Huck is great – it means that the fiscals will have to distance themselves from the SoCons now that they see that they can’t manipulate their tiger so easily, it means the GOP will be fractured in ‘08 and it will lead to a conflict that finally will force the GOP to abandon its current Frankenstein form.
admin: Thread hijacking spam removed. This thread is about Huckabee, not Ron Paul.
LMAO. I’m so glad that you guys aren’t going overboard with the messianic rhetoric about Ron Paul.
Mark my words: he’s not going to win and there’ll be a tremendous anti-Huckabee backlash.
The only way to prevent such a backlash is if McCain quickly becomes the outspoken frontrunner, in which case fiscal and traditional conservatives won’t feel so threatened by Huckabee.
The WWRP do tag was a Huckabee half-joke about evangelicals who are given credit for propelling him to a win in Iowa. I hope evangelicals look at his past policies and read articles that he has written before they vote. He wants to tinker with foreign governments. McCain-this guy is (really) a Bush clone. Why do people support someone who wants all of these intl’ treaties that let the rest of the dictators in the world write rules and enforce rules on Americans? —Hate crime laws, LOST, trade, you name it. These other countries don’t use juries. They don’t give 4th ammendment protections. The have a different sense of what is just. McCain is scary when it comes to the treaties he supports. What does it say about him?