Monday, February 04, 2008
Huckabee Seems Confused on the Subject…
Mike Huckabee is complaining about voter “supression” after taking umbrage at the Romney campaign’s assertion that a vote for Huckabee is a vote for McCain in the upcoming primaries. That assertion may or may not be true--I’m not sure where Huckabee fans will break when their guy is forced out of the picture--but I think that Huckabee is a bit confused on the whole point of the campaign.
See, the campaign exists to convince people to vote for your side instead of the other guy’s side. Voter suppression, on the other hand, is when you try to convince people to stay home--something I try to do when faced with people who really don’t seem to care about the political process, the issues at hand, and what the candidates actually stand for.
So, for example, if I point out that there is no way in the world that, say, a vote for Obama in the general election is a vote for higher taxes than McCain or Romney will offer us, I’m not trying to suppress the pro-tax contingent, I’m simply letting you know what the consequences of your vote will end up being. Now, since over one half of my recent (and modest raise) was eaten up by taxes, let’s just say that the tax issue is a big one for me.
In case you skipped over that last bit, let me say it again: over 53% of my raise was taken away from me in taxes. Damnit. Update: See comments for just how incorrect this number is. If you’re curious.
What were we talking about? Oh, yes.
Offering up arguments to convince a person to vote A instead of B is voter re-direction, not suppression. Suppression would be me saying that Obama will win so handily that you don’t even need to show up to cast a vote. Don’t waste your time.
See the difference, Mike?
Good. Because Romney seems to have a firm grip on the subject and he’s beating you over the head with it:
Huckabee’s accusation followed Romney’s remarks to FOX News last week, in which the former Massachusetts governor said: “A vote for Huckabee is a vote for McCain, and if they want John McCain as their nominee … that’s exactly what the vote would do.”
Huckabee then cast Romney’s comment as an attempt to keep voters from going to the polls.
“If you try to discourage people from voting for somebody, what else would you call it? Isn’t voter suppression when you try to keep people from voting a certain way, by anybody’s definition? … Isn’t that voter suppression, suppressing the vote, pushing it down, keeping people from feeling comfortable and going and making a vote? I think that’s exactly what it is,” Huckabee told reporters during a stop in Chattanooga, Tenn., on Monday.
But Romney, speaking in Atlanta, dismissed the charge, saying Huckabee has misused the term.“First a couple of rules in politics. One, no whining. And Number 2, you get them to vote for you. And so I want them not to vote for Mike Huckabee and not to vote for John McCain and to vote for me. … That’s not voter suppression. That’s known as politics,” Romney said. “I want people to vote, but I want them to vote for me.”
I’ve started wondering, somewhere deep in the back of my head, if it isn’t Ron Paul that’s plotting a third party run if he doesn’t get the nomination: unless he imagines that he’ll be offered a plum cabinet position or the VP slot for giving out his endorsement, what is Huckabee still running for? The only thing that shoots down my own little, irrational conspiracy theory is the fact that there would be nowhere for Huckabee to run.
The mind wanders.
Comments & Trackbacks
It never fails to amaze me that we differ so much on politics and yet you are my first stop for political information. Like, BEFORE JOHN STEWART.
So, who the hell do I vote for already?
You would just have spent the raise money on trivia like mortgages and food. Don’t be so selfish. Alaska needs a bridge.
That’s a hell of a compliment. Thank you.
And I’d bet that you vote for Obama and the politics of change. Why? Because he has almost all the same policy beliefs as Hillary, only he’ll be more honest about trying to get them done, he’s a damned site more likable, and he would do better against McCain in the general election. I think McCain will tear Hillary up in the debates if he’s given half a chance.
Which is why I’m pretty sure you should vote for Ron Paul.
Heheh.
Actually, I was hoping for a raise big enough to cover my yearly Bash expenses.
Walk me through that math. 53% seems awfully high, even if you’re including social security taxes on that…
You’re right. That’s too high for two reasons: I can’t figure out how I came up with that number yesterday, so I’m going to blame it on too much Nyquil, and it also includes my retirement deduction which is calculated as a percentage of my check, not a set amount. The real number--including that retirement deduction--is about 37%. Which still feels high to me, but not even close to as high as it seemed yesterday.
Thanks for reporting that Romney response. It’s the best thing I’ve heard him say yet.
I was about down to voting for Romney as the least worst. That gives me some little hope that my vote is more than ineffectual damage control.
I disagree one one point that you made in the comments: I think that McCain fares better in the general election against Obama than Clinton. In a McCain vs. Obama election all of the young voters will go to Obama, the swing voters will split between the “maverick” and the changey-changester. but the Boomers will flock to McCain. The Boomers will have less of a problem with McCain’s age then with Obama’s inexperience. In a McCain vs. Hillary contest you have young people avoiding the polls and swing voters going for the “maverick” but Boomers flocking to Hillary. A much closer election.
For completion, Romney gets crushed by Obama because Romney seems too muck like an insider. Against Hillary he fares better because they are both insiders, but Hillary gets the Boomers. The swing voters split.
Of course, I’m just talking out my @$$ so don’t hold me to it if the reality is far different from my prediction.
Congratulations on the raise, by the way. As far as the percentage of the raise going to taxes, please remember that we have a graduated taxation system in this company. Had the raise taken you into a new tax bracket it is likely that you would have lost the whole thing, plus some.
I would vote Paul. I want to vote Paul. I love Paul. But I’m not voting Paul. Why? Because I’d rather live here for the rest of my life than come back to an America that McCain ran. I like McCain the way you seem to like Carter.
I, honestly, am not voting AT ALL unless it’s a split Obama/Clinton ticket. Either order, doesn’t matter. I won’t vote for either solo, but I will vote for them together.
It’s not that I’m not American enough, it’s just going to be rather hard for me to vote this year, being and ex-pat who is not currently registered to vote, and I have better things to waste my time on that pointless votes that won’t matter. Things like Bashes.
Did you say Bash?
Perhaps I could waste a little time on a good grammar-check program, though. *blushes*
Actually, I think most of us fellow commenters dig marginal grammar. So don’t worry about it.
Some of Hillary’s high profile backers on Wall Street are becoming appalled at the ridiculous proposals she is coming up with on the campaign trail. Like the outrageous “sub-prime mortgage interest moratorium” she has proposed that would probably push half the financial industry into bankruptcy.