I might have titled this post “The Most Viable Candidate for President, Part 2” because it continues the theme of my earlier post about Mitt Romney. Pro-lifers must take very seriously the question of a candidate’s viability in a general election. It’s not enough to win the popularity contest among primary voters. The best candidate will be able to win the general election.
With that in mind, consider Rich Lowry’s piece that appears today in National Review
online. Lowry sets forth reasons that Mike Huckabee will not be viable in the general election in November. These include his record on taxes, his lack of depth on foreign policy issues, and more. Combining these shortcomings with the fact that Huckabee has not yet been fully vetted, Lowry contends that a Huckabee nomination would mean a certain loss in the general election.
Lowry compares Mike Huckabee’s viability to Howard Dean’s in 2004: “As with Dean, his vulnerabilities in a general election are so screamingly obvious that it’s hard to believe that primary voters, once they focus seriously on their choice, will nominate him. . . Democrats have to be looking at Huckabee the way Republicans once regarded Dean â€” as a shiny Christmas present that is too good to be true.”
Anyway, Lowry’s concerns reflect those of a wide swath of savvy conservatives, and this article is definitely worth reading. I commend it to you for your careful consideration.