TexasCHLforum.com

OverEasy wrote:Huckabee hasn't quit yet! Could the NRA endorse him?

They certainly could, but given that Romney is out (and he was in 2nd place behind McCain in delegates), would the NRA benefit by not building bridges with McCain now? If the NRA throws its support to Huckabee, then that is one less reason for McCain - who is already shaky on gun rights - to give two figs (or even one) for what the NRA thinks. So far, the committed delegates shake out like this:

Mike Huckabee 190
John McCain 703
Ron Paul 14
Mitt Romney 293
Total 1,200

1,191 delegates are needed to win the nomination. The lions share of Romney's delegates are likely going to go to McCain, since Romney is going to support McCain's candidacy. McCain only needs 487 more delegates to capture the nomination. Subtract a good chunk of Romney's 293 from that number. Then, start adding in those delegates from the remaining states. Texas is a winner takes all state with 140 delegates. As of 1/31/07, Texas was polling Mitt Romney 30%, John McCain 29%, Mike Huckabee 20%, Ron Paul 8% (Paul can't even buy a break in his own state). With Romney out, McCain will pull a lot higher than 29%, and it isn't too hard to see him netting all 140 delegates. And in March, we also have the Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont and Mississippi primaries. Ohio, Rhode Island, and Vermont are all states with less than conservative state Republican parties. (Ohio has split Dem and Rep. Senators. Rhode Island finally boot Lincoln "RINO" Chaffee and replaced him with a Dem. And Vermont elected "Jumpin'" Jim Jeffers, for cryin' out loud.) So it isn't hard to see McCain capturing most, if not all, of the delegates from those 3 states. All the remaining primaries after March are in states with relatively low population density (Pennsylvania excepted) and fairly low delegate numbers. The upshot of all this is that we will know for certain by the end of march who the de facto Republican nominee will be, but it is fairly safe to say right now that it will be McCain.

If my interpretation is correct, then WRT to this thread topic, it is foolish of the NRA not to engage with McCain to see if they can get enough assurances from him to make it worth lending him their endorsement.

BTW, the thought of McCain makes me retch, but the situation is what it is, and it has to be dealt with.

All which means that the NRA can now concentrate its efforts on how to work with a McCain campaign and presidency (if he gets elected).

Skiprr wrote:Well, Romney is going to announce his withdrawal from the race today (I think officially it will be worded like "suspending new efforts," or some such). I think it's a good bet Romney won't endorse McCain, as bitter as their in-fighting has been, and, mathematically, I don't know if his endorsement of Huckabee will make any difference.

So srothstein's prediction is one step closer to being true. My money is on Obama vs. McCain.

Texas early voting starts February 19 for our March 4 primary. Just in case.

He actually did withdraw. I heard his speech to CPAC, and he DID throw lukewarm support toward McCain. He basically said (paraphrasing), "I have much that I disagree with John McCain about, but I know that in the war on terror, he is as strong as any Republican candidate and MUCH stronger than either Clinton or Obama." He also said that, since we cannot afford a Clinton or Obama in the whitehouse, he was going to do his part to support the Republican nominee, while remaining a voice for conservatism within the party.

So, it is official... Romney is pretty much out, and McCain is pretty much the nominee.

OverEasy wrote:I think God is going to give the USA just exactly the president we deserve. I don't know if that will calm you, or scare the living daylights out of you.

Isn't that true in any election year?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Getting into heated discussions about Ron Paul, "reasonable restrictions," or what the founding fathers meant is a great intellectual and academic discussion. But that is a discussion for another time and another place. We are coming off eight years of peace in the gun control war and we need to do everything we can to make the coming battle winnable. The pendulum swung against us for a few years under Clinton I, then it started swinging in our favor beginning in 1994. It is now about to swing back and how far it swings will depend on who is in the White House and how well we do in the House and Senate races. (More Senate Republican seats are at risk than those held by the Democrats.) And after the Heller decision, we will face years of litigation to determine just what gun laws will pass constitutional muster. (This presumes we win and I believe we will. It also presumes the Court does not apply the "strict scrutiny" test and I am confident it will not.)

I suggest we consolidate our efforts on making the best out of a bad situation. Doing anything else aids our enemies and they are numerous.

Chas.

Political common sense is not lost. Thank God. I hate that we do not have a clear cut conservative candidate with a chance of winning as much as the next guy. But at the end of the day, salvaging the situation means working with the best realistic choice, and I just don't see Rep. Paul as a realistic choice.

But that's just me.