A Message to Huckabee Supporters and Detractors
By swglaw Posted in Republicans — Comments (61) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
After reviewing the many articles on the Huckster that have appeared over the last week or so, I have come to the following observations:
1) Mike Huckabee is a fundamentally unacceptable candidate. He is very nearly as unacceptable, and as unserious, as HWSNBN.
2) Mike Huckabee's supporters, just like HWSNBN's supporters, steadfastly refuse to recognize, acknowledge or even address in a meaningful fashion the substantive reasons for #1 above, transforming every substantive argument into an "You hate him because he is a Christian" diversion, despite the fact that very many Conservative Christians (like me - FTR I support Thompson) are finding Huckabee unacceptable.
3) Mike Huckabee's detractors never seem to miss a chance to say things like "I don't want a Pastor in Chief" or "He's pandering to Christians" or some other back handed slur against Christianity and Christians, rather than focusing on the policy that makes #1 above undeniable.
4) The fact that #3 takes place causes some Christians, who would otherwise never say anything positive about this conservative poseur, to reflexively defend him, and may even broaden his support. It certainly does nothing to dissaude the true believers. It's like that girl your parents or your friends didn't want you to date. You know they are right. You hear their very valid concerns and objections, and you know they are true, because deep down you have the same concerns and objections. But you don't want to admit they are right, and so you stubbornly date her anyway. If left to your own devices, you would have come the conclusion she was bad news, and avoided her. But you could simply not abide being told what to do, even though it was obvious. I think a certain amount of Huckabee's support is based on this dynamic. I don't believe it will be enough, maybe not even enough to win Iowa. You might date the girl; but when the rubber meets the road, no way will you marry her just to spite your parents and friends. There may be some who will follow through to the bitter end, but not enough to matter.
I also note that there seem to be very few defending Huckabee here. The ones who do are generally new, and very vocal. There are a few sane supporters, but not many. In this regard, Huckabee virtually mirrors HWSNBN.
So to the supporters, I say this: Look deep down. You know in your heart that Huckabee is not a good candidate. His policy positions, particularly fiscal, immigration and security, are train wrecks that this nation cannot abide, Christian or no. Please look elsewhere.
To the detractors, I say this: You are absolutely correct. Huckabee should not be the Republican nominee. But please keep in mind that every time your attack makes a back handed (or direct) stab at his professed faith, you will likely offend someone into either defending or even supporting him. So if you really want to keep him from the nomination, stick with criticizing the policy.
Oh, and P.S. - Go Fred!
and the lack of response by Huck supporters was telling. It is difficult to understand where the support comes from, and why. But the guy seems to be made of teflon, and the "Pastor in Chief" comments, even if they are true, seem to be causing the very considerable policy reasons to torpedo the Huckster to get ignored or glossed over. I find that very disturbing.
Huckabee is already anathema to the people likely to find those comments effective. His supporters only seem to dig in deeper. As you have noted, Huckabee has no defense on substance, and even his vocal supporters cannot and will not offer one. Unless it is to fight against the "Christian bigotry" strawman. Don't even bring it up, and Huckabee goes quietly into this good night as a candidate.
The Huck surge was created by the combination of our three other "big" candidates. Huck is getting all the SoCons that don't believe Romney's conversion on life issues and those that fear Rudy's social policies. Finally, Fred helped create this monster by waiting forever to jump in and then only wading in to just above the knees in case the water was too cold. The problem is that we simply do not have a candidate that satisfies the coalition enough and thus the coalition gets divided.
...earlier this summer it was Fred Thompson, now it's Huck. Fred was/is right on all the issues, but he doesn't inspire and his campaign sucks. Huckabee is wrong on 90% of the issues, but he is a good communicator. Fred's surge lasted (will have lasted) far longer than Huck's surge when Huck is spent.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
get us either nominee Rudy or a brokered convention. If one looks at state polls, every early state that Huck wins reduces Romney's chances by a ton since Romney polls terrible in the later states. Huck may not have enough juice to win, but with Iowa going on the absurd date of the 3rd and this being the 18th, I simply do not see anything happening (besides Christmas and lots of bowl games, which start Thursday) that will derail Huck in Iowa (and maybe the other early states too. Romney's only hope is that the non-15%ers in the caucus all go to him.
....if you believe Soren Dayton and Pajamas Media. Personally, I still think Romney will win it for the reasons they describe (Iowa polling is unreliable, Romney has more steady, consistent support, money, organization, etc.).
If that happens, Huckabee is totally finished without a doubt.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
The fact that #3 takes place causes some Christians, who would otherwise never say anything positive about this conservative poseur, to reflexively defend him, and may even broaden his support. It certainly does nothing to dissaude the true believers.
Although I believe there are serious, substantial reasons to support Mike Huckabee, many people are being driven to him due to the arguments of his detractors. There are voters who are both socially conservative and economically moderate, and they are natural Huckabee supporters. But many people who are seriously conservative on both issues but always put their religion first are being drawn to Huckabee because of those pundits who warn of the supposed dangers of a seriously evangelical candidate.
and you say there are substantive reasons to support him. How about going over to mbecker908's blogs referenced above and taking a crack at the substantive objections to Huck raised therein?
1. Please show me one cite where Huckabee has been criticized for his religion. All the criticism I've seen has been related to his pandering use of his religion and his former job as an SBC pastor.
2. All of the criticism has really been issue related, see my blogs.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
I'd consider this Novak piece critical of his religion. Although he is pointing out where Huckabee is not conservative, but the reference to the danger of evangelicals nominating one of their own raises my eyebrows. Also, I was intending to refer to criticism of his religion from the left, which I'm sure you could easily find as well. You can start with Mother Jones.
Most of the conservative criticism has been issue-related. But the media's criticism of his Christian persona only helps him. Watch afternoon MSNBC sometimes.
1. From Novak... The danger is a serious contender for the nomination who passes the litmus test of social conservatives on abortion, gay marriage and gun control but is far removed from the conservative-libertarian model of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.
I'm assuming this is the passage you refer to.
Out of nine paragaphs, one sentence relates to his religion and the bottom line of that sentence is that he's no conservative. I'm totally lost with reference to a hit job based on religion by Novak. All of the discussion in Novak's piece is issue related.
2. From Mother Jones... I won't even go there. They don't count. You can expect the left to beat him like a toy drum.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
There have been hundreds of thousands of words written here in the last few weeks that have seethed with anti-Christian hatred.
You, becker, have committed dozens of banable offenses.
Go back to anything anti-Huckabee that you have written in the last three weeks and substitute for the word "Christian," "Baptist," "Jesus," etc. a word like "Muslim,", "Mormon," or "Gay" and you would be in prison for hate crimes.
Disclaimer: I am a conservative evangelical Christian Republican who will not vote for Huckabee because he is a liberal, not because I hate all things Christian.
The vast, vast, vast majority of anti-Huckabee postings have been about his liberalism, not his religion. In fact, a huge percentage are like me (and apparently you) - conservative Christians who fundamentally disagree with the guy. In addition, I have a huge issue with him using Jesus as a campaign tool. It's one thing to be a Christian and support ethical positions that are consistent with Biblical truth. It is yet another to say "God destined me to be the candidate - vote for me because I'm a Christian leader!" I find that latter stance highly offensive.
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
There have been anti-Christian postings here. I even contacted The Management about at least one. But the majority of the anti-Huckabee ones are not.
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
The anti-Christian slurs have covered every page of redstate.com for weeks.
I've had this plan to use a proxy server and an alias and copy and paste anti-Huck comments but change "Bible-thumping Jesus freak" to "Mormon" just to see how quickly I would get banned.
Look up the vile filth spewed in a diary by some God-hating cretin named Eric Dondero for starters.
I've had this plan to use a proxy server and an alias and copy and paste anti-Huck comments but change "Bible-thumping Jesus freak" to "Mormon" just to see how quickly I would get banned.
seriously, ask your doctor to increase your dosage -- it can only help.
========
Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?
And by the way, ericdondero hasn't posted here for over 14 weeks. I just checked his tracker. Dondero has articles on other blogs/sites...maybe you read him elsewhere.
Try again.
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
Easier to link to the one or two substantive critiques of Huck than the tens of thousands of hate-filled, anti-Christian ones. One needs only to have read redstate recently.
And the diary by ericd or erikd was here two or three days ago.
Somebody in a comment asked if he wasn't the guy who was going to challenge Ron Paul for his congressional seat. I'll try to find it.
He changed names. The one I was looking at was ericdondero. For some reason, a search in the RS search box didn't turn that one up on the first couple of pages of hits.
Re: that posting - all he does is use the term "bible thumping", which I see all over the place. I suppose I'm numb to that phrase. Personally, I've seen much worse. Like I said, I've actually reported one recently that makes that one look perfectly innocent.
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
It is a 625 word post mostly about fiscal issues, and you arrive at anti-Christian bigot from TWO WORDS: Bible-thumping???
WOW!
========
Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?
Well, I certainly find your comment enlightening. And I have two points...
1. You are accusing me of hateful commentary about Christianity and tell me to go back through my postings and find everything.
Ahh, no. You made the accusation, document it.
2. You say I've committed dozens of bannable offenses. Heh. Pull them together, use the Contact Form and send them to the Directors & Moderators (of which you ain't one).
I can tell you that I've got a reasonably high profile at RS because I post frequently and I'm more than a tad opinionated. As a result of that, you might say I have - on occasion - had close, personal relationships with a number of the Mods. I still have the bite marks to prove it.
Bottom line, I view this as another non-substantial comment meant to do nothing but deflect legitamate criticism with finger pointing distractions. But hey, have at it. It's a free country, I'm an easy target (although I will shoot back), prove me to be an anti-Christian bigot and I'll apologize. Put up or shut up.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Sixty hour work-week, wife, kids, dog, house, yard, etc.
It won't be tonight but I will gather up many links to your hateful, anti-Christian comments soon. Then, if you are a man of your word, you will apologize for being a God-hating bigot and I will accept your apology.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
As I thought, more substanseless crap from folk who have a problem with rational thought.
Your reading comprehension is as bad as your attempt at logic. I said produce proof of your charge, prove I'm an anti-Christian bigot and I'll apologise. Based on your response, go fly a kite.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
If I had that option. You are ridiculing somone that has a lot of credibility here(even if he can be a cantankerous old guy) with no proof to your assertions, and no substance to your accusations.
You can start by using up the time that you'd normally spend posting comments here to hunt for that evidence you claim exists.
That's not a suggestion, by the way.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
presented bigotry
And now YOU get to provide the links, 3 day wonder.
___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.
I don't care about your opinion. Not that I cared before you announced to the world you were outta here.
You and logos are ones throwing around the "bigotry" accusations. It's up to you to show cause, and cause is not you getting you panties in a wad because we've posted publically available charges against Huck that you can't or are just to lazy to address.
Have a nice life out there in cyberspace, you won't likely be missed here because you haven't contributed anything. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
I'm sure he'll come back under a different username. Just like a Ronulan.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
in everything but his stand on abortion and gay marriage. However, I am first a Christian then a conservative, an American and then a Republican. I put God before politics and country before party.
All the same, this born-again, evangelical Christian is very offended by the Huckabee's blatant manipulation of Christians and Christianity whenever a difficult policy issue comes up. I am particularly offended which his statements that generally imply that it is my Christian duty to give illegal aliens taxpayer paid social services, and that my denying them such services is the same as denying Jesus my support. Then he flips and publishes a very unclear and easily bypassed immigration policy. Then a few days later he makes a foreign policy statement that is so naïve as to the threat of Islamic terrorism that it boggles the mind. All we have to do is build sewers and schools and the rest of the world will love us? How can any serious, sober, intelligent person consider supporting this person.
Oh, and he also takes the Bible out of context.
See, I'm Fredhead, but your comments here make we want to jump in.
"His pandering use of his religion"
Why is what Huckabee is doing, pandering? How much are Christians allowed to talk about their religion? Who gets to decide? It appears that you've decided he does it too much so its "pandering"
"his former job as an SBC pastor"
Criticizing somenoe for being a pastor IS criticizing their religion. Once again, did you get elected to decide how far a person can rise in the church heirarchy and still be a politician? If I sometimes pinch hit for my pastor when he's on vacation, does that mean I can't be a city councilman or run for President. What if Huckabee had been an associate pastor? Or an elder? Would it then be okay to criticize him for that?
Again, this diary is correct. It's people who attack him on this kind of stuff that get people like me (Fred #1, Huck #5) out here defending him.
It is the adverts with the message 'vote for me because I am a christian' to which MB objects. It is a not so subtle appeal to the sort of people who write (and get banned from RedState for doing so) that Mitt Romney is unacceptable because he is a member of a 'cult'.
Mike Becker himself is a pastor. It doesn't disqualify someone from political office, but it is not a qualification either.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
I could care less if he was a pastor, elder, deacon, imam, bishop or whatever.
What I could care about - and do care about - is the fact that the guy will not campaign on issues. He's produced three ads for Iowa. Chuck Norris which was a silly little intro ad that addressed no issues but said "Hey, here I am...". I have no problem with that one, it got him some good press and got him noticed. The next two are both of the "I love Jesus, vote for me." variety. I object to those. Both "Christian Leader" and this one do nothing more than emphasize his faith, ignore any and every issue and, IMO, pander to the Evangelicals in Iowa.
If the guy had so much as ONE issue ad running I wouldn't be so irritated about this, but he acts like he's got nothing to sell to the voters but the fact that he's Christian. But then again, maybe that's the case.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
This is Governor Huckabee's "Secure the Borders" ad.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=8M0orIN3Pyc
If you get your candidates view on issues from advertising then Governor Huckabee is not your man, but if you read sites like; www.fairtax.org , www.minutemanproject.org, or www.foreignaffairs.org then you might get a bit more depth.
Governor Huckabee for President!
I'll take a look at it tomorrow when I have more time. I happen to be very familiar with the FairTax and the rest of the major issues in the campaign. I'm very familiar with Huck's positions on them as well. They range from absolute pipe dreams (HLA, FMA, & FairTax) to raging lunacy (his idea of foreign policy).
I'm also smart enough to know that most voters get their info from retail politics, ie: TV ads. That's why I view addressing issues in ads as a priority. I doubt we'll see much in the way of issue oriented ads from the Rev since his primary selling point seems to be his faith.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Huckabee supporters- the objections leveled against Huckabee are susbtantive ones, based on the problems with his past statements, his record, and his current positions. There are enormous problems with Huckabee as a candidate- the overwhelming majority of us who do not support Mike Huckabee would have no problems whatsoever supporting an evangelical Southern Baptist minister as being the standard bearer of the party- if he were not so liberal on so many issues.
Ultimately, we want what is best for the party- the strongest, most conservative Republican who has cross-over appeal. That's why I am supporting Fred Thompson.
Substansive for you, but Governor Huckabee brushes through them with ease because they have all been leveled against him before, been proven to be groundless, and he has survived and been elected.
Besides these "issues" of his being too liberal, which are not true, would never be leveled against him by a Democrat, which is who he will be facing come November.
Governor Huckabee for President!
because they have all been leveled against him before, been proven to be groundless,
That is, quite simply, a false statement. There is nothing in these points that has proven groundless. You might not care about his policy of raising taxes, but it did happen. And despite what he says about it now, he did campaign enthusiastically for those tax rises. And that is just one example. You cannot even name one of the points raised that is groundless. Even Huck doesn't deny them. The stolen furniture, for example, he claims was a 'misunderstanding'. Yeah! Like he's the first crook to ever claim that in court.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
I agree with you; it's not the real point, especially now. But if he ever did make it to the general this is what would get him, "Do you want a Pastor in Chief or someone who actually understands the issues?" I think the Democrats would love to run against him just like the Republicans loved to run against McGovern. I think there is a certain fear of real religion in the White House. Reagan was perfect because he was kind of a generic Christian. If you look back, most presidents of either party will go to a church once in awhile, but they don't make a habit of it and prefer to keep religion at arm's length. Americans are most comfortable with that situation. If you see a president getting too comfortable with one religion, that starts to alienate the others. A Reaganesque approach is a perfect solution. Huckabee wouldn't and couldn't do that. That's why a vote for Huckabee is a vote for the Democrats.
I find myself constantly posting "I Don't Heart Huckabee, Leave Leave Huckabee Alone" posts. The pastor in chief comments and so on do, in fact, bring me to his defense against my will. It's unnecessarily divisive.
I normally agree with mbecker, for example. I normally agree with Dan, and with Robert Hahn and on and on. Like some others here, paulseale for example, I'm behind Thompson. In my case, I'd also be satisfied with McCain. I'd probably be fine with Romney. I could hold my nose and support Rudy. But I think Huckabee is a disaster that is occurring before our eyes.
So, don't make me defend him. We get that some people find his constant religiosity tiresome, or annoying, or offensive. But the belaboring of it is creating sympathizers where there wouldn't be. Believe me, I should know. And that is counterproductive.
We should be driving support away from Huckabee, not toward him.
absentee
However I have heard many very good explanations to the charges brought against Huckabee, they are simply ignored. Everyone keeps saying the same things over and over again. Even someone like me from Arkansas can say he was a very good governor and it does not matter. Look, in politics you make enemies and Mike made some in Arkansas. But he would win again, because he did a good job. And I believe would make a good president. And no (and of course you do not have to believe this) he is not my first choice. But he is good choice in liew of Hillary Clinton and Obama. He is neither a socialist nor a democrat.
mbecker908's posting and provide those "explanations". Until GOPaisano provided a thoughtful response just a bit ago, no one had rebutted a single thing he listed.
So knock yourself out - provide proof points that disprove what has been documented. But don't just say "that's not true" without backing it up with documented evidence to the contrary.
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
that an awful lot of HWSNBN former supporters are now Huckabee wannabes. Now, as to whether they are true converts, or merely still shilling for HWSNBN, supporting the worst possible candidate in order to split the Party and help HWSNBN...that is anyone's guess.
The former all disappeared at exactly the same time as the latter began to swell.
========
Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?
If it's true then I think the thing that attracts the He-Who people to Huck is the Fair Tax sham. It's like the legalize it thing.
___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.
I support the FairTax, however, I was supporting it before Mike was, and it's just about the only thing Mike supports that I do.
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
Sorry I didn't read your post before I posted. Interesting theory.
www.scottbomb.com
Click here to donate to the Fred Thompson campaign.
I've avoided these NUMEROUS Huckabee threads for the same reason I avoided the HWSNBN threads.
Please pardon my aluminum foil hat, but the press coverage and amounts of money being thrown behind these two makes me suspicious. I wonder just how many of the doners are Democrats trying to interfere with our primary. I know for a fact that there are Democrats supporting HWSNBN and I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they are also behind the Huckster. They know their candidates (Shrillary and Obama) are so weak in substance that they just might be motivated to do whatever they can to make sure we don't elect a strong candidate that will clean their clock. I don't see them succeeding, but it is somewhat comical to watch.
www.scottbomb.com
Click here to donate to the Fred Thompson campaign.
button. LOL!
========
Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?
wait a tick,,
1.) Huckabee is unacceptable b/c of (2.) his supporters are blindly loyal?
And the fact they have a knee jerk reaction when people criticize him?
Personally, ..I evaluate the issues.
Stan
Even a cusrsory look around will demonstrate that the "issues you are so concerned about have been discussed here ad nauseum.
"The height of stupidity is most clearly demonstrated by the individual who ridicules something he knows nothing about."
Albert Einstein
is that whenever people discuss their guy's policies, record, and judgement they jump in with responses along the following lines:
1. That's personal. It is dirty campaigning. You are a bigot.
- The others (especially Romney) are worse.
- It never happened, and I have explained somewhere else why it never happened and can't be bothered to do so again.
- Huckabee has denied it, therefore the record, the witnesses, the arithmetic, must all be lying because Huckabee always tells the truth.
Even Leverkuhn - not really a 'bot, and one of the most intelligent commentators here - in all seriousness suggested that criticising Huckabee's judgement over parole and pardon issues is somehow equivalent to an attack on Romeny's religion.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
Principles:
1. Dissonance results when an individual must choose between attitudes and behaviors that are contradictory.
2. Dissonance can be eliminated by reducing the importance of the conflicting beliefs, acquiring new beliefs that change the balance, or removing the conflicting attitude or behavior.
http://tip.psychology.org/festinge.html
Most are so heavily invested in HLA/FMA as the solution to the social/cultural components at issue in this debate that they are willing to discount the importance and substance of any other legitimate criticism of Huckabee's positions on the other issues that have been raised. They misconstrue/misrepresent the other candiate's positions in order to presesrve the primacy as HLA/FMA as an argument. Witness their inability/unwillingness to address some very cogent arguments posited by a number of recent posters here.
I'm not a shrink but the description matches what I have observed here and in many other places. The same holds true with our other friends and supporters of HWSNBN.
Sadly, I do not what the cure for this condition is.
But I am concerned about the citations for ethics. I think the last thing we need is someone who preaches a moral code and then the actions don't back the rhetoric. I wish Mr. Huckabee would address those charges a bit better than "It's my political enemies levelling those charges at me". But I have to say, I saw Mitt Romney's "judgement" ad and I am very disappointed. I don't think there is anything to brag about in issuing NO commutations or pardons. And then I read the story about Anthony Circosta, which reinforces my opinion of Mitt.....the guy is all about politics, and puts himself before the people. But this isnt really about Mitt, so I digress......Mike, speak up about the ethics issues in a manner that doesnt duck the question, and you certainly could have my vote!
That comment is typically used in reference to his advertising. For instance, in Iowa, he's run a total of three ads. One with Chuck Norris, the "Christian Leader" ad, and the "Merry Christmas" ad. Actual substance in the three ads? Zero. Number of real issues dealt with? Zero. Pandering to Christians with a "Vote for me, I love Jesus" message? Both of the last two ads.
I understand your comments and don't necessarily disagree with them, but Huck puts us in the position of wondering just what office he's running for.
Also, with respect to his supporters, I've posted two blogs about Huckabee. One of them was in reference to his support to the HLA and I wanted to find out which version of the seven that have been introduced in Congress he supported. I got no takers. Not one comment as to which version (which are radically different) he supports. My current blog, "Huckabee is to the Left of all Candidates" which was information requested by a Huck supporter (aceintx), I put up facts about Huckabee that show him to be very vulnerable ethically and to the left of all other candidates on every issue. So far there are 113 comments and not one refutes any of the facts. The best they've done is accuse me of dirty politics for quoting factual information that they can't refute.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.