The Amazing Mike Huckabee
The Controversial Conservative and International Man of Mystery
By Ben Domenech Posted in 2008 | Mike Huckabee — Comments (118) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
"Come now," I asked a Louisiana friend a few months ago, who used to work for Gov. Mike Huckabee, "Mike Huckabee's a nice guy, but you can't think he's actually presidential material? I'm not sure even Mike Huckabee thinks Mike Huckabee is presidential material."
"You might be surprised," my friend said. "He's a strange cat."
"Maybe he's just trolling for Veep? He could be a good Veep for some of these guys."
"Here's the thing you've gotta know about Mike," my friend said. "He's a prisoner who's trying to break out. A prisoner of his birth, of being from Hope, of being a Southern Baptist preacher, of being from Arkansas and succeeding only in Arkansas…everything he's done in life is about wanting to be bigger and better and have an impact beyond where started."
"Forget President. Mike Huckabee wants to be an International Man of Mystery."
We moved on to other topics, and I forgot about it at the time. It was way back when, 60 days ago, when Mike Huckabee was hovering below the 10% mark or less nationally, and had about as good of a shot at being the Republican nominee as Stephen Colbert. He was supposed to be another also-ran, a dancing bear from the early heydays of the three ring primary circus, with its cacophony of sound, kitsch, Fair Taxes, and sculpted butter princesses. This is what junior grade political campaigns do for fun before things get serious, before the kids leave the table so the adults can talk.
But somewhere along the way, something odd happened: the Mike Huckabee campaign turned out to be real.
Read on.
Very real indeed, in fact: If the latest polling is to be believed, Mike Huckabee could realistically finish first in Iowa, third in New Hampshire, first in South Carolina, and second in Florida. This would be an incredible surge of momentum in January, all leading up to the 2/5 multi-state showdown that not even Carnac the Magnificent can decipher.
The rise is due to a multitude of factors: Huckabee has a solid base to grow on, with excellent ability to reach out to evangelical social conservatives – many of whom felt particularly left out of this cycle, disappointed in Thompson and Romney as candidates. Add to that the more mainstream Republicans who had hoped Giuliani would turn out to have fewer flaws than he has, and it's clear Huckabee has tapped into a wide range of GOP voters who were still looking for an answer to the question: Who's going to lead us against Hillary, make us proud, and actually win?
As the debates have gotten more and more viewership among Republican voters, Huckabee's natural political abilities have shined, and many Republicans believe they've found their answer. Huckabee's no policy wonk; he's a communicator, naturally suited for the pulpit and the podium. There's a bit of the snake oil salesman about him at times, and one suspects he could've sold bushels of it off a stump back in the day, but he does it naturally, without apparent malice or Romney's nervous rehearsal tics. After years of wishing for a president who had the ability to bob, weave, and think on his feet when confronted with difficulty, Republican primary voters love this quality in Huckabee.
And there's something more: if in this strength Huckabee does not resemble President Bush, in a great many others, he greatly resembles the W. we met in 2000. Huckabee is a southern social conservative who speaks the language of compassion and reaches out to minority voters, like Bush; he is accused of lacking the experience needed to lead the country in a difficult time, like Bush was; and he has a foreign policy resume that is quite thin when matched up against, say, John McCain...again, we see the similarities.
Perhaps this is just a sign that, as Peter Beinart and other less sophisticated sources have suggested, the country is in many ways returning to a pre-9/11 political mindset. As the news from Iraq turns more positive and people are convinced American troops will return home in the near future, they are evaluating candidates as they did before that trying event: based on personality and having a winning smile, not strategic capability or anti-terror rhetoric. So Rudy fades, Huckabee rises, and the country changes again, back toward the way it was.
There are differences too, of course – revealing ones. Unlike Bush, Huckabee has no money, no organization, no institutional support, no Karl Rove, and started with very little name ID. He is perhaps better known as "that governor who used to be fat" than the favored son in a political dynasty. Yale and Harvard aren't on his resume; Huckabee started from scratch, and had to build his success by using his natural gifts to the fullest. Where Bush gave clumsy answers about his faith, and was mocked (though it turned out to benefit him) for referencing Jesus Christ as his favorite philosopher, Huckabee has given excellent responses to challenging questions about evolution, homosexuality in the military and in marriage, abortion, social justice and the death penalty. This is his wheelhouse, and Huckabee hasn't missed a pitch.
And there's another area where Huckabee is unlike Bush: W never faced this kind of revulsion by a portion of the base of his own party. We've witnessed a good deal of this on RedState of late. Much of this is deserved; there is little in Huckabee's political resume to suggest that he is or will govern as a fiscal conservative, and there is a real concern that his brand of politics will leave many socially libertarian, fiscally conservative or security minded voters cold.
That said, we should be surprised by how hateful some of these responses are to a candidate who is, whether you like him or not, clearly conservative to moderate across the board. Republicans nationally were quite satisfied with Huckabee's rise in Arkansas, his political tenure hardly had the kind of question-raising incidents of GOP disloyalty that Mayor Giuliani's did, and I'm sure we'd all be supporting Huckabee if he were running for Senate instead. He certainly didn't pass a statewide universal health care plan, or anything like that – but is that supposed to be a negative?
In any case, he's the hottest property now, so Politics 101 says attack, attack, attack. Over the past three days, I've received emails from opposing campaigns comparing Huckabee to Democrats from Bill Clinton to Jimmy Carter, History's Greatest Monster. They seem to be particular fans of using this Wayne Dumond case against Huckabee, despite the candidate's own clearly agonized experience on an issue which has absolutely no relevance to his experience as president (unless one thinks Huckabee is going to roll back the death penalty as commander in chief, a ludicrous thought when one considers that he executed more criminals than any prior Arkansas Governor, and obviously than anyone else in this race). Or they get after him for loving swag as governor, as if he's the only state executive to get gifts from folks (and heck, people, Arkansas ain't that different from Louisiana – it's not like he got a bunch of cattle futures).
The point is, this is getting ridiculous, folks. An email today went out from a campaign that shall remain off the record, except to say that they were based in large part on the reporting of Murray Waas. Hear me on this: If Murray Waas were to pen any article against any candidate's campaign, it would be dismissed as the writings of a seriously unbalanced person with a penchant for wild accusation. But now that he's a source against Mike Huckabee, we should treat this raving leftist as a valid journalistic source? I thought we were better than that, people. Take me off your list, because the next time you send me something, anything, based on the writings of Murray Waas, it goes on the front page of this site for all to see.
Mike Huckabee has numerous reasons that we should question his fiscal conservatism, his ability to govern the country in time of war, and his political staying power in a race against Hillary. But these are all valid questions we should debate and discuss – Huckabee released an immigration plan today that marks a much stronger statement than his earlier comments on the issue in my mind (did Chuck Norris write this?).
To me, I see one flawed candidate among many, one who has the ability to out-communicate and perhaps outwit the Left. It's an attractive quality, and I can understand why people like it. It's not enough for me – my chief concern is that, as with W on No Child Left Behind and the Medicare Prescription Drug benefit, conceding to the language of the left to make a political case for conservative solutions ultimately turned into passing the language of the left into law. But let's wait and see what the would-be International Man of Mystery does over the coming month, and then decide how he stacks up against Rudy, McCain, Romney and the rest.
The circus is about to close, and the real race is about to start. It's time for the adults to talk.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | The Speech and Romney's real problem — Comments (26) »
The Amazing Mike Huckabee 118 Comments (0 topical, 118 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
It's obviously the reason he gave his speech today. If Huckabee is Dean, why does he feel the need to do that? And do you really think Huckabee is going to have a Dean scream moment?
Plus, considering you've been here for seven minutes and don't have a real name, we'll have to wait and see if you're real or not.
You don't have to be real to be threatened by him. Especially since Romney is the Republican John Edwards of 2008
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
"The Howard Dean of the GOP"... I don't think that's a very accurate comparison, for several reasons, but it highlights something very interesting to me. Since the start of the primary campaigns, the media narrative has been "Republicans hate their candidates and Democrats love theirs", but what everyone seems to be overlooking is that Republicans have a real choice while Democrats don't. The actual political differences between Clinton, Obama, and Edwards are hardly enough to admit a knife blade; but Giuliani, Romney, Huckabee, and Thompson each represent very different Republican constituencies.
There are several implications here. The first is that the Republican struggle for the nomination is likely to be both protracted and interesting, while the Democrats will probably crown a nominee early. That benefits Republicans for two reasons -- free media coverage, and a general sense that the eventual nominee is a "winner" already. The second implication is that the Republicans will have to work harder to get the support of their base, which means tacking right, which means more ammunition for the Democrat in the general election.
The third implication is that the media narrative will eventually turn out to be quite wrong: Republicans will, when the dust settles, be happier with their nominee than the Democrats will. That may sound like an odd prediction at this point, but it's one I'm fairly confident of.
Which brings us back to Howard Dean. However "serious" you believe his candidacy was, it is indisputable that Democrats would have been happier, ideologically, with him as the nominee than they were with Kerry. Kerry was the Hubert Humphrey of 2004.
The conclusion to all this rambling is that, as a generally Democrat-voting Independent, I think we are in serious trouble in 2008. The vicissitudes of Presidential politics are impossible to predict, but -- the secret of War is Conviction*. I see more conviction shaping up on the right than on the left.
*50 bonus points to anyone who gets this reference.
Ben makes a good point, Huck looks and sounds like Bush did in 2000.
As GW said, "Fool me once, shame on me, ... fool me twice, we don't get fooled again."
I'm a long-time republican, state delegate in 2000, but I am one of those who is supporting Dr. Paul ONLY because I want a small-government conservative. Yeah, call me names, but many of us are really fed up with it all. Where did I leave my pitchfork?
-DSM
Read this. Do it soon.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
"Effective immediately, new users may *not* shill for Ron Paul in any way shape, form or fashion."
My apologies. This is very much what I experienced in 2000 when I supported an outsider at our state convention...I did not realize I was not welcome here.
Thanks for allowing my initial comment to be posted. I'll go to my settings to find a way to delete my account.
Scott in Minnesota
You need to refrain from hawking RP for a finite period of time, build-up some cred, and then you're free to pimp your guy just like the rest of us.
It's nothing personal - it's just that some of your more, erm, enthusiastic fellow travelers made the site unreadable. Desperate times, desperate measures, and all that.
Feel free to reconsider your self-banning.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
And there were many people who voted for him for being a compasionate conservative.
I was not one of those people, but I know some who were.
I think this post is an excellent read and I am saddened at the treatment Huckabee recieves here and other places.
No, he isnt the one I am supporting, but I've seen more civil discussion with regards to Rudy's policies than Mike's.
Anyways.
Both are Republicans who have broken ranks with fiscal conservatives and faced their wrath.
Bush in 2000 was both a social AND a fiscal conservative.
Romney/Barbour 2008
As an Alabamian, I have to say that Bob Riley is the greatest governor in our state's history. He has been a fiscal conservative that has had to deal with a legislature that has been Democratic since Reconstruction if not earlier. People LOVE him here. By the way, since I am employed by the State of Alabama, I guess you could say I work for him (he's a great boss).
Basically, he's infinitely better than Mike Huckabee was. If Riley could be elected to a third-term, I think he would be. He's just that good.
And while Bush was a social and fiscal conservative, he turned out to be a big government, pro-amnesty President.
But that having been said, I like your choice of a ticket. If Alabama didn't have a Democratic Lieutenant Governor, I'd say Romney-Riley '08. Haley Barbour will do just fine, but so would J.C. Watts.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
-Winston Churchill
GOP84,
Now there is a name we don't hear much of, If J.C. Watts were running for office or on a ticket I would no doubt be supporting him..he's terrific!..
Also as an Alabama resident I agree w/ your comments on Gov. Riley, his efforts have put our state on the map for auto-manufacturing jobs, and that new steel plant that is coming to Mobile. He'd be a lot more effective if we could just boot out the moronic Dems running the State Legislature.
Every time I hear him on Hannity I wished he was back in D.C., but I gotta admit the man knows whats best - and it aint Washington.:)
Yea he does really well running his own company and everything I don't blame him for leaving Washington, though I must say if I were a newly inaugurated GOP President on Jan. 2009 his name should be on a list to consider for a cabinet post or something.
...I always thought he was a little overrated.
At the risk of pulling a Rush/McNabb faux pas, I tend to think that conservatives so ache for a minority conservative to stand out and show the world that we aren't bigots, that the bar might get lowered sometimes.
There are some genuinely awesome minority conservatives out there -- Bobby Jindal, Thomas Sowell, John Yoo, Walter Williams. And, nothing against JCW, he just doesn't wow me like these guys often do.
You can commence flaming me at any time. But I'm just being honest.
No your not wrong and your names you've listed well here's my two cents on them:
John Yoo needs to be on the short list for the Supreme Court or Attorney General, Bobby Jindal well he has his work cut out for him cleaning up Louisiana, Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams-The Federal Reserve Board..
...Riley is definitely one of them.
I really, really like my governor here in Indiana, Mitch Daniels. He's taken some flak from some conservative groups -- but unfairly, IMO. He's been genuinely revolutionary and he's getting results.
Haley Barbour has been a star, so have Tim Pawlenty, Mark Sanford, and Sonny Perdue. And I think that Jindal will be the next one.
....evangelist former preacher overperforms in the Iowa straw, and beat out the eventual nominee (H W Bush) in the Iowa caucus. He wows the rural Iowa voters with his piety and religious passion, whipping up social conservative support by the bushel....only to crash and burn in New Hampshire and afterward.
Does anyone else see this parallel?
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
That's an astute comparison. But there are two big differences between the 1988 situation and the 2008 race.
In 1988, the GOP had two mainstream, top tier, candidates: Vice President George H W Bush and Bob Dole. In this race, you really don't have anyone who can legitimately say, "It's my turn." Now, I actually like the idea of evaluating GOP candidates for president based on something other than seniority. But that there is no obvious frontrunner in this race makes Huckabee's candidacy more plausible.
Huckabee has been elected to statewide office more than once. Pat Robertson, to my knowledge, never ran for any political office until he ran for president in 1988.
That's why we can't be sure that Huckabee will flame out the way Robertson did (and Pat Buchanan did in 1996). It's still an open question.
From what I understand, Pat Robertson's Iowa campaign was less "elect me because I'm a big time Christian" than Huckabee's campaign has been. If that's true, it should cause us all to pause and contemplate how crazy that is.
I'm pretty sure Robertson never got to the point in other states that he did in Iowa. Huckabee's numbers in Iowa really didn't surprise me - his numbers in SC and FL have really shocked me.
...his poll numbers have moved up in those two states for sure, but the GOP race is very fluid, and I suspect the SC and Fla numbers are moving up as the result of high name ID, the "flavor of the week" factor, and the preponderance of puff pieces and media attention.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
In some sense, we are looking at the early races in the wrong way. Most of us are asking, "Who wins Iowa?" Or, "Who wins New Hampshire?"
But really these races aren't to be won. They are to be lost. In a 5 candidate race, the ones that come in 4th and 5th are probably going to drop out, unless they decided from the beginning to follow a February 5th strategy. Rudy Giuliani is the only one who seems to have done that.
That's the only way you can dismiss Huckabee's 1st place showing in South Carolina right now. You can say, "Hey, no one is above 25 percent." Once a candidate or two drops out of the race, a candidate might need 40 percent or more to be in 1st place in a poll.
It certainly does remain fluid, and there certainly is a name ID in the South factor. But it is hard to see that being the only factor. If Huckabee was investing significant cash in SC or FL, maybe I'd think that. But he isn't, as far as we can tell. The rise apparently is everyone due to Huck getting nearly all of the ex-Rudy people...which is pretty surprising, except that at the same time, it seems people are less worried about the war and more worried about things at home.
Huckabee is the beneficiary of the "Fred Thompson" effect. Remember in the middle of the summer when Fred was getting ready to jump in? His numbers were in orbit. He hadn't campaigned one iota, but he already basically shot to the top of the pack. This is was mostly due to media hype, puff pieces, and the "someone else" factor.
That is what is happening with Huck outside of Iowa. In SC and Florida, he hasn't campaigned much, if any. But, he has been seen in debates where he has performed well, and I would say a lot of Republicans see his star rising in Iowa, plus they read the puff pieces, and see the media hype. He's also got the "someone new/someone else" factor going. I don't think Mike is a totally known quantity at this point.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
That's an excellent summary of the entire race so far. Virtually everyone is for Someone Else. The problem is this whole "dynasty" thing. Once people find out that Someone Else is the illegitimate son of None of the Above, they may no longer be interested.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
Also, on a side note, I'm begging for you to comment on my "question for Robert A. Hahn" blog entry, BTW.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
Fred Thompson's support was illusory, while Mike's support is as solid as a rock. It's the evangelical/Catholic effect of mobilization after the very important Values Voter Summit (aka Washington Briefing) in which Huckabee dominated.
Social conservatives are making their voices heard.
They both came from Hope, AR
They both raised taxes on their state
They both claimed that taxes would not rise when they were in office.
And the list goes on and on. The only difference is one has an R at the end of his name and the other has a D, but for all intent purposes they are very much the same.
The old saying goes, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
We don't need Slick Willie II in the White House
Mike Huckabee reminds me of the gopher that lived in my backyard for a few months. For quite a while there was only one hole with the dirt piled around. Every once and a while the cute little gopher would poke it's head out and we didn't really mind having him around. Then it actually became kind of fun to see him poke his head out of the hole, it made us smile. Then I woke up one morning and there was another pile of dirt, the next day another, and so on until there was dirt all over the place.
Long story short - we finally poisoned the gopher and got rid of the dirt.
Good points.
I agree that Huckabee is, in many ways, a similar candidate to the GWB of 2000. Except that Bush's campaign had an air of inevitability, with the party pull that crushed McCain. And Huckabee doesn't trip over himself nearly as much when speaking. But both are/were running as center-right candidates, which is not necessarily a bad thing, and may be the best we get this round.
Also, +1 on the Simpsons reference.
Huckabee is putting on a show, fooling people into thinking he is someone he is not. He is receiving a free media ride right now because he is a good talker. Without funny one-liners at the last debate, he was a non-issue. It would be nice to see him respond to a question with something other than a sermon or a joke. I've been critical of Romney's flip-flopping (he did give a good speech today) and of Guiliani's reference to 9-11 or New York on every issue (I still admire his leadership.)
Though a strong Fred Thompson supporter, I'll take Mitt or Rudy any day right now over Huck. Are voters really fooled into thinking that this guy is anything other than a comedian with a theology degree? Early in this campaign, despite my obvious support for Thompson, I was able to find something positive about all the other top tier candidates. I've yet to find anything about Huck. (other than the party line of taking him over Clinton any day.) If voters are concerned that America will have trouble voting for a Mormon for president who is doing his best to prove he will not govern as a Mormon, what will America do with a candidate who seems to be nothing without his Bible?
Separation of church and state still should mean something.
But Huckabee reminds me of Ronald Reagan. I don't mean in terms of his politics--there are obvious differences there. I mean in terms of what he could mean to American politics.
Like Reagan, he is consistently underestimated, both in terms of intelligence and his chances (I'm thinking 1976 Reagan). As BD noted, Huckabee is a self-made man, not of the establishment, and is viewed by the establishment with great suspicion. But something about both of them resonate with lots of ordinary people.
Most importantly, Huckabee could re-shape American politics in fundamental ways. He might make social conservatism more mainstream. He could be part of a fundamental re-alignment in American politics.
I will say he's a great guy, but I tend to think the re-alignment in American politics would go the exact opposite way you're thinking if he's seen as being preacher-in-chief and if he tries to pass FMA and the HLA (I hope I got the acroynms right, it's been a long day). Neither of these things has a snowball's chance in Hades of passing the House; passing the Senate, and passing enough Legislatures to become an Amendment. But it will do a great job in revving up the reactionaries and the opponents of both those things.
"Neither of these things has a snowball's chance in Hades of passing the House; passing the Senate, and passing enough Legislatures to become an Amendment."
Another example of telling voters what they want to hear. Wasn't it Tom Tancredo of all people who last week commented that "we can't be everything to everyone" when Huck was ready to commit $5 billion to go to Mars? Lost in the joke of "sending Hillary there" was the scary reality that Huck is simply doing what Tancredo (can't believe I'm quoting him) said. Huckabee made us all chuckle, but as he has done far too often in the last month, he ducked serious issues by joking or preaching.
As you say, nobody wants to be preached to all day. We all have lives that we need to live, and these constitutional amendments that even the NRTL committee seems to recognize have no chance of being passed in the current political environment see as a waste of time to debate. We are looking at a Dem. Senate and Congress, preaching (pun intended) these constitutional amendments to pander to one group (Evangelicals) has become a grand smokescreen to hide his trouble spots.
A great president will be a great leader, not a micromanager. Stay out of my face... and you have my vote.
This is my greatest fear. As someone who is both a social conservative AND an economic conservative, I've always suspected that the South American model of social conservative/economic populist could possibly catch fire in the United States and have the same detrimental economic consequences as they have experienced in South America.
If elected, Mike Huckabee would be that fear realized.
As a proud Reagan conservative, I'm getting tired of people trying to make their candidate, or even the candidates themselves suggesting their likeness to Reagan. There is still only one candidate who is consistenly promoting Reagan principles... and oh by the way... does not name drop the Gipper at every waking moment. Mitt, Rudy, Huck (and their supporters) constantly referencing Reagan only shows they have an inferiority complex as conservatives. Interesting, other than Fred, I find McCain is less guilty of this than the others as well. (Though few are comparing him to Reagan!)
Ive always said that Nick Saban isnt Bear Bryant and Fred Thompson isnt Ronald Reagan.
The same applies to other candidates. :)
I'll never vote for the guy, and I never have. I still think many people here don't get Huckabee's appeal, just like lots of people didn't get Reagan's appeal.
I also don't think he's got a chance of being President, ever. But then again, I'm often wrong.
But I would love to get my hands on one of those Bear Bryant hats the 'Bama girls were wearing at this year's 'Bama/LSU game.
Roll Tide... win Fred!
Maybe, but I don't think the Country will elect a President with a goofy name.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
I think you have to give Huck some credit for taking over the role that I think Fred thought he could step in and take. Not sure where he will end up at the end, but he has proven to be a real contender. He also seems to have a young, hungry staff that knows how to frame his appearances well. Credit to Saltsman for a job well done so far.
And I note that he has until the filing deadline in April. So he can take his time through February and then go help the AR GOP become bigger than just himself and Rep. Boozman.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
The best thing Huck has is the ability to reach voters no other republican could. I could easily see him getting hispanic voters despite a tough illegal immigration stand due to his "gift" of gab. He could out talk Clinton on compassion and his populism gets at those Reagan democrats. If Huck could make the case that conservatism is compassionate, that republicans care deeply about all Americans, he could re-brand a party that needs help.
He's the only candidate we've got that could talk past the MSM. I'm voting for Fred mind you, but Huck is the best campaigner we've had in a long time.
He doesn't talk past the mainstream media. He uses the language of the liberal media and they eat it up.
Before the Huck-mentum goes to far. This is the pin that will prick the bubble.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/04/documents-expose-huckabee_n_753...
Huckabee is just a mono-dimensional tool of Guiliani whose pride won't let him admit it. His handling of this issue and incredible number of pardons combined with lack of real record of accomplishment will end this farce soon enough. I'd feel bad if he wasn't running for Pastor-in-Chief instead of President. Maybe someone could create that office for him?
I'm getting fed up with folks that create accounts and post these one-hit wonders minutes after their account gets created. Not that I take issue with the content, but good grief, I miss the days where everyone here had been here awhile and weren't posting just to get their hit pieces out because of their infatuation of some candidate who would sooner run your mother's foot over with a car than to say hello to you.
I'm about ready to end all this political candidate stuff and start a new monarchy. Who will be the new king? I don't much care, just as long as elections are outlawed. Who is with me?
"I can say - not as a patriotic bromide...that the United States of America is the greatest, the noblest and...the only moral country in the history of the world. - Ayn Rand
Since when has the Huffington Post become a reliable source for conservatives?
You know when you're in trouble or doing something wrong when you're linking to left wing blogs to back up your arguments...
The fiscal record was not catching fire... so this is the next attack...
As a person who is very pro law enforcement, I do find this troubling. I only look at his execution record as a way to calm my fears...
But, as a Huckabee supporter, I believe this will hurt his campaign. I don't think the democrats will be able to seize it though b/c they are always weaker on these issues.
I believe he has handled this issue almost as good as he can, but he needs to take more accoubtability and try shifting the blame less. He did support release and that turned out to be a mistake.
and I'd say the same (it's time for the adults to talk, etc) for our other candidates as well. there's a heckuva lot to like about nearly all of them, and we ought not let points of divergence obscure that.
Huckabee may be many things - a social conservative and a Republican among them, but these things do not a general conservative make.
Joe Lieberman is a national security conservative, but that doesn't make him a conservative. Likewise with Huck, being conservative on a single front does not make him a conservative.
Bill Clinton was a more conservative governor than Mike Huckabee - and that should not be a selling point for Huckabee in a REPUBLICAN presidential primary.
1. Bill Clinton spent less money
2. Bill Clinton raised fewer taxes and did so by lesser amounts - hence the Arkansas tax burden went from about $1,900 per person under Clinton to $2,900 per person under Huckabee.
3. Bill Clinton didn't personally lobby to have his distant cousin the sexual predator (that must be a strong gene in the Clinton family) released from prison so he could commit a heinous crime in a neighboring state
4. Neither as governor nor any time since of which I am aware has Bill Clinton suggested that we should open up the borders because absorbing the world's blight is America's chance to make up for slavery
#3 is downright wrong. Wayne Dumond is not related to Huckabee in any way. A victim of his was a distant relative of Bill Clinton and the powerful CDS lobby pushed to have Dumond paroled because they believed he was framed, apparently because the victim was a distant relative of Clinton.
#4 could you expand on who exactly is the blight of the world?
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
3. I was not suggesting that Dumond was related to Huckabee. Perhaps I misplaced some modifiers. It was my impression that Dumond was a relative of Clinton, not the victim. Regardless, Clinton was content for Dumond to remain in jail, Huckabee was restless to have him released.
On top of that, hasn't it been commented that Huckabee gave out over 700 pardons - which is significantly more than the number of pardons given by many bordering states COMBINED whose combined populations are 20X the size of Arkansas.
4. Yeah - those who are unwanted in their own countries.
The man raped a family member of Clinton's. Why wouldn't he be content? It was the Anti-Clinton brigade that pushed for his release claiming he was framed.
Unwanted in their own countries? This entire country was built upon people that were "unwanted" by their own countries.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
They got when the gettin' was good. They came here when there was a country with a high demand for people to settle and populate a vast expanse of land. It was a new country.
The ancestors of those who are trying to subvert our laws now could have come here then, but they didn't. And now we have the luxury of picking and choosing the world's finest to come and be our neighbors - not just anyone.
Huckabee is dead after Iowa. He is polling way behind in New Hampshire and in a four-way tie in South Carolina. After SC, is Giuliani with sizable-to-huge leads in Florida, Nevada, New Jersey, Michigan, Ohio, California.
thearmchairrepublican.blogspot.com
not quite. Huckabee is now polling #1 in SC, NC, Alabama, and is 2nd in Florida, etc.
What you are also forgetting is these primaries will not be happening in a vaccum. The news out of Iowa and the other early states will impact the rest of the primaries.
A win in Iowa, an influx of cash (he has by my count at least $4 or $5 million on hand as is), and free media coverage as being the underdog who is surprising everyone can go a long way.
Right now his name recognition is still low, but growing, and as people see him they like him. Two or three months (until Super Tuesday) is an eternity in politics, especially with major milestones like the various primaries on the horizon.
Polls for the later states will change very dramatically, and probably in favor of whoever starts winning early states.
Lastly, consider the trend: Huckabee is going up, up, up, everyone is going down, down down, or in some cases staying steady. Given that we have almost a month to the Iowa caucus and two months until Super Tuesday, if these trends hold and/or intensify, Huckabee could be sitting pretty come Feb 5.
People tune out everything political over the Holiday/New Years period. It will be tough for other campaigns to make the anti-Huckabee stumping stick if they don't get it done in the next couple weeks.
Not accurate about SC. And he's second in Florida.
Giuliani's numbers have taken significant hits. His leads in Michigan and Nevada are single digit ones.
Look at the links you posted. Giuliani has had single digit leads in Michigan and Nevada for months. (despite everyone thinking Romney will win Michigan because of his dad)
The previous commenter said they were "sizable leads." I was merely pointing out that they aren't.
As a Huck supporter, I was really getting put off by the Huck hate-fest that's been going on lately. I don't expect everyone to support Huck, or even like him for that matter. However, I didn't understand where all of the venom and anger directed towards Huck, and his supporters, was coming from. Again, thanks for posting this fair and well-written diary.
The venom was coming from the company you keep in the pro-Huckabee camp...
Particularly the Huckabots.
I'd argue that they did a permanent disservice to the candidate on RedState.
I only started writing on this site about a month ago...
and I have not seen venom from Huck supporters. I understand people disagree with him, but where does the hostility come from.
I have been impressed with the positive message of his campaign, and seen it remain positive despite increasing criticism.
I also do not buy Huck fighting an anti-Mormon--Romney campaign.
And I hope you'll stick around, despite some of the flack Huckabee's been getting.
I do think there are a lot of fair criticisms of him as a potential nominee, but those are things that we can debate without resorting to the level of fury we saw here the past few days. I think, in some ways, this is just the natural ramifications of one candidate rising from the roughly 10% support mark that everyone other than Rudy is at...you see the guy going faster than you, and will do anything to slow him down.
Huckabee deserves just as fair of an evaluation as Romney, McCain, Thompson or Giuliani. We'll see what he does in the next month. I like his immigration proposal, but we all need to see more of that sort of thing.
I am glad you are a fair Huckabee supporter.
I also hope that you'll assist in squashing the Hucksters amongst us that blather on about flip-flopping of other candidates.
If we accept that candidates can change their opinions on any subject, political as well as moral over a period of time, even if that period of time coincides with an election, then we have to accept it of those candidates we don't support.
We can't excuse Huckabee's change of heart on immigration and not excuse Romney's.
At least that's my humble opinion. However, I tend to not believe there was a change in Romney...he was Mormon, but had to be politically pro-choice. I think Huckabee is pro-illegal immigrant (not pro-illegal immigration), and both are just trying to turn a sow's ear into a silk purse.
But again, if we accept a change of mind or a change of heart from one candidate, we should for all candidates.
Thanks whatifidontwanna. I will stick around and continue to try my best to be fair. Y'all have a good night.
Good, fair, analysis. After two terms of Bush, I think conservatives are yearning for a communicator. Now if only Huckabee can relay the correct message.
Conservatives are yearning for a communicator, but just any communicator won't do. We need a communicator who is actually conservative!
Other than the obvious importance of winning the war, an issue which Huckabee has not been outspoken on, running the executive branch is mostly about management and fiscal issues. We can't elect a guy to head a $3 trillion organization when he increased his state budget from $6 to $16 billion!
Growing one's state budget is something we should examine.
While I live in Missouri, I can tell you that some budget increase in Arkansas wasnt a bad thing. They needed it.
But nearly 3 times what it was? Thats a question I think worthy of asking.
"That said, we should be surprised by how hateful some of these responses are to a candidate who is, whether you like him or not, clearly conservative to moderate across the board."
Where are all of these hateful responses? Do you see any in this post? There is a big difference between pointing out policy differences and anything personal or hateful; the two shouldn't be equated.
Regardless, the reason for the strong opposition is that he is not at all clearly conservative to moderate across the board. He raised gas taxes, cigarette taxes, grocery taxes, nursing home bed taxes, income taxes, tobacco taxes, internet taxes, and raised sales taxes 3 times. The overall tax burden for Arkansas citizens went up 47% in 10 years. He raised spending by 65.3% from 1996 to 2004. The number of state employees increased by 20%. He is against universal school choice for parents and got the endorsement of the anti-school choice NEA. He is in favor of increasing federal government spending on art and music. He is in favor of giving state-resident-only scholarships to illegal immigrants. He said in a debate that the reason we need to be in Iraq is because "we broke it"... not even mentioning the need to defeat Al Qaeda or defend a democratic anti-terrorist ally (maybe he's just a poor defender of the war, but what else is more important right now?). He opposes waterboarding, which has only been used 3 times against the highest-level Al Qaeda terrorists, in all circumstances. He sounds like a Democrat lamenting that the world hates us because of our arrogance, saying "There was a time when people looked up to the U.S. Now they resent us, not because we’re a superpower but because we act like one". He is in favor of closing Guantanamo. He is in favor of the SCHIP government-run health care for the middle-class bill. He parrots the Democrats and media, saying that the current economy is bad for the middle class, despite 6 years of economic growth, and 4 years of the Bush Boom. He uses class warfare rhetoric on a regular basis, calling CEO salaries "immoral". He has the zero-sum philosophy that the rich are holding the working class down. On trade he is a protectionist. He makes the ridiculous claim that he will make us energy independent in 8 years.
This is your consistent conservative? A candidate with no liberal positions? He has just as many liberal positions as conservative.
Wow, I had no idea that paragraph was that long. I would have turned it into 3 or 4 to make it more readable.
I first encountered Huck last year. I think it was in a Charlie Rose interview. I was so impressed that I thought he might be my man and started telling people they better watch for him. This year, having learned more about him, all the things which you elaborated -- very good enumeration by the way -- ushered in the conviction that he is the worst of the lot.
I have challenged his supporters in the last few days but it wasn't hateful. I hope Ben will have noticed that I was quick to knock Waas while still noting that Huckabee's own explanation on Dumond still finds us wanting.
That said, the level of dialogue here is often brutal so it is no surprise that Huck would be subjected to it.
There are some posters here that have taken on the anti-Huckabee campaign with a certain zeal that borders on hatred.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
But just so it is clear, by 'here' I was referring to the preceding comment. It does show a certain zeal and I share it. I have become opposed to Huckabee in the primary field, so that isn't an exactly charitable attitude. In that sense, someone might call it hatred, but I question whether that is fair.
On a stylistic note, some express their zeal by rational argument and others by insult, but Huckabee doesn't seem to me particularly special in that regard at Redstate. I would certainly agree that one style is more admirable than the other. But I haven't personally seen evidence of irrationally founded zeal, except where someone was advocating reliance on Waas. That does at least indicate some shilling... I don't know about hatred.
Each candidate has his share of detractors. But it seems to me that the only significant candidate to receive anywhere close to the same sort of invective was Romney a while back. But of course perception doesn't always jibe with reality.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
I still see people challenging Romney's record, which is welcome. The Romney bash is only a distant memory for me -- perhaps that is because trashing his Mormonism has been ruled out -- but I have caught the Rudy trash. And I suppose the latter has affected me somewhat in that I recently promoted Romney over Rudy. It seems to me that if we had to do a caucus here, Rudy and Huck would be the first sacrifices. Maybe Romney would go down next. It has been proposed that with sufficient bourbon we would finally settle on McCain. I am reminded however of the adage about design by committee.
Good day to ya flyerhawk.
McCain is probably the BEST candidate the Republicans have to offer. But it seems that too many Republicans can't get over McCain-Feingold and McCain's past unwillingness to play ball with the Republican gamesmanship.
Good day to you, John. Did you change your display name? Seems a bit different.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
Be a pirate day showed off a new found ability to change the screen/login name associated with the present account. When changing back from my pirate name, Moe graciously granted me what I had been after, because when I first signed up I didn't realize I could use spaces and special characters (hence the ungrammatical Johne).
I can't get over McCain on interrogations, but that's a problem to be addressed elsewhere.
One thing, more than any other, struck me as I was reading this post.
"Here's the thing you've gotta know about Mike," my friend said. "He's a prisoner who's trying to break out. A prisoner of his birth, of being from Hope, of being a Southern Baptist preacher, of being from Arkansas and succeeding only in Arkansas…everything he's done in life is about wanting to be bigger and better and have an impact beyond where started."
This comment about gives voice to a concern I've had about him since I first listened to him on the debates and in the media. Huck is all about Huck. It seems to me that it's more important for Huck to be president for Huck than it is for him to be the president for the rest of us schmoes out here. His overweaning desire to be president has more to do with his own ego than than any sense of duty to the country, the constitution, or the people. I had the same visceral reaction to Clinton the first time I saw him in NH. Made my skin crawl. Creepy, too clever by half, politicos. They want it soooo bad...there's something that just doesn't feel right.
These aren't provable or disprovable facts, just my intuitive reaction to what I've seen and heard.
In fairness, he's not the first, nor will he be the last, politician to be thusly afflicted.
The way he has calculated his positions to win a governorship and then to switch those positions just to win over the base...
But what you call narcissism, I call a burning desire to win. You don't run for president to lose. If you are in it (especially an unknown like Huck was) you scratch and claw your message to as many as possible. And that is what he has done.
If Thompson had that passion and ability to sell his message... he would have the nominaton locked up by now.
Let’s face it a large set of evangelical Christians will vote for this turkey no matter how bad of a candidate he is. In a 5 man race, he has a shot, but as candidates peel off, he doesn't. Huckabee and his "I am the only true Christian" campaign have turned off as many as hit has turned on. All you have to do is look at New Hampshire. As he has risen in Iowa, he has gone down in New Hampshire.
Face it, he can’t win the nomination, and won't. He can't hide from his record. If he by some miracle makes it to the general, he is dead meat.
_______________________
Give me juicy, Red meat
Huckabee called himself "A Cristian leader". Since he's been a Baptist minister for a significant portion of his life, I'd say that he is indeed a Christian leader, just like Romney is a business leader, and Rudy is a crime-fighter. By the way, calling oneself "A Christian leader" is a far cry from stating that "I am the ONLY Christian leader."
On a side note, it sure doesn't sound like you've got a whole lot of respect for Evangelical Christians.
You really need to write more Ben. Thanks for reminding me why I started coming here a long time ago.
Unfortunately, I would characterize Huck as half the package (sort of the anti-Giuliani). He certainly has social conservative bona fides. However his record is spotty on several points such as fiscal matters and immigration. In particular, his stand on in-state college tuition at the debate will be used by opponents to flog Huck into perpetuity. That will not play well in several of the important primary states. Combined with his record, it may be enough of a combination to keep Huck down.
I really dislike playing the primary divining game. However in a weak moment I would guess unless Romney surges, my own straw poll says Huck takes Iowa, is respectable in NH and potentially squeezes out another win in the South. But the effort falls short of a POTUS goal.Too bad really since he is better than any candidate on the Democrat ticket.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
is another southern version. Billy Jeff with "some" moral fiber. The guy is flawed & weak on immigration, which along with national security should be our two biggest issues.
Instead, this creep wants to spend our money to educate illegals because "it wasn't the fault of the kids." Huckabee sucks wind on any serious issues, as when he said "What NIE?" when asked about the Iran assessment.
Just another down-home airhead.
I am truly conflicted over the candidates. My preference seems to switch day-to-day. There are good points about all of them- and things I would change about all of them. I listen to them, look at their records, read what you folks say, and still have no idea who I will vote for. Many here are in the same position.
BTW, I supported McCain in 2000.
Until today, I didn't know anything about Waas. But today, he is referenced both here and over at Power Line by Paul Mirengoff, who has no liberal ax to grind that I know of.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2007/12/019208.php
But I understand that the messenger taints the message. But the kicker is, according to Mirengoff, Brian Ross of ABC reports the SAME story as Waas. He ALSO interviewed Butch Reeves, Huckabee aid,and gets the same story, with this cherry on top: the appeal Huckabee made to the parole board was unusual in its message and intent. Dumond was a special project for Huck.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/12/huckabee-aide-g.html
So here's the point. Do we ignore the monumental screwup by Huckabee simply because it is reported by tainted messengers, or is Waas just one more voice in the Greek Chorus warning us that something is wrong?
15 minutes of fame pass us by! This is ridiculous. This guy is closer to landing the job as the next Jarrod from Subway than he is to the POTUS!
Please, someone, give him back to Hope!
Huckabee will fold like a cheap suit. This man is Ron Paul without the consistency, but the police state apologist will be around for the duration. Both men are beloved by the MSM because they actually could rip the party asunder.
Huckabee will enjoy a Iowa boomlet, do poorly in New Hampshire, and eventually join Pat Robertson and Steve Forbes in the "Where Are They Now?" category (answer to that query--both back Guiliani). Paul will run third or fourth until the convention, at which time a difficult choice will have to be made: let him speak or not. Again, there is a reason people like Chris Matthews blow kisses to the likes of Paul and Huckabee, and it has nothing to do with a desire to see another Republican in the White House.
The media loves Ron Paul? You were just kidding when you said that, right? He's generally ridiculed by the MSM, for good reason.
I truly dislike Paul, because I believe he thinks his beliefs trump reality. But it would absurd to suggest that the media likes Paul in any way.
As for Huckabee, I have been telling people here that he would be the GOP nominee for about 6 months. RedState conservatives may revile him but he appeals to the not so political people who see a real person with great charisma.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
RedState conservatives may revile him but he appeals to the not so political people who see a real person with great charisma
Great, just what we need Richie Cunningham in the White House because he will bring charisma down on the head of Islam.
Sounds like another guy from Hope that we know oh to well. Let me rephrase that. Your descriptions look like those that we saw about Clinton when he was campaigning.
President of the US = Charisma? Who is "kidding" who?
Judging by that famous platitude you have as a signature I would say that you have been fooled before!
This is how politics operate at the national level.
People today seem to think that Charisma is the same thing as pleasant and friendly. It most certainly is not. They also seem to think that it is irrelevant. That is also untrue.
Reagan didn't win because of policy positions. He won because he made people believe in America again.
People that post on political blogs seem to think that EVERYONE is deeply involved and fluent on the issues. That simply isn't the case. Most people don't spend that much time on this. They are too busy with their lives to worry about who has the best immigration plan or health care plan.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
a one liner!
Fred said it best; "We need a Commander in Chief not a court jester."
Also, tax and spend liberals dont just reside in the Democrat Party! *See - Hucks owns words to his AK Legislature.
that infected the MSM. I don't like him, either, but I can't believe you don't see it. He may have lost luster as people have paid closer attention to his nuttier positions, but I stand by my contention the MSM has pushed him (along with the alternative communication sources). By way of example, about a month ago I counted no less than four newspaper columns picked up by RealClearPolitics on the same day, from sources that ran the ideological gambit, and they were all generally favorable to Paul.
I wish you were right, but you aren't.
Do you really believe that a poor showing in NH (fourth or lower) will cause Huck to fold? He's currently leading in SC and second in FL.
Do you think a poor NH showing will materially impact both of these states?
Mr. Ed
Straight from the Horse's Mouth
Remember all that we must pick Rudy stuff? Social cons are maturing, family values aren't important compared to terror, only Rudy can defeat Hillary?
Remember Fred's lazy he can't win, he worked for abortions and filled out a form once? Remember Mitt's mormon, can Mitt get evangelicals, is he sincere about his flip on social issues?
All that primary crap did one thing, the MSM's distain for social cons combined with our MSConservatives dismissal of social cons issues did damage Fred and Mitt enough to keep Rudy afloat. However, the MSM and MSConservatives forgot about Huckabee. Opps!!! Now it seems like all those fiscal cons who were sooooo willing to sell off the social cons are worried about Huckabee.
Cry me a river. If our beloved Foxnews or other MSConservatives hadn't tried to shove Rudy down our throats by slandering Mitt or Fred with MSM talking points, you wouldn't have the Huckabee problem. When you insult the beliefs of social conservatives expect backlash, especially when the insults and dismissal comes from your own party.
Of course maybe you fiscal cons should just mature a bit. Huck promised no new taxes. Isn't that as good as promising constructionist judges?
This is a wonderfully written post that shows thought and reason. Thank you for this thought-provoking and fair article.
Craig Thomas
http://blog.craigdthomas.com
Immigration and globalization are splitting the party. More precisely, they're splitting the base from the business interests. Main Street is learning that Wall St has other loyalties than to this country. I think Huckabee is tapping into this, although the more I hear of his record the more I suspect he's more problem than solution here.
Still, something's shifting. It may be that someday the coastal left and the plutocrats will go one way and the rest of us will go the other. Huckabee may be the first to feel the wind.
And, no, I'm not really swooning for any of the candidates.
This is the one of the best summaries I've seen on the "Huck" factor.
Full Disclosure: I'm a California Lib, been reading RedState for years, and finally joined to comment.
I agree that Huckabee's base is growing and has potential to grow further. More people are paying attention now and Huck seems to be gaining ground with the GOP evangelicals. But, many libs like me, are also noticing him. I'm not at all inspired by the Dem line-up. They all come off as as ego-centric. Obama is the only one that's interesting but he has yet to articulate anything of substance.
So here's my squishy Lib take: Huckabee appears to be the candidate that could bridge the partisan divide. Some of us Libs are actually ok with traditional social values. I think Huck will satisfy the social conservatives on supreme court nominees and will appeal to us libs on the "compassionate" side. Not a full win for anyone but just maybe he might unite all of us.
I totally agree with you, LibRick. I am a Democrat (as everyone here knows), but I support Huck for some of the very reasons that you laid out. For one thing, I agree that one of Hucks strongest selling points is that he seems like he totally has the ability to unite the country. I think that Hillary's very smart, but I worry that she's entirely too polarizing. As far as Obama goes, I think that there's no there there. He speaks in platitudes about "the audacity of hope", but when it comes right down to it, he's a lousy debater who can't really articulate anything of substance (like you said). For instance, Huck is actually way more knowledgeable on health care than Obama is. Furthermore, I am somewhat put off by someone who thinks that they can run for president after only two years in the senate. I like Joe Biden and think that he's knowledgeable on foreign policy, but I don't think he has a snowball's chance in hell of getting the nomination.
On a side note, I also agree that many Dems (like me) are religious, and don't have a problem with traditional social values. Thanks for your post. I sometimes feel like the lone Dem/Huck supporter in the wilderness. :-)
He has the potential to go into a black church and connect. He could go into a labor hall and come out with votes. He's got none of the angry conservative vibe and could be tough on immigration without losing hispanic votes.
He must convice us conservatives he will be fiscally conservative, but if he does he's our best campaigner. I'm hoping he can show that governing conservatively is compassionate.
Go look at the murder rates, poverty, and educational rates of Americans major cities and you will notice something. In the worst places to live democrats are in charge.
Huckabee is the Howard Dean of the GOP in 2008. If you think he's "for real" you aren't.