F-you Country Boy. Jesus Freaks Need Not Apply.
By Erick Posted in 2008 | Mike Huckabee — Comments (234) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
You know the most damnably aggravating thing about this campaign season for me? I continue to feel compelled to defend Mike Huckabee and I'm still convinced he'd hurt the party were he the nominee. And as I continue to defend Huckabee, some have decided I'm an anti-Mormon bigot, some have decided I must be a Huckabee supporter, and some have decided I've just lost my mind.
Here I go again defending the guy who I have no intention of voting for.
Today, Rich Lowry* writes:
nominating a Southern Baptist pastor running on his religiosity would be rather overdoing it. Social conservatism has to be part of the Republican message, but it can't be the message in its entirety. . . .Huckabee has declared that he doesn't believe in evolution. Even if there are many people in America who agree with him, his position would play into the image of Republicans as the anti-science party. This would tend to push away independents and upper-income Republicans.
Think that's bad? Read Lisa Schiffren's post here. It drips with condescension, which only got worse here -- enough for Rich to notice. They aren't the only ones.
And all of that is damnably aggravating to me because I tend to think Rich is right on these things, as are Lisa and others. But the sheer snideness of most of the attacks on Huckabee makes me want to defend the guy. While the attacks are on valid issues, at heart, the attacks appear to be because he is a former preacher from the South -- a country bumpkin and a Jesus Freak.
The New York-Washington Corridor of Conservative IntelligentsiaTM loves the base when it does as it is told, but let's not actually let the Jesus Freaks run things directly. You know, we're all suppose to listen to James Dobson, but God forbid one of his ideological kin actually takes charge.
Read on . . .
*This is a matter of me writing quickly and running off to a Christmas Party. I'm glad Ramesh Ponnuru emailed me to ask what it is that was "snide" in Rich's column. I should not have lumped Rich in with the whole because I don't think he was snide. My point with Rich's column instead was that there are a lot of hits on Huckabee at the angles Rich takes -- most of them are snide, though Rich's itself was not. Those hits are hits that he's a preacher, he believes in creationism, and he'll creep out the non-evangelical among us. I actually think Huckabee could do quite well in a secular world. His articulate statement on the evolution question, for example, is one that a lot of non-evangelicals took positive notice of. My apologies to Rich for suggesting his was, itself, snide.
This whole thing reminds me of a John Derbyshire column at National Review back in 2003, during the heyday of the Crunchy Con movement. Rod Dreher had just written his NRODT story on it and National Review decided to stop being the standard bearer for conservative thought and instead become the National Geographic of the Conservative Movement. Derbyshire declared himself a "Metropolitan Conservative" and I tend to think it is this class of people who should let the rest of us go after Huckabee. They should go silent. The more they speak in their condescending manner toward those who are, in reality, the bulk of the GOP base, the more they give away the game that they want us in the party -- they just wish we'd all shut the hell up and take orders instead.
Derbyshire writes:
Now, 43 percent of respondents to a Gallup poll last May said that homosexual relations between consenting adults should not be legal. So the uncomfortable question arises: If we NR-niks are to the left of 43 percent of Americans on this issue, just what kind of conservatives are we?
It's the same with Creationism. I touched on this topic in a column a few days ago, where I called Creationism "pseudoscience." A poll conducted last March showed that 48 percent of Americans believe in Creationism, vs. only 28 percent in evolution. It happens that a couple of years ago, someone on a private e-list I belong to asked me if there were any Creationists at NR. I said I thought there was one. I had forgotten that NR had eavesdropping rights on this particular e-list. Kathy Lopez, who eagle eye never misses a thing, e-mailed me to ask who it was I had in mind. I told her. She checked. Nope, he wasn't a Creationist. To the best of my knowledge, therefore, there were no Creationists at NR, and to the best of my knowledge there are none now.
Go back now to Lowry's column today where he talks about evolution. Remember, as well, that even McCain commented on just how articulate and thoughtful Huckabee's remarks on evolution were. Now, continue reading to the heart of the Derb's column:
What the heroic worker was to an old-line Marxist, what the suffering Negro was to civil-rights marchers, what the unfulfilled housewife is to Hillary Clinton, the Vietnamese peasant to Jane Fonda, the Palestinian rioter to Edward Said, so the red-state conservative with his Bible, his hunting rifle and his sodomy laws is to me. He is authentic, in a way I am not.
There doesn't seem to be much point in apologizing for this condescension, and I am not much given to apologizing anyway. It's worth noting, though, as a fixed component of, I think, the entire outlook of metropolitan conservatives. I don't think it is any cause for rancor or antagonism. The metropolitan conservative and his provincial cousin both have their part to play in keeping what Sir Kenneth called "the balance of ends and means." Sitting in New York cooking up argumentative commentaries is as useful, in its own way, as running a Christian home-schooling group in Knoxville.
. . . . I see what happens when conservatism becomes a merely metropolitan cult: conservative politics becomes marginalized and impotent. That's not going to happen here; and it won't be me and my big city pals that prevent it, it'll be the legions of real, authentic conservatives out there in the provinces. God bless them all for keeping America strong, free, and true to her founding principles.
[Emphasis in original]. I think Derb's sentiment from back in 2003 is revealing itself now. The New York-Washington Corridor of Conservative IntelligentsiaTM bristles at the idea that a back water social conservative from Arkansas has excited the base in a way the others haven't. We were, after all, suppose to go for Romney or Rudy. They told us so.
I don't want to defend Mike Huckabee. He's not my candidate. I don't yet see any major reasons to trust him on fiscal issues (though he did say he wants to kill the corporate income tax). But it's a sad day in the conservative movement when the conservative intelligentsia has sustained harsher words for a socially conservative Governor than a serial adulterer who has said this year that the government should provide assistance to poor women wanting abortions.
There are attacks to be made on Huckabee. But I think most of those who are making them are only helping Huckabee because the snideness of their tone overshadows the accuracy of their attacks.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Giuliani Unleashes The Dog; Sadly It's A Poodle — Comments (45) »
F-you Country Boy. Jesus Freaks Need Not Apply. 234 Comments (0 topical, 234 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Why is Romney you punching bag every time the MSM attack Huckabee. While there are lots of reasons to attack Huckabee, there have also been other attacks that are plain wrong. But, What I don't understand is everytime there is bad news for Huckabee, Romney is blamed.
.
_____________________________________________________
American First, Conservative Second, Republican Third
All you have to do is look at Mitt's statist health care plan and his vow to bring it to the rest of America to know why we keep bringing him up. We are only pointing out the hypocrisy of the North Eastern Establishment’s criticism of Huckabee as too fiscally liberal. Mitt is hardly a Fiscal Conservative and neither is Rudy. To continue to try and make this an argument against Huckabee is foolish. I intend to make this point in an upcoming blog on Mitt’s fiscally liberal record.
As for Rudy go to here: http://www.redstate.com/blogs/aceintx/2007/dec/10/my_support_for_huckabe... to see his more liberal record.
To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!
Go Mike Go!!!
Well Said! Please do so. The minstream conservative media is not doing it!
"Truth can stand on its own and needs no help from half-truths, shades of grey, white-lies, or plain lies"
You can cherry pick and manipulate to make it look like Giuliani isn't a fiscal conservative, but anybody who looks into the record knows better.
Similarly, you can nitpick to try to make Huckabee look like a fiscal conservative, but he isn't either.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
"All you have to do is look at Mitt's statist health care plan and his vow to bring it to the rest of America to know why we keep bringing him up."
Romney has said repeatedly that he wishes for individual states to deal with healthcare in their own ways. He also said that the Mass plan wasn't his ideal plan, and indeed, 9 key elements were removed by Democrats.
Please get the facts straight if you're going to push an argument.
And no, increasing state spending by 65% and tax burdens by 47% is never conservative. Ever. Not now. Not 20 years ago. Not 20 years from now.
Huckabee is wholly unacceptable. Bad-mouthing other candidates will not change that.
"Don't ever be afraid to see what you see." ~Ronald Reagan
...you say that you are not a Huck supporter. I would recommend that you quit worrying about coming to his defense.
I am simply a Christian. But I am not a Huck fan. Those sympathetic to Huckabee need to recognize that there are significant reasons for many in the Party to come out against him given 1) his positions that are contrary to central conservative principles and 2) some glaring judgment lapses while governor (Dumond+). I do not take criticisms of him as a criticism of me as a Christian. I listen and recognize the truth that he would divide rather than rally the Party in the general.
If Huck were well-grounded on socon, fiscon and seccon issues, I would be inclined to support him. He simply is not. So, I look elsewhere - because he will harm the coalition as much or more than Rudy will.
You really do not need to come to his defense. Talk about the serious decision that people need to make - between Romney and Thompson. Focus your energy where it matters.
All the best.
I agree with you that Erick does not need to defend Huckabee the politician. But the attacks on Huckabee have been to his social conservatism, which is the only thing I like about the guy. And that is worth defending.
His fiscal conservatism is non-existant. He is far too much a compassionate conservative for me. (We don't need another). His view on illegal immigration is appalling.
He would not hurt the party like Rudi would. After all, Huckabee is another W. But we don't need another W.
We don't need the ex-liberal governor of Massachusetts either.
Give Fred your energy and effort.
Yes, Huck would hurt the party like Rudy would - only from a different angle. Splits are splits. And the next W is the last thing the party needs for 2008.
seem determined to go down in flames, for they finally have a "Christian" running (never mind the other candidates' confessions).
Building a border fence and refusing amnesty is appalling to you? What are you, some sort of open borders guy?
Let's just say that Huck's recent "retooling" of his immigration position has been, erm, Romneyesque and leave it at that.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
At least W supported tax cuts and opposed labor unions infuencing the government.
it's that he appears to want to be our Pastor in Chief.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
is what is scary. As a Catholic (and the last time I checked, a Christian as well), this Fundie nanny statism thing is just as mencaing as the Hillary! nanny statism.
I can't think of a more ignorant or contemptible comment than the one you just made. Huckabee has a record as do Giuliani & Romney. If you so called FisCons would stop drinking the Romney and Giuliani KoolAid you'd see that Romney and Giuliani have been at least as fiscally and probably more fiscally liberal that Huckabee was.
As far as I'm concerned Fred Thompson is the only candidate that has grounds to criticize Huck's fiscal policies. He's my second choice after Huck. I've ruled out Guiliani or McCain as a possible vote in the general election even if they're the nominee. As I research Romney's record on fiscal issues for an article I will soon post, I am coming closer to saying I will never vote for him in the General election either.
To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!
Go Mike Go!!!
First of all, I'm a SoCon, an Evangelical Christian and a licensed minister. I'm also not committed to any candidate at this point.
I've been all over Bubba Jr's record as Governor and it stinks. Roughly doubled the tax burden in AR, the cost of state government rose at three times the rate of inflation, his blather on pardons is more BS than should be tossed on any one subject, his commentary on immigration is unbelievable, he knows nothing about foreign affairs, nothing about the conduct of a war, and is clueless about the fact that FairTax, the FMA and the HLA will never pass. Oh, then theres that "we'll be energy independent by the end of my second term" crap.
Bottom line, he's a fiscal imbicile. My dead white cat knows as much about foreign affairs as he does and none, absolutely none, of his "signature programs" will even get to the floor of congress for a vote. Oh, and then there's the fact that - based on his comments on Lawrence - he is clueless about the Constitution and SCOTUS as well.
So, we get to put up with complete ignorance when it comes to governance and on top of that we get to have him challenge his opponents by questioning their Christianity, all the while listening to how important his faith is. In between flat out lies about things like the fuel tax issue and, oh yeah, he did give back the furniture.
Sheesh. You want ignorant and contemptable go look in a mirror while holding a picture of Bubba Jr.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
giving up your license? Sorry if you are an evangelical Christian, I might be the Pope!
"Truth can stand on its own and needs no help from half-truths, shades of grey, white-lies, or plain lies"
If so, I think you already lost.
Listen up pin head.
It's like this. I really resent Bubba Jr. making his Christianity THE big reason why I should consider voting for him. See his ad in Iowa. Just because he's a Christian (and I'm not quibbling over that) and just because he's a pastor does not mean he knows diddly squat about the things that are required to be POTUS. For instance, when questioned about his lack of foreign policy expertise, he touted the fact that he had a degree in Theology. Oh, FWIW, he doesn't have a degree, he was only at the seminary for one year.
Listening to him is like turning on the TV on Sunday morning. I'm sick and tired of his little "red sea/red tape" snippits mixed with his obvious and total ignorance of foreign affairs of conducting the war, of dealing with the Washington DC Democrats, of tax and economic policy.
He should go back to pastoring, he will have my good wishes.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
I make the point that Rudy and Mitt are at least as bad on fiscal and immigration policy and you split your britches. Look at their records. They are both Rockefeller Country clubbers who are as bad or worse when it comes to expansive government.
As far as Huck's foreign policy experience goes, can you give me Mitt's or Fred's or Rudy's foreign policy experience?
BTW spare me Rudy's 911 experience in answer to my question on foreign policy. As I've stated on numerous posts that he did a better job of emergency response than Ray Nagan did in New Orleans this would qualify him to handle a tornado in Washington DC but doesn't have anything to do with how he'd respond in an international crises.
To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!
Go Mike Go!!!
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
position of either Mitt or Rudy so their position has nothing to do with Bubba Jr's.
With respect to foreign policy experience, none of them have any to speak of. Only Huck would try to make a joke out of his ignorance though. Rudy has also put together a foreign policy advisory team made up of real heavy weights and he gets a plus for that.
The one thing that I know Rudy can and will do is fight. He'll fight the Democrats in Congress just like he fought and beat the liberal interests in NYC. I don't know about Mitt, and I'm sure if there's a fight, Bubba Jr will be a no-show. He'll want everybody to just get along like they did in Arkansas. That means more government and more taxes and less security.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/aceintx/2007/dec/10/my_support_for_huckabe...
To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!
Go Mike Go!!!
aceintx
"as bad or worse" You say Rudy and Mitt suck but Huck sucks too? Yep, I vote for people who I think suck too. LOL
You sound like a four year old.
By the will of Evangelicals to flex their muscle, and then looses (like I think he would) in the general, the Religous Right wing of the party will unfortunately be severally wounded.
When one part of our party says "screw you" to the other part and forces their candidate on the party, we are in for some major problems. I would say that for any party wing. That is what is happening with Huckabee, esp. when taken in context of Perkin's email article from a week ago. To be told that Evangelicals will support Huckabee despite numerous policy differences just to send a message to secularists, is a major problem, in my opinion.
The worst nightmare for our party would be a two man race between Huckabee and Giuliani. Total nightmare. Huckabee V Romney/Thompson/McCain would allow things to still be salvageable. Giuliani V. Romney/Thompson/McCain would have been the best probable scenario, but that won't happen.
But I think you're putting the cart before the horse.
You said: "When one part of our party says "screw you" to the other part and forces their candidate on the party, we are in for some major problems."
Well, that's exactly what happened. All of the early front-running candidates were Northeastern Republicans (+McCain) with liberal views on social issues, only one of whom was even interested in giving the appearance of caring about socially conservative stances - and I have serious questions about his (Romney, if you hadn't figured it out) sincerity. The Establishment Republicans basically told socons who raised the questions about these socially liberal views and the lack of a candidate that shared their priorities "go soak your heads, what are you gonna do, vote for a Dem?"
And they went out and found Hucmkabee ans said "notice us. We're powerful, we're passionate about our issues, and we will nominate someone that cares about what we care about and see how you like it."
I was really, sincerely, hoping that person would be Fred (and to extend, I still hold out hope it might be). But Huckabee was actually in the race, was communicating, was reaching these people and saying "I hear you" when no one else would. And the evangelical base responded wholeheartedly.
The Republican party and establishment Republican media (I'll refrain from stealing the trademarked phrase!) have no one to blame but themselves for the rise of Huckabee.
I would love to see the nomination come down to Huck vs. Fred. That would be ideal. But if Fred isn't going to get his act together (though, thankfully, he seems to be), I'm not going to stand by and let the nomination come down to two men who haven't done a darned thing except give lip service to prove they're any further right than the Dems socially.
...if I could spell "completely."
Carry on.
You have no plausible argument that McCain and Romney are totally at odds with Evangelicals, to the extent that Huckabee is with nearly everything The only Republican aspect is pro-life and marriage. That's it. You have numerous problems with ethical questions, gift giving, missing computers, etc. and all the pardons. These are serious problems.
With McCain, Romney and Fred, you have politicians who are at least willing to work with all segments of the party.
If Huckabee wins then looses, the biggest looser is the Religious right. Unless Romney, McCain or Thompson wins, this party is headed for a major split.
why I am against Romney socially. It's his record. I don't believe in convenient "policy shifts" or "personal revelations" or whatever that happen to directly coincide with one deciding to run for office.
McCain, it would not be hard for me to vote for were it not for McCain-Feingold, which I think is pretty heinous.
In any event, I may have not have made myself clear. I'm not really supporting Huckabee now, precisely because of ethics issues I see cropping up that he can't easily explain away, in addition to his further explanations of some policy positions that I find either unconvincing or wrong. What I was addressing why his rise happened in the first place. I looked at Huck and said "oh, there really is an authentic social conservative in this race." And so I supported him (though I've never been polled, so it's not like MY personal decision affected anything). And now that I dig and find some of his record, well, I'm souring on him a bit. But I still defend his social positions, and more importantly, the IMPORTANCE of those social position.
Which is why I like Fred. I think he's pretty close to me social-issues wise. And I don't understand why people excoriate (vocab word alert!) him for not embracing an amendment that won't pass.
I want Fred to do better. When it comes to my state (sadly, far too late to do much good), that's probably who I'm voting for. But I'm also defending Huckabee right now because I think those that want to dismiss him often dismiss issues very important to me along with him.
Believe it or not, I think McCain may be the only one to salvage our party right now.
I like Fred too, but the guy just doesn't have the passion. Hell, he didn't even acquire enough signature to qualify for the Delaware primary ballot.
You should consider putting McCain-Feingold aside (partly because the Supreme Court already gutted a portion of it in FEC v. Wisconsin RIght to Life) and vote McCain. I really believe he is best for the party right now.
McCain is the only Republican running that not only holds the Reagan coalition together, but also brings Reagan Democrats back into the fold.
I think Romney's rhetoric in '94 and '02 is worse than his actual record. He vetoed every pro-abortion bill that came to his desk while governor and fought hard on the gay marriage issue.
I'm having a good laugh at you as a Rudy supporter when I hear you saying to SoCons "When one part of our party says 'screw you' to the other part and forces their candidate on the party, we are in for some major problems."
I remeber making posts a couple of months ago the the Rockefeller wing were forcing Rudy down our throats and basically telling us to shut our mouths and fall in line.
As I recall the dismissive line was...."What are you going to do...vote for Hillary?"...well now it's our turn to ask....what are you going to do?...vote for Hillary?
To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!
Go Mike Go!!!
Are you claiming he is a Rudy supporter? Is that why he has all that Romney stuff in his sig? He's been a Romneybot since day one. If you are going to go around attacking people's motives you might want to be a little more observant.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Is actually a Rudy shell organization.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
To mymanmitt is a link to Rudy.
"Some people believe football is a matter of life and death. I'm very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that." - Bill Shankly
Now its Leon's turn to come clean.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
As I recall the dismissive line was...."What are you going to do...vote for Hillary?"...well now it's our turn to ask....what are you going to do?...vote for Hillary?
Yes, I will. There is nothing sacred to me about voting a straight ticket, and Hillary is light-years better on foreign policy than a complete neophyte who couldn't be bothered to read the NIE on Iran in a timely fashion and then lied about it when he got called out. It also doesn't help that he's a fiscally liberal populist -- favorably comparing in that regard with John Edwards. Nor that his primary selling points are a series of social conservative views that aren't mine.
I have no problems with a preacher being President, but he has to have the qualifications first. Huckabee doesn't have them, particularly in foreign policy and fiscal matters. Right now, I'd support either Clinton or Obama over him. (He beats Edwards for me, but, then, I'd vote for the devil over Edwards. Twice.)
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
Mitt was a governor and Rudy a mayor...What makes them more qualified than Huckabee on foreign policy? The only thing I see different between them on foreign policy from Huck is that they have Ivy league degrees and sip champaign at the Rockefeller Country Club.
To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!
Go Mike Go!!!
Mitt's foreign policy credentials aren't fantastic, but they are far beyond Huckabee, who apparently thinks having a degree in Bible is foreign policy experience. I say this not at all to diminish the study of the Bible, which can inform many things, but I think it's important to remember Martin Luthor's admonishment, "I'd rather be governed by a wise Turk then a foolish Christian."
Anyhow, Mitt was the Governor of a coast with considerable international trade and international business. Also, Bain Consulting and Capital, the company Mitt was CEO of, has more international business contacts then you can shake a stick at, which is huge. Dean Acheson became Secretary of State in part due to his international business/law connections and knowledge.
And you are really all wet about Giuliani. Other then McCain, and arguably Brownback before he dropped out, he's got the most experience in foreign policy issues. First off, being Mayor of New York is inherently international job. It's the biggest international city in the entire world. No city on the planet has more money and people from different places going in and out of it then New York. One out of every five people in New York is employed by a foreign country.
It's also the city that the United Nations is located in, and he had to deal with some of those folks all the time. Perhaps you heard about the time where he kicked Yasser Arafat out of a party for the UN because he hadn't been invited.
However, he had lot of foreign policy experience before his time as Mayor. As an Assistant Attorney General he was in charge of the DEA, which deals with international law issues and drug trafficking, which obviously extensively involves foreign policy issues. He also dealt, famously, and in my opinion wrongly, but that's a different issue, with the Hatian Immigrant situation.
When he became U.S. Attorney, he was involved in many, many terrorism cases. He famously prosecuted the Palestinian Terrorists who murdered Leon Klinghoffer. Anyhow, he was involved in a lot of them, and that's key experience in the WOT.
Of course, there is also 9/11. The fact that things went as smoothly as they did given the chaos is not an accident. He had been planning responses to terrorism for all 8 years of his terms in office. He was well aware of the threat and understood the threat of terrorism and the results speak for themselves.
This isn't even to mention the fact that even before he left office, he had traveled to other countries helping them with their security and crime related issues. Since he's been out of office, he's helped places from Mexico City to Tel Aviv with security related issues.
Giuliani is infinitely more qualified on foreign policy and national security issues then Huckabee is.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
that Romney was in charge of the first Olympics after 9/11 and had to deal with the security of those games - quite a difficult challenge.
___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.
I'm not a huge fan of Giuliani, but the rest of your assessment is spot-on. Romney is a calculating, canny guy. He's not led by his heart, the way Huckabee seems to be (see, e.g., Dumond). I may not like him all that much, but he's easily better than Huckabee.
As for Thompson: I started out not liking the guy, but his dogged commitment to federalism is impressive. Not my first choice -- like Nixon reportedly remarked, I don't know if he's the sharpest knife in the drawer. I'm also not all that impressed when someone is laid-back. I'd rather see hard work. But he'd do as well.
But, of course, I remain committed to McCain, despite strong disagreements on campaign finance.
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
- I'm having a good laugh at you as a Rudy supporter
I realize that your annoying canned talking points are designed for use with Rudy supporters, but it detracts from your presentation when you blithely use them on people who have "mymanmitt.com" in their signatures.
You are once again becoming a spam hose. If you would like to spend another night in the box, post another link to that note you've already linked to twice in this thread.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
College, I'm no expert. Is it possible for a Republican to lose California, Oregon, Washington, Illinois, New York, Massachusetts, and Florida and still win the general election?
I don't see Huck winning those states, no matter the opponent.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
Bush lost Florida in 2000? Were you asleep for two months or what?
all of those are routinely on the Dem side of the ledger anyway.
So the question comes down to "can a Republican win without Florida?"
The answer is complicated. Short answer = yes, but FL is a big loss. If you lose FL, it is absolutely required to win OH. Can't lose both. In addition, you'll need to steal either Michigan or Pennsylvania, which are 52-55% Dem.
Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie
Yeah, but Ohio looks ugly now. The atomosphere is caustic towards Republicans, and will be, for structural reasons. This isn't a case of a bad poll day. I think the GOP needs to find a winning strategy without OH, meaning FL, WI, PA etc..
MOlsen6
Proud supporter of McCain '00 and McCain '08
the same things Huckabee says that some of us don't like are things that probably would put him at a big disadvantage in all those states, including Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.
Other 'Pub candidates might win the northwest, even California.
Florida? Huck can fuggeddaboudit.
If Obama were the Dem choice, I'm not even sure Huck would carry the South.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
I think the things he's saying give him an advantage in those states (Mich, Ohio, Penn). He's a populist and will play well in conditions of economic challenges.
More, the democrats have held onto working class votes in many of those regions by default. On social issues, those groups are very conservative. Combine that with Huck-style economic populism and I think you flip support by at least 10 points.
It's true that he has no chance in California or really anywhere on the west coast. But I don't think that any other Republicans do either (unless Hillary is the candidate in which case I think everything is in play).
It might be a case of "been there, done that"--especially in Michigan.
"I think the things he's saying give him an advantage in those states (Mich, Ohio, Penn). He's a populist and will play well in conditions of economic challenges.
More, the democrats have held onto working class votes in many of those regions by default. On social issues, those groups are very conservative. Combine that with Huck-style economic populism and I think you flip support by at least 10 points."
Populism can be a tricky thing. It wouldn't surprise me at all if he were 'out-populismd' by Hillary, or any Democrat for that matter. They have it in their genes. Those social conservatives in PA did not stand behind Rick Santorum. Do we know why?
The economic populism is even worse. He will get support from the 'demolish the IRS' crowd, but that is never going to happen, for practical reasons. The Fair Tax is NOT a panacea. I think any of the others who have a record of reducing taxes or holding the line on them could do as well as he.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
Flagstaff,
My intent is not to comment so much on Huckabee, but I can't resist letting you know that rural parts of MI, OH, and (western)PA are going to like the Huckabee message. Not all, but it isn't as bad as you might think. Hey, we have a bunch of Amish folks and Mennonites ... Christian evangelicals just don't scare people. They live with them.
That being said, I have some bones to pick.
Other 'Pub candidates might win the northwest, even California.
Show me the data. Feed me. The last data I saw was every Dem was up big on every Republican in California, and it wasn't even close. Kerry thumped Bush in California 54% to 44%. How does any Republican (all are pro-war except the UNSPEAKABLE ONE) make up 10% points on Bush? I don't see it. McCain or Rudy might be able to pick off Oregon, but I don't seriously believe that even WA is in play.
If Obama were the Dem choice, I'm not even sure Huck would carry the South.
Please provide evidence. Bush won by 25% in Alabama. This is a pretty good down payment. Show me your evidence. Time does heal all wounds, but the Deep South is the former land of the Dixiecrats. You really think Obama could compete in the South with Huckabee? Unless you show evidence, I think not.
MOlsen6
Proud supporter of McCain '00 and McCain '08
There was at least one poll that had Giuliani slightly ahead of Hillary in Washington. I can't find it now but I assure you it exists.
It's also worth noting that Washington is a weird state. D's always win it, but they don't win it by much. GWB is probably one of the worst politicians for the purpose of actually winning Washington for a whole host of reasons, but he still got 46% of the vote in 2004.
Honestly, the big problem with Washington is that they HATE Religious conservatives. It's an EXTREMELY secular state, especially Seattle, even moreso then most big cities (SF is the only one that's even close to as low in church attendance)
I could see either McCain or Giuliani winning Washington. Is it likely? No, but it's not impossible either. Mitt, Huck, and Fred, almost no way in hell, but I think Giuliani or McCain could win it.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Because he might win Washington state?
Not following you.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
that would appeal to wash state libs more than a democrat.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
and I know EXACTLY what you mean.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
Dang! The time machine is in the shop for repairs. It needs a new veeblefetzer and a potrzebie upgrade. There is NO WAY I can show you evidence that my opinion is correct. I just have a couple of rejoinders.
"I can't resist letting you know that rural parts of MI, OH, and (western)PA are going to like the Huckabee message."
They didn't like a similar message by Rick Santorum well enough to re-elect him. Could it have had anything to do with his previous support of quasi-liberal Arlen Specter, who obligingly threw him under the train, or was it just because of his 'stances on the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Social Security, intelligent design, homosexuality, and the Terri Schiavo case' (Wikipedia)? Maybe those gave Santorum problems with the people in Eastern Pennsylvania. Would Huck have some of the same problems? Wouldn't anybody?
"I don't seriously believe that even WA is in play."
Washington came within an illogical court decision of electing a Republican Governor last time. That means somebody there was doing something right. As liberal as Seattle and some other parts of WA may be, there are also plenty of people there ready to listen to fiscal conservatism and sensible border policy. Again, my opinion.
"You really think Obama could compete in the South with Huckabee?"
Well, maybe that was a bit much, but you could probably make your argument for all the other candidates, too, so that really doesn't help Huck. But I do believe Obama will do better with black women and college voters than Hillary would.
Here's my opinion in a nutshell. Some folks believe that Huckabee is the ideal candidate because he seems solid on pro-life and he favors the Fair Tax. Maybe some other reasons, too. They can overlook his agreement to tax increases in Arkansas (maybe they were needed), and his curious stands on illegal immigration, old and new, and his apparent cluelessness about many other issues of national importance.
Other folks believe that Republicans need to nominate a 'middle-of-the-road' candidate, one who will be closer o the Democrats' positions on a raft of things. Again, these people might like Huckabee, too. The idea is that he could attract the independents and the undecideds and the fallen Democrats that don't like whomever their candidate may be.
I fall into the category of folks who believe that if we don't give the people a choice (instead of an echo) we might just as well go home before the election. We need to provide a choice to get the mainline conservative to vote at all. Stands like McCain took last summer on illegal immigration take a long time to be forgotten.
Let the people pick between a liberal Democrat and a conservative Republican, not between a real Democrat and an imitation Democrat. We might even pick up some seats in Congress while we're at it. IMHO.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
But I think most of those who are making them are only helping Huckabee because the snideness of their tone overshadows the accuracy of their attacks.
They haven't figured it out yet, and please don't help them!
...some Huckabee supporters have defended his economic positions (as has been said on this site as well as others) by mentioning that his positions are closer to mainstream, consensus opinion than those of Giuliani, Romney, or Thompson.
That being said, "mainstream, consensus opinion" cuts both ways. To wit, the mainstream is a bit wary of, for lack of a better term, the "Bible thumper" mentality, and some of his statements along those lines, as genuine and heartfelt as they are, have the tendency to rub some people the wrong way...
"No matter how much lipstick you put on the taxation pig, it's still a pig... and it's currently snout-down in your wallet." - Michael Fisk
It isnt that Huckabee is a Christian is why he is catching on - and I live in the heart of GOP territory for Missouri.
To do so is an over simplification and a lack of understanding of why he is catching on.
Do people like that about him? To a point, but people identify with a lot of what he says and are tired of the establishment..
I might add that many people love seeing those in Washington and in the media squirm at the sight of Huckabee doing well.
He has a core. I have tried to write about this repeatedly.
Now that he retooled his immigration policy - look out.
I just wished Fred could get some free media the way Huck has, because he has that core and antiestablishment foundation as well..
anyways.
People had better listen up, because Erick is right.
Now that he retooled his immigration policy - look out.
So, one man's "flip-flop" is another man's "retooling"?
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
flip flop, retooled - bottom line is that he changed it.. you know, the same way Romney retooled his abortion beliefs (but apparently didnt enforce them on a deminationalized health care policy). :P
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
Plip.....Running against Kennedy Mitt was Pro Life
Flop....Running for Governor Mitt was Pro Choice and Pro gay marriage.
Flip....Running now Mitt is pro Life and Pro traditional Marriage
Will the real Mitt Romney please stand up?
To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!
Go Mike Go!!!
He was pro-life when he was running for the Senate in 1994? That's a laugh. You should really check out Ron Paul... I think he is more your speed, judging by the quality of your posts here.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I donated to his Campaign for Senate in 1994. My memory is that he claimed to be pro life. I'm willing to admit I am wrong if proven otherwise but as I remember it he made statements to that effect early on.
To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!
Go Mike Go!!!
You're VERY VERY wrong.
Look, I find it hard to believe you even knew Romney existed in 1994. As far as I can see, no Republican who does not have a completely clean past on social issues can expect anything but vitriol from you.
You're really obsessed with this flip-flop canard though. If Romney were to blink, you'd scream it was a flip-flop because he closed his eyes and opened them again. Flip-flop!!!
Facts do matter and I my recollection was incorrect. The reason My recollection was wrong is that Romney uttered the Clintonite card that he wants to keep abortion safe legal and rare. It could be argued and was at the time that Mitt was being cute and trying to have it both ways as we all accused Clinton of doing at the time.
As far as whether donated to Mitt's campaign or not in 1994 I did. I don't care if you believe me or not but Mitt caught a lot of people's attention in 1994 because he caught fire against Kennedy and forced the Dems to spend money to save Kennedy. My opposition to Mitt at this point stems largely from my disappointment of him during his debate of Kennedy because all he seemed to do was say yup...me too
To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!
Go Mike Go!!!
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Martin A. Knight,
There is a flip-flop problem with Romney. You just can't go and change most of your core beliefs when you decide to run for president.
The best way to explain this is to use the explanation from Karl Rove on how to be elected president (He was speaking generally, not about Romney or anyone else in particular on FOX News a few nights ago). First, you need a record. Secondly, you need a narrative that explains why you are the singular most qualified person. GW Bush came up with a very good, solid, narrative. People could believe it.
Romney introduced himself one way, in Massachusetts, and is now running using virtually diametrically opposed views. People like me, who lived in MA, just don't get the narrative. We know better. This isn't right. He is a New England liberal Republican. He isn't a religious social conservative. Additionally, there are plenty of other candidates who do have quality narratives: McCain, Fred, Rudy, even Mike. People understand where these guys are coming from, even if they don’t like them. The same can not be said for Romney.
Everybody is allowed to flip-flop a little bit. Times change, conditions aren't static. So some flipping is allowed. Some unsavory aspects of the past can be overlooked. Perhaps even an ethical lapse if followed by satisfactory penitence. But to completely re-cast your core beliefs? Nope. And to boot, he is running in wartime, against a quality veteran who happens to have been right on most aspects of the Iraq war from the beginning, due to his experience. Is the world all of a sudden going to calm down? I don't think so. I look into my crystal ball and see problems with Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Lebanon, Palestine, Pakistan, and perhaps Egypt. Congress writes detailed policy. The president sets foreign policy and is CIC. I think the choice is clear, but you sort it out for yourself.
MOlsen6
Proud supporter of McCain '00 and McCain '08
Look, I've seen Romney's campaign flyer and some literature from 1994. I've seen the clips of the debate, moderated by very liberal Boston Globe (I believe) journalists who kept the subject matter and framing in a way that deliberately emphasized where the GOP was not on the same page as the majority of the Massachusetts' electorate. From the questions, one would think there were no other issues more pressing to Massachusetts than abortion and gay rights in 1994.
Either way, from his 1994 campaign flyer one is hard pressed to find anything other than abortion in which he was divergent from Republican/Conservative orthodoxy. My point here is that it's a myth that there is this wide chasm between what Romney was in 1994, 2002 and now at the tail end of 2007. It's been way too exaggerated and deliberately so that no evidence is needed for anyone to claim that Romney flip-flopped on this or that and get nods of agreement. It's now become conventional wisdom that Romney has flip-flopped on EVERY POSSIBLE THING under the sun.
Heck, even if the issue hasn't even come up yet, when it does, Romney would be accused of flip-flopping even before he has said a word about it. If he says he likes dogs but it also discovered that he once owned a cat - his critics would be screaming "flip-flop!" within the next second.
Worse is that the way Romney critics' flip-flop logic is constructed is just chock full of bad faith. He simply cannot prove that he is sincere under that logic. The only thing he can say that his critics would accept as true is if he claims to be a secret Democratic mole who would proceed to destroy the GOP from within once he gets the nomination. Anything else, and they scream "flip-flop" and demand that he tell them his "real" (i.e. apparently far Left liberal) views.
Sorry, but after seeing "flip-flop" for the seventeeth time no matter the subject, context, history, or veracity from the same person about Romney it's quite obvious their mind is made up and cannot be changed. There's literally nothing he can do short of traveling back in time to convince them.
I hate it when anybody plays fast-and-loose with the truth, even if they don't outright lie.
As you said, the pro-choice/pro-life question is the main "flip" Mitt has done. He hasn't "flopped" back. His explanation is reasonable. At least he hasn't claimed that it didn't happen.
I believe him. If someone else doesn't, they might as well just say, I don't believe him," rather than "He's a flip-flopper."
I don't like Huck, but it isn't because I don't believe him. It's because his memory is so bad.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
Romney wasn't pro-life when he ran against Kennedy. Remember all those You Tube videos that people have been using against him all year?
And he has never been pro-same-sex-marriage.
So yeah, his abortion views changed, but they changed in the right direction.
Kennedy called him on his flip-flops even back then, which caused Romney to even more insistently declare that he was pro-choice.
... just this morning!
It's obvious from this, he's going to singlehandedly force every woman in America to have a partial birth abortion! Worse, he'll be making them flip-flop from being pregnant to not being pregnant!
Just kidding...LOL
To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!
Go Mike Go!!!
charges against any candidate show up here so frequently. One should know they'd be exposed quickly.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
have driven me further from the other Romney/Rudy/McCain and the RNC in general (I'm w/ Fred and am not a Huck supporter). The Democrat party has always had elitist snobs at the core leadership roles. The recent anti-Huck campaign has shown the RNC/National Review country club sect act just as snobbish and elitist. The RNC came a courtin' to the churches - now they just want us to shut up, take orders, and vote for their guy. Some folks are going to be very surprised at how this works out in early 08.
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison
Bingo. Especially on the Romney and Giuliani part (more Romney than Giuliani at NRO).