Although Mitt Romney was the punching bag du jour at last night’s GOP debate, Mike Huckabee is — according to the latest (albeit kinda stale) polling — within striking distance in Michigan and leading in South Carolina. Inasmuch as I have previously suggested Huckabee can get at least as far as Super-Duper Tuesday — and folks seem to enjoy discussing his campaign — it might be useful to examine Huckabee’s appeal as a prelude to discussing how his opponents might counter it.
First, there is the mail Peggy Noonan gets from Huckabee supporters:
From the mail I have received the past month after criticizing him in this space, I would say his great power, the thing really pushing his supporters, is that they believe that what ails America and threatens its continued existence is not economic collapse or jihad, it is our culture.
They have been bruised and offended by the rigid, almost militant secularism and multiculturalism of the public schools; they reject those schools’ squalor, in all senses of the word. They believe in God and family and America. They are populist: They don’t admire billionaire CEOs, they admire husbands with two jobs who hold the family together for the sake of the kids; they don’t need to see the triumph of supply-side thinking, they want to see that suffering woman down the street get the help she needs.
They believe that Mr. Huckabee, the minister who speaks their language, shares, down to the bone, their anxieties, concerns and beliefs. They fear that the other Republican candidates are caught up in a million smaller issues–taxing, spending, the global economy, Sunnis and Shia–and missing the central issue: again, our culture. They are populists who vote Republican, and as I have read their letters, I have felt nothing but respect.
But there are two problems. One is that while the presidency, as an office, can actually make real changes in the areas of economic and foreign policy, the federal government has a limited ability to change the culture of America. That is something conservatives used to know.
Second, there are the comments at various threads here by the astute Ric Locke. This comment seems representative (I think; I’m sure Ric will correct me if I am wrong about this):
Please note: a majority of Huckabee’s support comes from Evangelicals, but not all Evangelicals  not even a majority of Evangelicals  support Huckabee. The question is simple and stark. Christians joined the conservative movement based on promises that their issues would be supported, even though they (most of them) were aware that they would not always prevail. They have not received that support, and reactions like Vodkapundit’s (and happyfeet’s) simply underline and highlight that.
So long as those conservative Republicans who consider themselves “mainline†continue to ridicule Huckabee on “Children of the Corn†grounds, he will gain support from other Christians, mostly conservative. Keep in mind that Christians are not particularly conservative in the minimal-intervention, social-programs-are-destructive sense. Huckabee’s support of Government social programs will not translate into opposition from his natural constituency. There remains the question of dishonesty. You can call Huckabee a scumbag, and you might even be right. The response from Christians will be something like “…and your point is?†On the Kennedy-Stevens scale, Huckabee barely bumps the needle.
Until and unless another Republican candidate picks up on the issue(s) Huckabee will continue to gain, and I don’t see any of them who can credibly do that. McCain joined the “Gang of 14″ which allowed Democrats to block conservative judicial appointments, and hasn’t even tried to disavow it. Romney can’t even try; the Mormon business is a real drag, though a much more minor one than you might think, but his real problem is toleration and even support of attacks on Christian principles and issues while Governor of the bluest, and second most Christian-hostile (after California), State. Giuliani is a near-personification of behavior that Christians should avoid precisely because it is enjoyable. Paul’s libertarianism inclines him to atheism, so he cannot be trusted to support Christian causes. Thompson might be able to manage it, but has shown no sign of trying or even of understanding the problem  his positions are clear and admirable, but don’t address Christian concerns.
Third, there is the data from the Iowa caucuses, which tends to support one of Ric’s points about the evangelical vote:
Evangelical voters in the Republican caucuses played a major role in Huckabee’s success. Entrance polling showed six in 10 Republican caucus participants considered themselves born-again or evangelical Christians. Within that influential group, Huckabee garnered the support of 46 percent, followed by Romney at 19 percent.
The exit poll data from Iowa also tells us that Huckabee’s top qualities were that he “shares my values” and “says what he believes.” Indeed, Huckabee held a considerable lead over the rest of the GOP field in these qualities.
Given this profile of Huckabee voters, how might his opponents address his supporters?
It has been suggested at various spots on the blogosphere that Huckabee’s supporters should be told to “grow up.” That proposition is debatable on its merits. I suspect that if the GOP had promised folks a tax cut in 1980 and had not done it by 2007, economic conservatives might think they had a legit beef with the party. However, even if you are in the “grow up” camp, I would suggest that a candidate is unlikely accept telling voters off as a viable strategy for securing their support.
Sen. John McCain seems to be slowly trying to appeal to the Huckabee base. For example, his debate answers on immigration — saying that “these are God’s children†and that he won’t deport the grandmother of an illegal alien solder in Iraq — seem like an appeal toward “sharing the values” of Huckabee’s base, even if they do turn off many other Republicans. Insofar as they reinforce McCain’s position on immigration, they may also suggest he “says what he believes,” though McCain’s position has changed a bit in the wake of the Senate bill’s defeat.ÂÂ
If I was advising McCain on this approach, I would also be having him play up his pro-life bona fides. Ric notes that McCain was a member of the “Gang of 14,” to which I would add that he put himself on the outs with the National Right to Life Committee by championing restrictions on their speech under the rubric of McCain-Feingold. But on the core issues — and in voting for Supreme Court Justices like Scalia and Thomas — he should have some appeal to the Huckabee base.
Nevertheless, I would argue that there is another possible approach to countering Huckabee’s appeal, which is to suggest that Huckabee in fact does not say what he believes. Ironically, given the similarities of the Obama and Huckabee campaigns, it appears that Sen. Clinton is trying it out on Obama.
Please note that this is different from pointing out that Huckabee is not conservative on this issue or that. As Ric Locke notes above, Huckabee appeals to people who may have little objection to government welfare programs. Huckabee’s liberal positions should be highlighted in the context of his numerous flip-flops on issues important to his base and to the GOP generally.
Thus, when the topic is immigration, a candidate may want to note Huckabee’s liberal positions on immigraion, especially his suggestion that people who prefer a border-security-first approach are driven by “racism or nativism.” But a candidate should do so in the context of noting that Huckabee used to openly back open borders, but now shamelessly panders for anti-illegal immigration voters. Indeed, a candidate might ask Huckabee to explain why he is now buddying up to those he once called racists and nativists. Sen. Lindsey Graham could tell Huckabee how much South Carolinians like being called bigots for opposing illegal immigration. I doubt they would like to be called “un-Christian, un-American, irresponsible and anti-life,” too. But he should be asked about those quotes in the context of his flip-flop on the issue.
As I have noted before, Huckabee draws in part on home-schooling networks for his organization. A candidate might target those networks with the message that Huckabee has flip-flopped on vouchers, even as he became the first GOP candidate to be endorsed by the public school teacher’s union in New Hampshire (and continues to support scholarships for the offspring of illegal immigrants). I would think that such positions — and his double-talk about them – would rankle those who are revolted by the secularism and multiculturalism of the public schools.
On taxes, a candidate might note that Huckabee claims to be a tax-cutter, but in fact raised taxes by half a billion dollars when he was Governor. In addition, Huckabee now claims to support the FairTax — a system that would burden the middle-class, increasing the cost of living by 40%, according to some estimates. That is not a very populist position.ÂÂ
Moreover, Huckabee’s position assumes the repeal of the 16th Amendment.  Huckabee should be asked whether he honestly believes that is doable, and how. If Huckabee’s base is angry that the GOP has not delivered on its issues, Huckabee’s opponents should get that base thinking about whether Huckabee can deliver on his promises.
On Iraq, candidates should — and apparently have been — pointing out that Huckabee’s claim to be an early supporter of the “surge” is demonstrably false. And that Huckabee wrote about “the Bush administration’s arrogant bunker mentality,” then claimed he was talking about the policy, which is hair-splitting.
On the war outside Iraq, candidates could note his flip-flop on whether to close Gitmo.
When the campaign reaches Florida, candidates should point out that Huckabee has admitted flip-flopping on the Cuban embargo because he’s running for President.
These are but a few examples.
In short, Huckabee is being propelled by an image of authenticity that is generally vague on policy. His opponents should be presenting the counter-image of Huckabee as a sweet-talking former Governor from Hope, Arkansas, who will say whatever he thinks he needs to say to get your vote. Huckabee wants to be a candidate of change, but we already saw this candidate for change in 1992.
The major problem with this strategy is that most of Huckabee’s opponents may not be credible messengers, as most of them have shifted their positions on issues like immigration and abortion. The minor problem with this strategy is that each opponent, in isolation, might fear alienating Huckabee’s base by being seen as an attacker.ÂÂ
Fred Thompson might be the only candidate in the field who has both the consistent policy positions and folksy charm to pull it off without damaging his own candidacy. However, as Ric noted above, it is not clear that Thompson understands the need to appeal to Huckabee’s base while undercutting Huckabee’s credibility.  This is odd, given that the data from states like Michigan, South Carolina and Florida suggest a relationship between levels of support for Huckabee and Thompson (Huckabee hurts Thompson, or was the main beneficiary of cooled interest in Thompson). Maybe Thompson’s statement of principles at last night’s debate is the beginning of a response to Huckabee; if so, it also falls in the category of trying to show shared values, but not undermining Huckabee.
(Obligatory disclaimer: I’m not backing Thompson here, just saying he’s the best positioned for this strategy. For that matter, if Thompson adopted this strategy and I have over-estimated his charm, the benefit could flow to one of Huckabee’s other rivals.)
Barring a candidate adopting this strategy, I think it would be well-suited for some shadowy 501(c)(4) group.  Oooooh!
Update: Allahpundit claims Thompson is the candidate with authenticity, using some profanity. He also calls Huckabee “the other man from Hope,” though I think I beat him to that.
I thought George Will this morning was very to the point…
I think the Pegster could have added that the way you change culture really is by doing stuff, not by making other people not do stuff. You’d think home-schoolers would get that.
Your last point is also made by Noonan. I think it can be made to his base, but a candidate would have to do it a bit more gently.
I’m not sure she says that. She says “they want to see that suffering woman down the street get the help she needs” but she doesn’t really remind them that maybe they could get off their ass and go help her.
Also, without doing a lot of hard work and demonstrating it from the stuff you cite it kind of popped into my head that Huckabee way more than the other candidates needs teh tv to make his shtick really work the way it needs to … the “image of authenticity” and the elision of uncomfortable policy details. As the field narrows, this will gut him like a catfish.
happyfeet,
I was referring to this:
Again, I think that point could be made to Huckabee’s base, less bluntly than the happyfeet formulation, but less subtly than Noonan.
A candidate could do it in the context of slamming Huckabee’s flip-flop on education:
I should say I’m somewhat biased against Mr. Huckabee.
Hey. Is that last part about “this year’s Man from Hope” yours? That’s really good.
Also more TV time does not necessarily hurt Huckabee, who has thrived on free media like The Tonight Show. He can help himself, even in a debate setting, if his rivals do not use that time to puncture that image of authenticity.
“less bluntly than the happyfeet formulation”
the carnivorous or vegetarian formulation?
“This year’s Man from Hope†is mine, afaik.
Karl – I was unclear – I meant more his dependence on tv while the other candidates will be better positioned to exploit the full range of media platforms to his detriment.
Huckabee has money coming in, so he’ll be able to afford more paid media. Plus, his edgy approach to advertising may get some free media coverage of the ads. The question will be wheter Huckabee decides to stay edgy as he tries to broaden his appeal.
“Huckabee now claims to support the FairTax  a system that would burden the middle-class, increasing the cost of living by 40%, according to some estimates. That is not a very populist position.
I realize you’re just pointing out debating points, but that Times article is a very poor critique of the FairTax. The author hasn’t read the plan, is too stupid to understand the plan, or is deeply dishonest. Given its the Times, it is likely all three.
Shit, forgot to close the italics after the first paragraph.
Jeez I was unclear again. I mean more that the long-form nature of talk radio and the information-intensiveness of Internet and print aren’t good for setting aside awkward policy details/positions OR burnishing an image of authenticity. The Huck we know and love is a tv creature. Like Kermit the Frog and Boss Hogg.
Yes, you’re right that I’m talking debating points. To the extent that they are points echoed in the MSM, all the better, so long as there is no overt connection.
However, on the merits, I do not see repeal of the 16th Amendment as doable by Huckabee.
It’s one reason Huckabee is on record as anti-talk radio.
None of this will work.
Huck’s fans don’t support him; they think he is them. Their support is just a convoluted form of self-worship. Ditto for Obama on the other side…though really it’s not so “other,” as his and Huck’s parallel groundless ascendancies show.
Read Huckamaniacs’ responses to articles where any of your points, all true, against him have been made, at Hewitt’s, Powerline, Malkin’s places, wherever. They react like they’ve been hit, not informed. If you’ve ever been stuck telling a friend his wife is banging his brother (or anything like that), you recognize the reaction. The words don’t get through. They’re not words to them. They’re assaults.
It’s too late. Such identifications can’t be unmade. They can only be forgotten, or overwritten with stronger, more self-flattering identifications. There’s no time for either…at least not for Fred.
He’s the best of the bunch, and certainly the anti-Huck in the race, but he’s hopeless precisely because of it. He doesn’t offer a worshipable surrogate self. He’s just Fred. His opinions and manner — his lack of worshipableness, specifically — are practically definitionally Republican, and they don’t count for anything, except to a tiny sliver of Republican voters, overrepresented on the internet but nearly nonexistent in real life.
Republican voters aren’t who we’ve pretended they are. They’re not who the left mistakes them for, either. They’re far, far worse.
And Rudy’s still going to be the nominee. He’s gaming the process right, he’s the big-p Party’s real choice, and he already has a solid wedge in, voter-self-worship-wise. Everyone wants to be a Nazi, and he’s close enough.
The main problem I have is that everything one could say about Huckabee could be easily copy and pasted into Jimmy Carter circa 1975. And we all know how well that worked out.
psycho,
If you have links, I’d be glad to take a look at them. I’ve seen people make the case that he has taken liberal positions, but not a sustained argument that he is a flip-flopper. And certainly not in a debate format where Huckabee might have to account for his positions.
However, a quick Google to check on whether such had occurred turned up a nasty Huckabee flip-flop on embryonic stem cells. Some candidate should ask him to explain it to his pro-life supporters.
It’s going to be of a lot of consequence how the sentence “Huckabee’s mistake was that…” is finished I guess. Ric is right about that. Fred’s other problem is that so many Republican stalwarts are too craven to speak up for him and risk alienating the media. They don’t have to endorse him, that’s not what I’m saying, but that they are so hard-pressed to mention him when they do the talking head thing is ceding way too much of what’s defining this race to the media, and that’s how Rome fell.
PS:
psycho, ever heard of Godwin?
I think Huckabee is a wonderful candidate if you happen to be an anti-free trade, pro-illegal immigration, anti-death penalty, anti-corporate, nanny-state Republican with Wilsonian dreams to put the neo-cons to shame, and a strong belief that we stole the country from Jesus and need to give it back to him, rather than from the Native Americans whom we’re supposed to let build casinos.
The rest of us – you know, the small government republicans, the foreign policy realists, the fiscal conservatives, the Catholics who get a whiff of Jack T. Chick off the guy – y’know, the evil beltway republican elitists making up 75% of the Reagan coalition find that he really isn’t our cup of tea. So we’re expected to fall in line behind the guy just ‘cuz Kathy Jean Lopez’ BFF Mitt is falling flat on his well-exfoliated face, and ignore the fact that Huck’s policy positions, but for teh gheys and abortion, make him merely a rampantly Christian version of Obama?
Sorry, but like some other things, that don’t make no sense, chirrets. Roll in his mutually inconsistent views on illegal immigration and protectionism, throw in some talk about Jesus-ing up foreign policy, and you have somebody who resembles nobody in modern history so much as Jimmy Carter, or perhaps William Jennings Bryan. Disasters, both.
Look, just because he says “Jesus” a lot doesn’t make him a good candidate for the presidency or even a particularly moral man. His pharma dealings ought to raise a red flag about his sense of morality; it’s definitely a bit more Prosperity Gospel than I’m comfortable with. Similarly, my mechanic says “Jesus” every time he skins his knuckles under the hood of the car, and I wouldn’t trust him on economic or social policy either. The bottom line is he is getting an enormous amount of positive publicity because he’s making dog whistle noises at religious voters, a fair percentage of religious voters sit up and roll over for him giving him some primary credibility, and the MSM roots on the Huck Trolley because they know he will get *slaughtered* in the general election by anybody the Dems put up short of Kucinich. Yeah, you can give the guy the keys to the country, and even if he’s the most religious guy in the world, he’s not going to further your moral agenda if he’s an out-of-touch idiot, which is what he appears to be most of the time. You have to ask yourself whether a skillful politician whose lifestyle you disapprove is better at advancing your issues than somebody unskilled at politics but who can promise, in all honesty, that he’ll be more moral than Hezekiah. When you want new windows in your house, are you going to go to the best window replacement guy in town, or the handyman with the fish symbol bumper sticker?
BMoe
I like the idea of a FairTax system. But there is no way it should ever be put in place without first repealing the 16th amendment. Cuz you just KNOW that we’d end up with both Fair Tax and income taxes.
Fred’s problem is pretty close to Fred. Dumping the former FOX folks from the staff alienated one of the few outlets that would be friendly to him, to no discernable benefit. And he he should have jumped in when there was a media buzz around him, instead of dithering for months and turning off donors.
Al,
Even if I agreed with every word of what you wrote, it is an argument that will not slow Huckabee one iota.
Myself I’ve had a hard time even finding these Huckabee people online, but I haven’t really gone out of my way, and the ones I have seen sort of strike the same note as Ron Paul people. Is there none among who will rise and speak of their love for teh Huck? I need a witness!
Oh and what Al said. The Kathy Jean and Hugh Hewitt co-branding campaigns leave both of them looking like dorks. Ok, Kathy Jean is just like that anyway, but Romney devotionals, for vaguely mormony reasons I can’t define, really really don’t help him. It may just be as shallow as that you can’t do the cult of personality thing without invoking the word cult, but I think a bit more decorum on the part of his supporters would do a lot more to accentuate his very real positives.
Oh that should have been none among *us*, as in here at PW. I’m gonna tab over to Stargate now in the window underneath this cause they’re in a real pickle and I’m a little concerned.
happyfeet – You won’t find Huckabee’s people online. They’re home-schoolers, and religious fundamentalists, and other types who don’t spend time on these evil blogs…
I still think that by March 1 we will all be saying “Remember when we thought Huckabee was going to be the nominee?” He won in Iowa because he spent a butt-load of time and energy advertising here.
Nice work, Karl. Well-researched and almost completely fair. My one bone of contention has to do with your response to the argument I (among others) made that the social-conservatives should grow up.
First of all, I do not expect any candidates to make that argument; I think it’s a strawman but I probably haven’t read as much as you.
Second, as I did write, social conservatives need to understand, if not accept, what it takes to exercise political power. As a group, they may be big, but they are not a majority.
Also, as I wrote, one of the biggest changes in the last 20 years is that opposing Democrat policies will require a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, in addition to a Republican president and House. The abortion and right-to-die issue will not, regardless of any promises made 20-some years ago, be resolved as social conservatives desire until this new condition is met – at minimum.
Yeah, it sucks, but in politics, like in war, the “enemy” responds and things change. I voted for Republicans to see the Contract with America implemented. Some of it was, some wasn’t. I got over it.
[Fred’s] opinions and manner  his lack of worshipableness, specifically  are practically definitionally Republican, and they don’t count for anything, except to a tiny sliver of Republican voters, overrepresented on the internet but nearly nonexistent in real life.
Well-stated. I feel pegged.
twons,
You are gravely mistaken about Huckabee’s base being offline. Here is just one story pointing this out. I could produce many others. Home-schoolers network extensively online.
You may be right about them not spending a lot of time on blogs, though I suspect there are plenty of Christian blogs on which some part of his base could be found.
jdm,
My comment about candidates not telling Huckabee’s base to grow up is not a strawman. It is merely an observation meant to set up the question of what candidates might do.
Moreover, if I was not clear, my main problem with the “grow up” response is one of style. Were I actually advising a NotHuckabee, part of the pitch to Huckabee’s base would be that they know in their hearts that the government does not change hearts. Government can try to stay on the side of those who stand against cultural decay, and that NotHuckabee will do that, followed by an itemization of that agenda.
I might also have NotHuckabee say that the battles worth fighting often take a long time. Defeating Godless Communism took decades. Islamic extremists are not going to pack it in tomorrow. Building political support for the efforts government can undertake on the cultural front takes time also.
Or something like that.
You’re fucking shitting me.
Again, this goes back to the point I have made in several posts that Huckabee has an organization of sorts, it’s just not one that registers on the establishment radar… to the establishment’s detriment.
Mike Huckabee’s campaign has the most effective online operation of any of the candidates.
Learn it. Figure out how to deal with it.
from the comments there…
I need to go to my safe place now.
Karl, thanks for the response. I hope you have a job that involves getting disparate, even slightly antagonistic viewpoints/people to work together. If not, you missed your calling ;-)
The question is: would Jesus support those who sell their soul to the progressive devil in order to get elected?
Another question: would Christians be willing to trade their rights endowed by the creator for rights endowed by the government?
jdm,
I have a special practice. I handle one client.
(That’s true, though not in that way.)
happyfeet!
Huck’s Army is everywherez!!!
A couple of other questions which perhaps good Christians can answer:
If somewhere around 70% of Americans identify themselves as Christian why then is the party which supports abortion in power?
And, if a good Christian accepts the government’s golden entitlement coins in excahnge for the abortion vote will they go to heaven or to hell?
Just to note, I believe in God and I know my purpose in this life is to ask good Christians these important questions.
syn,
It would be nice if you could offer a relevant comment. People here tend to ignore trolls.
“Just to note, I believe in God and I know my purpose in this life is to ask good Christians these important questions.”
Be cautious, syn. Ric Locke might label you as a ‘Church Lady’.
>chuckle>
Actually, Ric is much smarter than that. It’s really the sort of ad hominem one might expect from… cleo.
“Actually, Ric is much smarter than that”
Karl: from your F&L posting on 1/5
Well, Semanticleo, I’m sixty years old (next month) and have spent a lot of that among the fine folk of East Nowhere, Oklahoma, and several similar places. In that time I have seen a lot of Church Ladies and become somewhat adept at spotting them. You, madam, are a Church Lady, complete with disdainful sniff for those with the temerity to disagree with the Revealed Wisdom you exemplify. Your specific faith is superficially different, but personality will out.
Shouldn’t Michigan help Romney? His dad was governor here and, before that, the head of AMC-Jeep (long before the Gremlin). I’m leaning towards Thompson at the moment, but if this Huckabee surge continues….
The fact that cleo felt what Ric typed was worthy of bringing up again is telling. I guess it must have hit pretty close to home.
cleo,
Ric only said it because of his experience with you. I’m pretty sure Ric wouldn’t jump to that conclusion about a new troll.
JohnAnnArbor,
The most “recent” MI poll had it up for grabs.
Well, I hung up on a pollster around then….
I assume more polls will happen here soon as the primary approaches.
syn
not all Christians are one-issue and even those Christians who count themselves as pro-life (a lot of Christians being reluctant pro-choice …which is the majority of the US) don’t believe that it will be possible (or desirable) to make all abortion illegal. Hence, they tend to concentrate on other things.
Now, unless you believe Catholics are not Christian, then you must know that Catholics have historically be overwhelmingly on the Democrat/”progressive” side of the aisle. Because they tend to look to the government to legislate the morality of charity (from the gov it’s called ‘welfare’) over individual rights to property.
Born-agains really shunned any organized efforts to insert themselves into politics until “one of their own” Jimmy Carter ran as a DC outsider promising to bring humility, morality and ethics (along with sweaters, polyester suits and eschewing the “elitist” trappings of the Presidency) to office. One of the first things he did in 1977 was sell the presidential yacht.
A lot of secularism/humanism touted by the Left is really a form of religious dogma. And because it has been done TO American culture with a kind of “nyah nyah nyah” rub-the-Xtians-nose-in-it gleefulness, the “Christian Right” have used their post-Carter awakening to flex their political muscle. If black Americans… 13% of the population … can wield such political influence to have their needs addressed, why not the Christian Right?
here’s an interesting dispiriting little read… sorry if someone has already linked it I must have missed it…
The political debate for the last decade has been between a Democratic Party which essentially argues America should be more like Europe — more statist, more secular, more pacifist — and a Reagan-influenced GOP which argues America should be more like its historical self. The Mike Huckabee/Christian Democratic movement is an attempt to break this logjam by looking to a different European model, one that says we can be more statist without being more secular or pacifist.”
better and better
If I was a lefty, I would say Bush was a better Christian Democrat than Huckabee, with the Carter-eque impulses on foreign policy.
Right but what’s different I guess is that Christian Democrats never quite find the money to actually fund a credible military.
Huckabee’s election would simply replace one free-spending, compassionate conservative with another. Except, I guess, that Huckabee would bring Jimmy Carter’s sensibilities to foreign policy and taxation.
You know, hello to open borders, high taxes, high spending, stagflation, and al Qaeda victories. The Republicans would be the minority party for another 40 years, and they’d deserve it too.
For God’s sake! Just look at the last few Southern Presidents: Johnson, Carter, Clinton, Bush. Do you really feel comfy letting another good ole boy have a go at the Republic?
Not that we’d see his election. I’ve no doubt Hillary’s got enough dirt gathered to make the man’s own mother not want to know him. We’re talking Arkansas, people! And a Republican. There’s no way he could survive the way Bill did. The press would eat him alive.
What do you do with a candidate like Huckabee? Pray for an early crackup.
My vote’s for the actor.
That’s the identity politics question. I’m not a fan, but I would also note that the black vote has been taken for granted by the Dems for quite some time. May come back to bite the Dems if Clinton goes scorched earth on Obama. McEllerson and his cult will no doubt call me teh racist for making that mundane observation.
The Lord helps those that help themselves.
Oh, I’ll be voting.
I’ll pray for your vote’s redemption, Patrick.
Why, thanks. Altough, that word, redemption. So slippery.
I know. I plan on googling it before I do the actual praying so for sure I do it right.
happyfeet – You won’t find Huckabee’s people online. They’re home-schoolers, and religious fundamentalists, and other types who don’t spend time on these evil blogs…
And, you’re basing that one what? Home schoolers are … (overly) dependent upon the internet. They may not be political, but they are on blogs a-plenty.
My mother threw that “Homeschoolers support Huckabee” crap at me last night. Not *this* home schooler.
Anyway, I’m sure that demographic has more to do with the types who home-school versus homeschoolers “liking” him for any of his policies. Very few homeschoolers are one-issue voters. As in, I don’t know any.
Sorry guys didn’t mean to offend, I admit I only read the Bible and haven’t been to the church in a while but my faith in my creator is very strong.
I’m trying to understand why the faithful would give power over to others who defend a sin which would send the faithful to hell? How can Jimmy Carter be a supporter of pro-choice; it’s like saying ‘he believes slavery is a sin but who is he to tell the slaveowever what to do with their slave’.
I used to reject many of the social conservative concerns for a just and moral society until around the age of fourty I finally grew up. For very secular reasons, I can make several arguments for the necessity of conserving many of the useful elements in our traditonally Christian-Judeo nation yet I respect the faithful reasons as well. I’m wondering why there is this divide inside the church.
What I really asking is, when was the last time there was a pro-life Democrat politician on the presidential ticket?
Karl,
Another nice piece. You mention that Huckabee is raising dough but I believe there to be a dearth of actual good numbers regarding his success or failure at it. Rollins going on his knees during the Wallace interview after the Iowa wins indicates an empty war chest. McCain has the same problem. McCain actually has spent some dough in NH and quite a bit more in SC. Thompson is putting money in SC but needs at least a 2nd place finish there to compete on the 5th.
Money isn’t everything, of course, but I don’t believe the Huckster is going to be much of a problem after SC. The unfortunate thing is that he may knock Thompson down as he heads over the cliff.
BTW – the rumors that Thompson is out of dough are classic opposition maneuvers. He had a good month in December ($1.8 mil) and I defy anyone to show where he spent much in IA or NH. OTOH McCain has managed to take the money out of politics for at least one campaign – his own.
FWIW, Huckabee claims to have raised 350K while en route to NH, hoping for a million. Not much in the grand scheme of things, but he has shown an ability to stretch his cash efficiently.
McCain will also be hobbled by the fact that he’s taking the federal handout, which caps him ast $45 million.
You mean the guy from Tennessee??
Personally, I’m really, really hoping that the Huckster’s showing in Iowa was a horrible fluke.
It’s not a fluke. It’s not the nomination, but not a fluke. In IA normal turnout would have been 45% evangelical; this time it was 60%. In SC, white evangelical turnout is normally 50%. However, they are usually less monolithic than in IA and more open to “contrast” politics. If Ric was here, he would likely point to Huck’s strong showing in MI as evidence he’s gaining Catholic support, though this doesn’t seem to be happening in NH (Catholics aren’t monolithic either; I understate).
“It’s really the sort of ad hominem one might expect from… cleo.”
Karl;
I am deeply offended you find my Ad Homs so pedestrian……
Allow me to copy my Ad Hom in response to HIS Ad Hom.
““and have spent a lot of that among the fine folk of East Nowhere, Oklahoma,â€Â
>chuckle>
Uh huh. You need to spend sometime OUTSIDE the Bible
Belt. Am I supposed to wilt when you disclose 60 years of
sclerotic thinking apparently producing nothing but a southern penchant for politeness as the single fruit of your advanced years?
You descend on the discussion as though an Oracle of reason and comity and the assembled masses heave with relief, but your hidden mendacity soon emerges to swoon at their feeble applause.
If your ‘church lady’ pigeon-hole comforts your psyche; go for it.
We can just add that to your list of World View Errors. Tabula Rasa kinda gettin’ full though, eh?
cleo, appropos of nothing, per usual. Changing many minds, I’m sure.
Karl,
Huck’s going to run into the real conservative contingent of the SBC in SC. I would be calling him a second Jimmy Carter down there and pushing it pretty hard. Splitting evangelicals is relatively light political work with a guy like Huckabee – the money from the ESC researchers should do just fine.
I certainly agree that Huckabee has stretched his money well to date but I would note that a successful raid doesn’t constitute a campaign. He can’t scale up, IMO.
Karl;
You seem like a nice guy. How did you get here?
PS: BTW, cleo, thanks for trolling. The extra page views go right into JG’s pocket.
Glad to be of help.
You know, cleo, never being able to add to the present discussion is sad enough, we really don’t need reminding of your irrelevance in past discussions, also.
“You know, cleo….”
I’m trying to like you, gringo.
“I’m trying to like you…”
I really don’t give a shit, and would much rather you either contribute something useful or just fuck off, because frankly you are too lightweight to balance a stray thought.
Semanticleo! I’m ready for my bible verse today when you are.
“I really don’t give a shit”
I am truly sorry. Forgive me.
“I’m ready for my bible verse today when you are.”
Bless you my child.
Ok herego for you…
If you don’t get it right away that’s ok you can pretend it’s a riddle.
“nor standeth in the way of sinners”
The best argument yet for me to leave the premises…..wait…….
that’s Olde English, (King James?) so it means BEING a sinner. Sorry.
You almost lost me.
it’s like vespers just no singing
The best argument yet for me to leave the premises…..wait……
So close…
Oh, I dunno, Semanticleo. Does taking a Lieutenant in the Staatsicherheit out for dinner and drinks count? She introduced me to a very interesting fellow, an “American Specialist” for the Stasi who bragged about their successes in the propaganda wars… How about standing on a train platform at two o’clock in the morning in East Germany, at -10 Celsius, with an expired visa in my pocket, listening to Russian soldiers party hearty in the adjacent street?
I’m not nearly the world traveler some are, but I’ve done my bit, and you really ought to widen your horizons — those rigid stereotypes are confining your thinking. When the Saudis and Iranians needed expertise in oil production after WWII, where do you suppose they got it? I’ll bet I’ve more friends, neighbors, and relatives with direct experience in the Middle East than Juan Cole ever dreamed of, including at least two who brought wives back. There’s a whole world of bulldozer drivers, people who climb 200-meter antenna towers to repair the antennas, Diesel mechanics, electricians, natural gas pipeline constructors, and a thousand other blue-collar technical specialists whose expertise is in demand world-wide, and who simply don’t exist in the worldview you clearly hold — and that’s not counting the military people. Lots of folks have been to Germany. How many have been to Ukraine to advise on methods of radiation cleanup? — I know two such individuals.
The persistent view of Red-State Americans as insular and unaware of the rest of the world is simply wrong, and nowhere do you reveal your bigotry more clearly than in clinging to it. Oh, my friends and neighbors and I don’t, and won’t, get to participate in the striped-pants circus, and if we get to go to the high-dollar resorts it’s because we’re setting forms for concrete or running plumbing to US standards — the owners often insist, knowing the level of expertise available from indigenous labor. But I know people who’ve helped build pipelines in the Soviet Union, Australia, India, and various places in South America; bridge-workers who’ve been Afghanistan and pre-Khomeini Iran for up to a year at a time; the aforementioned tower-climber, whose most outstanding experience was Nepal; at least one truck driver who’s done the full length of the Carretera Panamericana, from the Arctic Circle to the Land of Fire; half a dozen pilots who’ve ferried airplanes and/or diplomats to all corners of the world; a fellow who used to be an advance man for the Dakar Rally; and a host of others who will never appear on the News unless the camera pans past them between shots of the Beautiful and Important, and who are involved in High Level Talks only because they had to set up the recording equipment. Tell me, O Glorious Sophisticate: if you shredded a tire somewhere outside Brno at three in the morning, how would you handle the situation? I never have, but I’ve heard the story from the one who had the experience. (You do know where Brno is, do you not?) And I have been detained overnight by people in brown uniforms with green epaulets; in retrospect a positive experience, on the whole.
I’m happy I managed to hit a nerve. The outstanding characteristic of the Church Lady is a rock-solid conviction of her own righteous probity, coupled with sneering disdain for those who fail of that exaltation through lack of subscribing to the full depth of the views that are Obviously Correct because they are hers. Sound familiar? It should, if you own a mirror. Church Lady you are and will be. Wear it in good health.
Regards,
Ric
“I’m happy I managed to hit a nerve.”
The only nerve you’re hitting is the one adjacent to your high-freguency hearing which affects your equilibrium. If you have been detained by
brown-shirts and continue to grasp the world with the brittle confabulations you espouse, then I would say it’s better to be lucky, than smart, Lucky. As I said, you have my permission to continue in your delusion that I am your vision of churchiness, but that is your own problem, not mine.
Jeebus, Ric, how do you do write so well *so fast*? It takes me the whole afternoon to do three paragraphs that reflect the fact that they took the whole afternoon and I still regret every word.
As I said, you have my permission to continue in your delusion that I am your vision of churchiness,
Hook, line, and sinker.
“As I said, you have my permission to continue in your delusion that I am your vision of churchiness, but that is your own problem, not mine.”
It really sucks when the object of ones scorn is too stupid to understand the insults.
How can an idiot who uses the term “semantic” in his name not understand English.
Truely a conundrum.
“truly”
Preview is my friemd.
Have there ever been any studies showing that trolls actually win people over to support their opinions?
I mean, other than in the Lancet?
“I mean, other than in the Lancet?”
Well, the Lancet casualty story was a lie from beginning to end, so it only influeced the weak minded reactionary leftist.
I think first we need a study to determine what cleo’s opinion is. Holding your breath, stamping your feet and screaming NO! repeatedly isn’t really an opinion.
IOW you don’t have the first clue. I have a serious question: have you ever, in your life, spent the night outside the limited zones of the BosWash Corridor plus San Francisco and LA, in a place that didn’t have a concierge?
Stick around — never mind the yappers — and cherish your delusions of adequacy. I’m coming around to finding you amusing. –Hmm. I wonder what your real name is? I believe shall christen you “Pauline”, and buy you a hat.
Regards,
Ric
“ never mind the yappers ‗
I beg your pardon! I resemble that remark!
BTW, I too have been to Ukraine, but before the Soviets left such a mess.
I’m actually slightly embarrased for cleo. Wow, when you just don’t have the sense to know when you’re in over your head, and yet you still keep digging, it’s a pretty pathetic sight.
Well, B Moe, “what cannot be cured must be endured.” It’s better yet to find ways to enjoy it. Help me pick out a hat for Polly. What do you think, flowers or fruit?
Regards,
Ric
Reverting to the original subject, are you sure Huckabee doesn’t have an organization? Or is it just under your radar? There are a lot of little Evangelical and Pentecostal churches, and they are typically run with an efficiency most corporate executives can only view with wistful envy. If Brother Mike can tap into that circuit he can field an army the likes of Semanticleo can never imagine.
Regards,
Ric
So what is the answer — what to do about Huckabee? It seems that you are ignoring him the way I ignore my Simpsonesque cousin at family gatherings. You are assuming the great simmering christianist magma pool will be quiet, or at least manageable. I bet otherwise.
cynn,
Really, try reading the post. I think I have suggested what his rivals might do.
Well, cynn, I don’t think I can be fairly accused of ignoring Huckabee. It’s true I didn’t really realize what was going on until recently, though.
There are really only two things possible: shoot him or accommodate him. I don’t recommend shooting. It might serve as a strictly temporary solution, but the long-term side effects are likely to be horrific.
Accommodation remains, and the real question is, to what lengths will it be necessary to go to accommodate Huckabee? The problem is that he represents the visible tip of a very large, hitherto quiescent group with a serious grudge.
The one suggestion I do have is one I’d really, really, rather not have to make, and one that’s going to piss off a lot of people, with a great deal of justification: homosexuals need to shut the f* up and lay low for a while, or they’re going to be longing for the comfort and security of the closet.
Regards,
Ric
“Help me pick out a hat for Polly. What do you think, flowers or fruit?”
Oh, I think that is fairly obvious:
http://www.bubbygram.com/paperbagpuppets/leopardlady.jpg
Ric: An interesting capitulation.
Here I disagree with Ric. From his past comments, I take it that his latest is based on his perception that the Huckabloc is on the verge of majority status. I don’t see it. I don’t think he’s the nominee, let alone the President, given the GOP defections which would ensue.
cynn, it’s interesting you should use just that word, because it’s quite correct.
One of the things other posters should take note of is the differences between me and happyfeet. Allowing for differences in personal style, happyfeet is just about where I was thirty years ago; same sort of background, same basic reaction to it. Think of the two of us as points on a progression. (This is not to guarantee that happyfeet will turn into a copy of me as he gets older; it’s a simile, not an inevitable process.)
And take Karl’s advice with a grain of salt. Karl is a bright guy, knowledgeable in the mechanics of politics, and he naturally suggests political strategies, many of which might even work. Note, though, that they are, in fact, strategies whose purpose is to derail the movement Huckabee represents — to co-opt the issues and incorporate them into classic Republicanism. Karl doesn’t propose accommodating Huckabeeism; he proposes opposing it effectively. That won’t make it go away. I have already mentioned Bush’s strategy for avoiding the FMA. Karl’s proposed strategies are more of the same, and it is precisely those sorts of machinations that form the core of the objections that propelled Huckabee into his present position.
It should be readily possible to defeat Huckabee. It is also probably possible to plug a volcano to prevent its erupting. We could survive Huckabee — recall George Will’s observation of Clinton: “One President, for one or two terms.” What we probably cannot survive with principles intact is whoever comes after a defeated (rather than accommodated) Huckabee. Science fiction fans may recognize the name “Nehemiah Scudder”. Trust me, we do not want a Nehemiah Scudder.
Regards,
Ric
Ok Ric, you can opine until the cows come home. Tell me again why the gays should shut up. You said it; don’t deny it. What’s at stake?
“back·lash [bak-lash]
–noun
1. a sudden, forceful backward movement; recoil.
2. a strong or violent reaction, as to some social or political change: a backlash of angry feeling among Southern conservatives within the party.”
That is exactly the way it appears in dictionary.com, cynn. I would add that the force of the backlash is determined by tension: lessen the tension and the backlash is much less severe.
So is that some kind of tepid threat? I back off and the tension subsides? Yo, Sonny Corleone, fuck you.
A statement of what could be, cynn. I bear no grudge against gays, but I don’t speak for the whole world. If a truck was approaching you from behind and I suggested you move, would you consider that a threat?
Ric wrote:
That’s mostly correct, but not entirely. It is certainly true that separating the man from the movement does not make it go away. However, as I have suggested in the comments upthread, I also think the strategy offers opportunities to remind the Huckabase that government plays a limited role in their agenda. An important role at times, but limited.
All right, cynn. I’m a hick nobody with little or nothing to lose; probably it’s best somebody like me articulates it, rather than someone with a reputation to maintain.
Evangelical and Pentecostal Christians believe that homosexual acts are existentially wrong. They use the word “sin” to mean an act that is damaging both to the psyche of the individual and at least potentially to the society in which the individual lives, and in that context homosexual acts are sins. Not homosexuality as a condition an individual may find him or her self saddled with; homosexual acts.
Calling homosexuality “natural” is completely beside the point. One of the major tenets of those sects is self-denial, the refusal to act in ways that are perfectly natural but sinful. It is perfectly natural to kill your neighbor or a random passer-by and take his possessions, but it is wrong to do so — a sin. It is perfectly natural for adult males to find pubescent girls sexually exciting, but it is wrong, a sin, for them to act on that impulse. It is perfectly natural for postpubescent children to be strongly influenced by their sexual impulses, but it is sinful for them to act on them. There are many others.
Pointing out that they, individually or as a group, do not live up to that ideal cuts no ice. It is one of those definitional memes that define a group identity, as unassailable as Semanticleo’s self-righteousness (and springing from much the same source). One of the really popular bumper stickers around here is I’m not perfect, I’m forgiven. Attacking that attitude with charges of hypocrisy is the ultimate in windmill-tilting.
It is also a sin to encourage others to sin, or to set up conditions that allow others to conclude that a sinful act is not sinful. On the other hand, it is a good act — I often wonder why they don’t borrow mitzvah from the Jews — to discourage sinful acts, and to set things up so that sin (with primarily religious consequences, i.e., going to Hell) also has negative consequences here in the World Below Heaven, which will discourage people from engaging in sinful acts.
Got that? OK, now a mental exercise: set your own beliefs aside for a moment, and try to view “gay marriage” from the point of view of that mindset.
Because that’s really what did it. It isn’t by any means the weightiest issue involved; it was simply the straw that broke the camel’s back. Bush’s maneuvers, and the jeering reaction from the Media, Hollywood, and the Left in general, cemented it. It has become a Thus Far and No Farther thing, something they cannot retreat from. They are quite aware that the forces are against them, and it fails to matter. What is most frustrating to them is that, under the present social rules for dialogue and exposition, they cannot even present their position — all they get in return is sneers of “homophobia”, which misses the point so widely it isn’t even a valid response. They aren’t afraid of homosexuals. They’re afraid for homosexuals, and for their literal survival If This Goes On. Josh Marshall was looking for “codes”. There you have it. We can talk about the abortion question, sotto voce and in sufficiently respectful terms. I may very well be the only person outside of a few that they themselves don’t consider respectable who will lay the problem with queers out for you. The worst part is, if it can’t be talked about, no compromise is possible.
And it’s all unnecessary. Prior to the eruption of the present furore, some variant of civil unions could have been enacted with no more than ritual grumbles of no real force, either emotional or political. It was the blatant, eff-you, in-your-face challenge that did it: We are gonna steal one of your most treasured institutions and profane it, and there is nothing you can do about it! Buuuuuuwahahaha! It doesn’t help that a vocal subset of the gay community expresses it in what amounts to exactly those terms.
The only hope I can see is a sad, forlorn, and extremely unlikely one: a return to status quo ante. It would require that, strictly as a tactic, gay activists cool it for a while, and I regard the chance of that as somewhat less than my hitting the Powerball when I don’t buy tickets. Given a chance to cool off, Evangelicals might well reassess their position and be willing to go along with politics once more, starting with civil unions and continuing on the obvious and natural progression (go back and read Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, Chapter 13). I think we can all take it for granted that that ain’t gonna happen any time soon.
It’s not that it’s non-negotiable; it’s the fact that nobody but dickwads like me will even discuss it that makes it impossible to negotiate.
Nasty enough?
Regards,
Ric
Earl-aye in the mornin’?…
This kind of thing all too often crops up when I can’t continue. It’s time for me to give it up, go check out the update to Girl Genius, and hit the rack.
Karl, I’m not saying you’re not right, and in fact I hope you are right. It’s just that I see your suggestions as palliative rather than curative. If you’re in a position to advise any of the candidates, suggest hunting out a moderate-to-liberal Baptist theologian to advise in the background. Remember that if you don’t leave your opponent a line of retreat, what you get is a pitched battle. You may win a pitched battle, but it’s going to cost you.
In the meantime, I leave you with Toby Keith:
Sometimes think that war is necessary
Every night I pray for peace on earth
I hand down my dollars to the homeless
But believe that every able soul should work
My father gave me my shotgun, that I’ll hand down to my son
And try to teach him everything it means
I’m a man of my convictions, call me wrong, call me right
But I bring my better angels to every fight
You may not like where I’m going
but you sure know where I stand
Hate me if you want to, Love me if you can
I stand by my right to speak freely
but I worry about what kids learn from TV
And before all the bettin turns to angry words and hate,
sometimes we should just learn to agree to disagree
And I believe that Jesus, looks down and sees us
and if you asked him he would say
I’M a man of my convictions, call me wrong, call me right
But I bring my better angels to every fight
You may not like where I’m going
but you sure know where I stand
Hate me if you want to, Love me if you can
I’M a man of my convictions, call me wrong, call me right
But I bring my better angels to every fight
You may not like where I’m going
but you sure know where I stand
Hate me if you want to, Love me if you can
You won’t find it in the Baptist Hymnal. But you should.
Regards,
Ric
Huckabee…stressing a GOP near you
The most fascinating discussion I’ve read this weekend is one concerning Mike Huckabee. Who is he, why did he win Iowa, is he going to upset the GOP’s applecart (which isn’t exactly stable,
Comment by Ric Locke on 1/6 @ 11:12 pm
That was very enlightening. Thanks.
[…] Yesterday afternoon, I suggested that Mike Huckabee’s rivals should try to puncture his image of likable authenticity, not by pointing to his more liberal positions per se, but to use his flip-flops to paint him as this year’s Man from Hope — a slick-talking pol who will tell people what they want to hear. […]
Swen:
He shoots! He scores!
I guess I was so focused on the idea that the last great President had been an actor, I kind of overlooked that little comeback.
I guess all I can (weakly) say is that he *has* spent a lot of his life elsewhere, and who can argue with his campaign themes: “Secure the borders/Kill the terrorists/Punch the hippies”?
Happyfeet:
# deliver: save from sins
# restore the honor or worth of
# to turn in (vouchers or coupons) and receive something in exchange
# ransom: exchange or buy back for money; under threat
# pay off (loans or promissory notes)
# convert into cash; of commercial papers
I’d love to know what got your prayer.
BMoe: Ha ha. I get that. A truck approaching me from behind. Cheeky bastard.
I got it right, P. Your dirty dirty sinful vote has been washed in the soul cleansing blood I’m pretty sure cause I was really really focused and I didn’t touch myself all day. Who wants next?
Ric: Don’t ever go anywhere. Sorry I disagree on some points, but I treasure your perspective on all.