Huckabee Haters

Suffice it to say that conservative pundits really, really, really don't care for Mike Huckabee. Here, for example, is Mark Hemingway no longer able to restrain himself:

I had (largely) refrained from piling on Huckabee because I wanted to give him a fair shake. I've now read his last two books (you can read my piece about them on NRO today) and am here to tell you they were terribly written and totally insubstantial. Thought his Foreign Affairs piece was bad? Read his chapter in From Hope to Higher Ground on how to "STOP the Loss of America's Prestige at Home and Abroad." His relentless use of folksy aphorisms and corny rhetorical sleight of hand provokes visceral objections — but the criticism isn't merely superficial. In the TNR I piece I linked to yesterday a member of the Arkansas press corps observed, "He thinks and speaks in metaphors. And, often, they're not right." That, well, hits the nail on the head. [...] I don't think I'm being uncharitable when I say that's disturbingly authoritarian. Huckabee should probably start answering some critics instead of dismissing this all as "The Establishment" trying to keep a good ol' boy down.

This all raises the interesting issue of what would happen in the event that the establishment is somehow unable to beat back his insurgency. Presumably, the right-wing punditocracy would walk back a lot of this anti-Huckabee rhetoric. But it seems to me that you couldn't walk it all the way back. And I feel like a move in either direction would prompt something of a crisis in the relationship between the conservative press and its audience.

Comments

Even a poor Republican candidate is superior to a Democrat(ic) candidate because at least the Republican doesn't adhere to the completely pernicious theories held by liberals.

For example, George Bush and the Iraq war are minor catastrophes in comparison to what Al Gore or John Kerry would have done as president. The imagination barely suffices to guess how badly a liberal president would have handled events the past 7 years.

Posted by Nick | December 21, 2007 5:41 PM

Where were all these mendacious clowns in '99 and '00? Bush in foreign affairs had the same lack of seriousness, lack of bona fides, and lack of experience. And couched everything in the same terms.

Posted by The Confidence Man | December 21, 2007 5:42 PM

"relentless use of folksy aphorisms and corny rhetorical sleight of hand"?

God forbid we ever have a Republican president who matches that description...

Posted by Nick-O | December 21, 2007 5:44 PM

If Huckabee wins, the transformation of the Republican Party from the party of big business to the party of fundamentalist Christianity will be complete. My personal view is that if Huckabee wins the Republican nomination, the economic conservatives may abandon the party and go with the Democratic candidate at the top of the ticket (assuming Hillary or Obama wins). The big money types are already hedging their bets and giving heavily to Hillary. I think they could live with Obama, though definitely not with Edwards.

There will be some walk-back as you point out, but I take the economic royalists (and some of the others, like Andrew Sullivan) at their word. Many are just going to bolt or will stay home during the general.

Posted by astrodem | December 21, 2007 5:46 PM

That's exactly true, TCM. I can picture this same article being written by the same article about how the folksy aphorisms and metaphors are all reflections of the down-to-earth nature of the candidate who "speaks like a normal person" and "goes with his gut" rather than getting all bogged down in details.

Posted by Tyro | December 21, 2007 5:49 PM

I've now read his last two books (you can read my piece about them on NRO today) and am here to tell you they were terribly written and totally insubstantial.

But what did he think of Jonah's book?

Posted by Anon | December 21, 2007 5:50 PM

The "relentless use of folksy aphorisms and corny rhetorical sleight of hand"" isn't so different that we got from W so what's the beef?

It's pretty simple. Bush was totally wired into the GOP establishment. Huck isn't wired into anything or anyone nationally. Name me one big time, little time or any time national GOP name who is certain to have a job with Huck? You can't because there are none.

He's an unknown unknown. Will he go all populist on some issue, an economic one perhaps? Who knows? Will he go off against Wall Street, or K Street? Could be. You can't leave these things up to guess work.

The apoplexy in the Village with Bill Clinton would be nothing compared to the wailing and knashing of teeth if Huck came to town and set up in the White House with his husky brood.

Of course it isn't going to happen but if Huck was the nominee the Village would prostrate themselves and kiss Hillary's feet, begging to save them from the rube who probably wn't be hiring all their friends.

Posted by rapier | December 21, 2007 5:58 PM

I'm not sure they can demonize the Huckster that much. Unlike McCain, he's got a natural constituency in the party that won't take kindly to his being trashed.

Of course, McCain would be the perfect guy for the GOP money machine to rally around now. Unlike Rudy, he's actually a conservative, and unlike Mitt, he's an actual human being. But their frenzied attacks when he got in W's way in New Hampshire, and their continued effort to pretend those attacks were out of principle, have poisoned the GOP base against McCain.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | December 21, 2007 6:08 PM

I tend to agree with MBunge--the attacks on Huck so far haven't worked because a lot of conservatives just like him, and it ain't like there's a better option out there for Christian conservatives, unless they're willing to forgive McCain over immigration, and maybe they might be. Christians can be forgiving, after all, no?

How ironic would it be if McCain found himself the establishment's choice to take down an insurgent populist who frequently disowns special interests?

Posted by Lev | December 21, 2007 6:16 PM

Oh come on. Is Huck all that different that the rest of the GOP field when it comes to foreign policy? The only difference I can find between Huck and the rest of the lot is an inane argument about whether Bush Admin foreign policy was just plain ol' good, or was it freakin' great.

Push back against Huck has nothing to do with his foreign policy agenda or any policy agenda for that matter, save one.

TAXES

Huck raised taxes while Gov of Arkansas. And not by a little; he raised them a lot! This is the one unforgivable sin in the GOP.

You can diddle little boys, play footsie in public bathrooms, and bang hooker after hooker and the GOP establishment could give two shits. But you even think about raising taxes, the GOP establishment will take out both your knee caps and beat the crap out of your mother with a tire iron, just for good measure.

Problem is, Huck has impeccable Christian credentials. He's the real deal.

Compare him to the cross-dressing pro-gay, pro abortion "Catholic" from NYC. O

r the Northeast flip-flopping cult-member.

Or the 71 year-old former Episcopalian "Falwell is an agent of intolerance" now "I'm a Baptist, really!" with a giant goiter on his face.

Or the professional FrankenBerry-esqe lobbyist that thinks of nothing of lobbying for pro-abortion groups, as long as they pay.

Let's face it, Huck is gaining traction because the rest of the field is a bunch of fakes and frauds as far as the Evangelical base is concerned.

But the GOP establishment is very powerful, and they will stop at nothing to protect every last cent they have.

Posted by afferent input | December 21, 2007 6:16 PM

The forces behind each of the factions within the conservative coalition have a much longer view of electoral politics than most of us on the left do. If the option is Huckabee vs. Clinton or Obama, the GOP establishment will take the four-year hit now, knowing it'll be a tough term, and come back loaded in 2012. This is going to be a difficult election for them to win as it is -- why put the resources into a fight that's likely to yield a president who doesn't do the things you want, and then loses at the next election?

Posted by Aaron S. Veenstra | December 21, 2007 6:38 PM

Here's what's pretty interesting...

Over the last few decades, the two mass-movement grassroots bases of the Republicans/conservatives have been the small-government types and the Christian fundamentalists.

Ron Paul is the ideal of perfection for the one and Huckabee is for the other. Yet both Paul and Huckabee are utterly hated and despised by the entire Republican/conservative Establishment, which would totally endorse the Satanic Hillary against either.

Maybe this will cause the grassroots to wise up to the fact that they're totally being played for fools.

On the other hand, the DC Democrats are generally Corporate shills, so I guess things are even.

Maybe a delegation of ordinary Americans should travel to Europe and offer our throne to Czar Vladimir I of All the Russias...

Posted by RKU | December 21, 2007 6:52 PM

Things you won't hear from MattY and the rest of the MSM: the Huck is being sued over a questionable deal. You won't hear about it from the aforementioned sources because, well, let's just say they're on the other side.

Posted by TLB | December 21, 2007 6:53 PM

If Huckabee loses the nomination race fair and square, his supporters and sympathizers may still show up in November. But if they get the feeling that Huckabee's candidacy was nipped in the bud by the powers that be--a feeling that, based on the recent writing from elite conservative pundits, they couldn't be blamed for having--they will stay away in droves for the general election.

Posted by kth | December 21, 2007 6:53 PM

When the economic conservatives refuse to vote for the Christian conservative candidate after years of Christians showing up to vote, it's going to cause a huge rift. The Republicans won't be looking at a 4 year loss of power. They will be looking at a 40 year loss of power.

It'll be like their own McGovern. The party hasn't had a solidified base since the party boss's refused to support him. The Republicans will have to cobble together an entirely different coalition and that could take man cycles.

Posted by soullite | December 21, 2007 7:01 PM

Ann Coulter says this about liberal commentators and Huckabee:

"As far as I can tell, it's mostly secular liberals swooning over Huckabee. Liberals adore Huckabee because he fits their image of what an evangelical should be: stupid and easily led."

Posted by Fred | December 21, 2007 7:16 PM

Yep, all the non-stupid, non-easily-led Christian Evangelicals should be lining up with the Neocon Establishment to support Rudy Giuliani.

After all, he supports partial-birth abortion, Gay Rights, gun-control, and is a multiple-serial-adulterer. And those are core principles of all Evangelical Christians ...

Posted by RKU | December 21, 2007 7:28 PM

RKU,

How about clicking on the link and reading the column next time before shooting from the hip? If you had, you probably wouldn't have written what you did.

Posted by Fred | December 21, 2007 7:32 PM

"His relentless use of folksy aphorisms and corny rhetorical sleight of hand provokes visceral objections..."

How 'bout: "You made your bed, now lie in it"?

Posted by GHB | December 21, 2007 7:48 PM

As far as I can tell, it's mostly secular liberals swooning over Huckabee.

That's like an intra-conservative version of Pauline Kael's famous line: i.e.,"How could Huckabee be doing so well? No one I know is supporting him!" Of course Kael wouldn't have gone as far as suggesting that Nixon's poll numbers were the result of a media conspiracy, as Coulter does.

Posted by kth | December 21, 2007 7:54 PM

If Mark Hemingway of all people finds Huckleberry "disturbingly authoritarian" . . .
well, we ought to be very, very disturbed.

Posted by rea | December 21, 2007 9:27 PM

Fred, I get it already! Ann Coulter is wailing about Huckabee and can you believe it, secular liberals! Not to mention, promoting her book "Godless" just in time for Christmas. Jeez, I didn't have to read it to get the gist. She thinks Huck's stupid and easily led. I get it. I don't know which/what secular liberals are swooning over Huckleberry however. Maybe, I just don't get out often enough to see the swoon. From what I read, Coulter's point is that Huckabee's support is from "stupid easily led" evangelicals. Help me out here Fred, if I missed anything.

Posted by RKU | December 21, 2007 9:39 PM

Fred:

Well, I admit I normally tend not to bother reading anything by "Andy" Coulter...

But making an exception and lightly skimming through "her" column of typical gibberish, it seems like Coulter's main argument is that Christians should oppose Huckabee on the grounds he's a gigantic Gay Rights supporter and will establish sodomy throughout America.

If this the best argument the geniuses at Neocon-HQ can produce against Pastor Huckabee, I think they have a really big problem...

Evangelicals aren't _that_ "stupid and easily led."

Posted by RKU | December 21, 2007 9:43 PM

RKU,

It's not The Sound and The Fury, for heaven's sake. You wouldn't need my help here if you weren't too lazy to read the whole column before spouting off.

Posted by Fred | December 21, 2007 9:46 PM

I guess must be getting really (in?)famous on this blogsite, since there's now an "RKU" impersonator who posted just above me.

Didn't do a very good job of imitating my style though...

Posted by RKU | December 21, 2007 9:47 PM

Fred-

Are you really arguing that Huckabee doesn't actually have the support among the Republican electorate that all of the polls show he does?

If not, what are you saying?

Posted by DivGuy | December 21, 2007 9:54 PM

I see the Manchurian Huckabee meme is gathering steam.

In the party power vacuum soon to be left behind by the remarkably lazy GWB, anything, as we see, was possible.

Posted by rickhavoc | December 21, 2007 10:07 PM

Re: But making an exception and lightly skimming through "her" column of typical gibberish, it seems like Coulter's main argument is that Christians should oppose Huckabee on the grounds he's a gigantic Gay Rights supporter and will establish sodomy throughout America.

Huh? Where does she get an idea like that? Or is she making it up in hopes of swaying the homophobic fringe away from Huckabee? Nothing I've read about the guy suggests his opinion of homosexuality is anything different from the usual Southern evangelical attitude. Which is, shall we say, a bit less than positive and affirming. Coulter is either brain-dead or being paid yo do someone's hatchet work (most likely both).

Posted by JonF | December 21, 2007 10:42 PM

Yes, Matt, it would be interesting to watch the likes of Coulter walk back those remarks, but that's a long way off. In the meantime, it's worth noting that in my 47 years on this earth, I've never seen anything close to this level of rancor and chaos in a Republican presidential nomination contest. So, I'm just going to sit back and watch, munch some popcorn, and laugh and laugh.

Posted by Jeff S. | December 21, 2007 10:51 PM

Remember that you heard it from me first, Matt Yglesias:

What's happening to Huckabee is the exact same phoenomenon as what the Dems did to Howard Dean in 2004. Both candidates caught fire with the base and therefore functioned as a canary in a coal mine - a big middle finger to the respective elites that their policies - and their policy *instincts* were stupid and out of touch.

Dean was against the war when the reutrns to militarism and triangulation were politically declining, and suicidal to Dems, but the establishment ***didn't want to hear that***. So they killed him.

Similarly, Huckabee is demonstrating that the GOP's future lies in evangelism and busting the chokehold of permanent tax cuts - accepting global warming, etc. Mike Huckabee wants to perform a David Cameron job on the Republicans.

But the republican elite is too pyschologically invested in their cliches to accept that. The response is instant hatred.

That's what it's all about. That's the *only* thing it's about. It's no one policy position, it's a deviation from tone. It's a dog whistle. What really did it was mentioning Bush's "bunker mentality". The invisible message was "your product sucks, republican elite. we have to rebrand".

They'll fight that quite hard.
But Huckabee busted on the scene much later than Dean. They have a lot less time to eviscerate him.

Posted by glasnost | December 22, 2007 12:19 AM

So torn...If someone pisses off that Hemingway asshat he can't be all bad.

Posted by Gus | December 22, 2007 12:38 AM

Huckabee will never win the nomination, so the GOP establishment won't have to walk back anything.

I'm kind of surprised anyone thinks otherwise. Does anyone really believe that this under-funded ex-governor of Arkansas is any match for a GOP establishment unified against him??

They beat McCain in 2000. They beat Kerry in 2004. They will beat Huckabee like an elephant brushes off a fly.

Posted by Jason C. | December 22, 2007 12:51 AM

RKU,
Sorry about that. When Fred made me go read Coulter's post my head exploded.

Posted by RKU's Evil Twin | December 22, 2007 1:17 AM

Have you ever read National Review? It's not a magazine for the conservative foot soldiers, it's for the NCOs. (Officers get the Weekly Standard.)

Posted by Senescent | December 22, 2007 1:51 AM

Ann Coulter says...

ZZZzzzzzzzzzz............

Posted by Tyro | December 22, 2007 2:15 AM

People still read Mann Coulter? Why? "She" says the same stupid shit each and every time.

Posted by merlallen | December 22, 2007 2:51 AM

I heart Huckabee. Mainly because as soon as someone mentions his name I hear the sound of banjos in my head. And who doesn't love banjos?

He should drive around Iowa in the General Lee with Chuck Norris. If he did that, I swear I would vote for him. In fact, a Huckabee/Boss Hogg ticket would be unbeatable. They could both wear white suits and white cowboy hats. He does kind of look like Enos, come to think of it.

Posted by jim | December 22, 2007 2:54 AM

As far as I can tell, it's mostly secular liberals swooning over Huckabee.

Fred, do you really believe this is a plausible statement? Why is Huckabee ahead in polls of likely Iowa Republican caucus-goers? Why has he pulled close to the lead in national polls of Republican primary voters? Is this all manufactured by the liberal media, or something?

Posted by John | December 22, 2007 2:56 AM

Is this all manufactured by the liberal media, or something?

Of course. Anything you disagree with is a function of the liberal media and liberals generally. Thus Ron Paul is a liberal. And so is Huckabee. And Bush, too. At least this week.

Posted by jim | December 22, 2007 3:01 AM

By the way, the Huckabee campaign just released this new video. He actually plays a mean banjo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esl2NNOtHQE

I think this is the most effective ad so far...

Posted by jim | December 22, 2007 3:04 AM

The real deal here is going to be a McCain/Huckabee ticket. Huck's wacky policy details won't matter then, and he's the perfect bridge for McCain back to the religious right wing. Rudy appears to be in a death spiral, and although it's too early to count The Rombot out completely it's hard to see an entirely plastic candidate going all the way.

At the end of the day Republicans tend to be pretty serious about winning rather than fighting it out over small-group identity politics like Dems. Once it sinks in that Democrats have no really effective counter to a McCain/Huckabee ticket, they should rally 'round.

Posted by Robert Powell | December 22, 2007 3:34 AM

Huckabee is levitating in the liberal secular media just as Ross Perot did in '92 long after he demonstrated that the North Korean secret police disrupted his daughter's wedding reception, etc...

Ron Paul also gets points because he too can accept money from a white supremacist & get away with it.

The liberal secular media is virtually owned lock, stock & barrel by the Democrats, and the MSM will support any outlier Repubs who don't have a chance, or would take votes away from real conservatives.

The 2005 UCLA/UofMissouri journalism schools did an exhaustive three-year study on the top twenty MSM outlets. Only Fox News & Drudge were in the MIDDLE, using the ADA voting as a control. The rest were extremely liberal, supported Democrats, & editorially spun the left side of the fence.

The same study's PDF demonstrated that over 90% of reporters/editors who responded admitted voting Democrat for Clinton in '96 & Gore in '00.

Rush Limbaugh has around 30 million daily listeners. The top Dem talk radio host has a little over 2 million. The Dems are now talking about a ludicrously-named "Fairness Doctrine" to remove the one outlet conservatives have in the MSM.

Even Fox & the WSJ have more liberal guests than any alphabet broadcast/cable networks or the Clinton News Network has conservatives [Tucker & Glenn Beck are honorable exceptions].

I worked in TV & print for about a decade & the bias leftward is palpable and ubiquitous. Huck & Paul don't get examined as closely or with as much fervor and energy as Mitt & Rudy & even Fred T.

But I worked in several Democratic national campaigns & do know that when a Dem screws up royally, selling papers & getting eyeballs trumps ideology.

Posted by daveinboca | December 22, 2007 6:33 AM

"Similarly, Huckabee is demonstrating that the GOP's future lies in evangelism and busting the chokehold of permanent tax cuts - accepting global warming, etc. Mike Huckabee wants to perform a David Cameron job on the Republicans."

I get what you're saying, but Cameron is an Oxford grad from the British upper class, thus representing the move among the Tories from Thatcher-like self-made politicians who were big on "if I can pull myself up, why can't you lazy brown bums?" to something kindler and gentler (like not testing immigrants for AIDS and such). Huckabee represents, in some ways, the opposite phenomenon, a true-believer social conservative who rails against economic elites and elite/intellectual culture. If one of the Rockefeller kids who went to Harvard went back to the Republicans and ran on something like a Mankiw-Drezner ticket, that would be closer to our own Cameron.

Posted by Reality Man | December 22, 2007 6:50 AM

For those who didn't click on Fred's link to Ann, this nugget is golden:

Does Huckabee believe Darwinism is a hoax or not? If he knows it's a fraud, then why does he want it taught to schoolchildren? What other discredited mystery religions -- as mathematician David Berlinski calls Darwinism -- does Huckabee want to teach children? Sorcery? Phrenology? Alchemy?

Admittedly, the truth about Darwinism would be jarring in textbooks that promote other frauds and hoaxes, such as "man-made global warming." Why confuse the little tykes with fact-based textbooks?

Posted by Peter H | December 22, 2007 7:23 AM

For those who didn't click on Fred's link to Ann, this nugget is golden:

Does Huckabee believe Darwinism is a hoax or not? If he knows it's a fraud, then why does he want it taught to schoolchildren? What other discredited mystery religions -- as mathematician David Berlinski calls Darwinism -- does Huckabee want to teach children? Sorcery? Phrenology? Alchemy?

Admittedly, the truth about Darwinism would be jarring in textbooks that promote other frauds and hoaxes, such as "man-made global warming." Why confuse the little tykes with fact-based textbooks?

Posted by Peter H | December 22, 2007 7:24 AM

The 2005 UCLA/UofMissouri journalism schools did an exhaustive three-year study on the top twenty MSM outlets. Only Fox News & Drudge were in the MIDDLE, using the ADA voting as a control. The rest were extremely liberal, supported Democrats, & editorially spun the left side of the fence.

Do you know the methodology behind the Groseclouse & Milyo study? It goes like this -

(1) Look at a congressmen's ADA's score (ADA being a liberal group).
(2) Look at the think tanks he or she cites in the congressional record
(3) Look at the think tanks cited or interviewed by the media.

So if a liberal congressmen cites the Rand Instiute in a speech, & the media outlet interviews the Rand Corporation, this is evidence that the media is liberal. This isn't a theoretical criticism - one of the findings of the Groseclose/Milyo study is that the Rand Corporation is substantially more "liberal" than the ACLU.

Posted by Peter H | December 22, 2007 7:58 AM

The 2005 UCLA/UofMissouri journalism schools did an exhaustive three-year study on the top twenty MSM outlets. Only Fox News & Drudge were in the MIDDLE, using the ADA voting as a control. The rest were extremely liberal, supported Democrats, & editorially spun the left side of the fence.

Do you know the methodology behind the Groseclouse & Milyo study? It goes like this -

(1) Look at a congressmen's ADA's score (ADA being a liberal group).
(2) Look at the think tanks he or she cites in the congressional record
(3) Look at the think tanks cited or interviewed by the media.

So if a liberal congressmen cites the Rand Instiute in a speech, & the media outlet interviews the Rand Corporation, this is evidence that the media is liberal. This isn't a theoretical criticism - one of the findings of the Groseclose/Milyo study is that the Rand Corporation is substantially more "liberal" than the ACLU.

Posted by Peter H | December 22, 2007 7:58 AM

Sorry for all the double posting.

Posted by Peter H | December 22, 2007 8:00 AM

Chuck Norris will kick Mark Hemingway's ass. And Ann Coulter's ass.

Posted by abb1 | December 22, 2007 8:12 AM

Huckabees rancid populism means that if he got the nomination (unlikely) - it would provide for a moment of clarification.

HRC and Obama would be swamped with campaign cash and many of the neoconservative publications would defect from the GOP - leading to a delightful rift.

Mark Hemingway's attack sounded like he was ripping off an old Sid Blumenthal attack on Reagan. LOL.

Posted by Comment | December 22, 2007 9:26 AM

Re: At the end of the day Republicans tend to be pretty serious about winning rather than fighting it out over small-group identity politics like Dems.

Maybe, but you're not giving enough credit to George W Bush and his anti-Midas touch, turning to sh!t everything he touches. And the GOP has been ground zero for Bush's magic. Their coalition is coming apart at the seams. Go over to any conservative blog site (e.g., RedState) and read the arguments taking place. This is not a tempest in a teapot and the factions will not kiss and make up any time soon. It really started a year ago when they woke up on Nov 8 and discovered they had lost Congress in a massive defeat. They've been trying to figure out who to blame for that, and since they are disinclined to blame themselves, or acknowledge that their main ideas have been rejected by the American people, they are fighting over which of their groups to scapegoat. Early on they started piling on the Social Conservatives and now Huckabees surge is the social conservatives fighting back and threatening to take over the party. Unlike some I don't expect the GOP to deflate to nullity any time soon, but I do expect them to spend a generation in the political wilderness much as the Democrats have since 1980 trying to sort out which way to go.

Posted by JonF | December 22, 2007 10:13 AM

"...would prompt something of a crisis in the relationship between the conservative press and its audience."

The 'audience' of the conversative press is the mainstream media, not the conservative base. Fox and Rush speak to the base. NRO, Weekly Standard, WSJ etc. work the refs, so to speak.

Posted by dukej | December 22, 2007 12:28 PM

I don't get it. Mike Huckabee has sticky fingers. The main gripe about him in Arkansas is that he's sleazy and endlessly finds ways to feather his and his family's nest. The moneycons could buy him off for a seriously trivial sum of money.

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 22, 2007 12:49 PM

Re: The moneycons could buy him off for a seriously trivial sum of money.

Probably true that the Powers That Be could easily derail or co-opt any populist initiative Huckabee out forth, but the Grover Borquist types don't even want such things to be in play rhetorically. The GOP has become as severely intolerant of political heresies as the Jacobins or the Bolsheviks were. If you're a Republican you are not even allowed to think impermissible thoughts on some issues. Witness the opprobrium showered on John McCain for similar (but much smaller) deviations from The Party Line.

Posted by JonF | December 22, 2007 3:45 PM

"The real deal here is going to be a McCain/Huckabee ticket."

That would be the two Republicans weakest on illegal immigration on the same ticket. Not happening. McCain's popularity has been recently because of the progress of the surge in Iraq, since he is the candidate most strongly associated with it.

My bet is that Romney will be the GOP nominee. He just got Tancredo's endorsement, which will help him on illegal immigration; he's got a great resume, plenty of money, and none of Giuliani's baggage.

Posted by Fred | December 23, 2007 2:03 AM

Why is everyone here missing the point ?

Huckabee is the only GOP candidate who is listening to and responding to the tremedous unease felt by the American people and particularly by working class and lower middle class Americans about the elite globalization agenda. He is the only GOP candidate critical of offshoring, outsourcing free trade (which puts him squarely in the mainstream of the American people) and the moneycons cannot allow that. He is the only GOP candidate in tune with the cultural values and socioeconomic class interests of working class and lower middle class Americans. This explains the all out effort by the moneycons to destroy him.

Huckabee could reshape the GOP into a party of Reagan Democrats, a surprisingly large number of minority voters, evangelicals, and even white collar populists afraid of seeing their jobs offshored. A new majority that would leave the cheap labor libertarians and the cultural elite secularists out in the cold. Never forget that minority voters, who are culturally conservative and economically populist themselves, are just as uneasily in 'alliance' with lifestyle liberalism as evangelicals in the GOP are with secularist libertarian Social Darwinists. Huckabee got a third of the Black vote in Arkansas and I see no reason why he cannot do that nationally.

Posted by Muwatallis | December 24, 2007 11:37 AM

The Christian right (and other fed up conservatives) are supporting Mike Huckabee, but the right’s pundits are not flocking to support him, and many of them are actually trying to derail him. Case in point:

Rush's Hit-Piece on Huckabee
(stick with it, audio of Rush)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=tu-ZSSaZELM

Something is very very very very wrong with this picture. Bottom line: The best candidate for the Republican nomination is Huckabee.

Huckabee - Cinderella Man
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILPcnn9Sf94

JOIN WITH US!

Posted by apacallyps | December 26, 2007 9:17 PM