Minutemen Heart Huckabee

Mitt Romney takes to the airwaves with an add blasting Mike Huckabee as soft on immigration:

But will this matter with Huckabee picking up the endorsement of Minuteman Project founder Jim Gilchrist? I feel like a preacher flanked with an anti-immigrant vigilante on one side and Chuck Norris on the other is sort of the ultimate Republican primary candidate. If he just had pockets full of fossil fuel money like Rudy so he could run more ads, he'd be golden.

Comments

"I feel like a preacher flanked with an anti-immigrant vigilante on one side and Chuck Norris on the other is sort of the ultimate Republican primary candidate."

It's a great way to get 25% of the primary vote. It's not a great way to win the GOP nomination.

Let me know when Huckabee makes a truce with the WSJ editorial page. That's when I'll start to take him seriously as a potential nominee.

Until then, he's Pat Robertson in '88. Until then, he's Pat Buchanan in '92 and '96. You don't beat the money cons for the nomination.

Posted by Petey | December 11, 2007 12:58 PM

Until then, he's Pat Robertson in '88. Until then, he's Pat Buchanan in '92 and '96. You don't beat the money cons for the nomination.

Don't forget his closet full of skeletons . . . and the outright hostility of the almost all the intellectual (or, you know, literate) conservatives.

Posted by southpaw | December 11, 2007 1:07 PM

Actually, Gilchrist's stance makes much more sense than it might seem at first glance.

Everyone honest knows that the vast, vast majority of illegal immigrants are drawn by jobs, and that until something is done about the "economic lure" border security will remain just a joke.

But the GOP's business-wing is dead set against doing anything in this regard, for pretty obvious reasons. And Romney/Giuliani/Thompson are the total representives of that wing. So everyone knows they'll just demagogue the issue as much as they need during the campaign, then "convert back" to business-as-usual if elected.

On the other hand, Huckabee's in the economic-populist wing, and would be pretty likely to support harsh employer-sanctions or whatever, which the Democrats in Congress would certainly vote to support.

Since Gilchrist really wants to reduce illegal immigration rather than just demagogue, the choice between those corporate candidates and Huckabee is a complete no-brainer.

Posted by RKU | December 11, 2007 1:08 PM

Talk about burying the lead!

The ad isn't really about Romney and Huckabee's differences on immigration. It's about selling the two as indistinguishable except for immigration.

Two former governors.
Two good family men.
Both pro-life.
Both support a constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage.

The ad will be successful to the extent that Iowa voters accept those assumptions.

Immigration, shmimmigration.

Posted by Sean | December 11, 2007 1:18 PM

That's a surprising endorsement. The only explanation I can think of is that Gilchrist thinks that the enforcement lobby (i.e., the entire GOP minus low-wage employers and WSJ editors) has demonstrated its muscle sufficiently that no candidate will dare repeat Bush's attempts at amnesty, so Gilchrist can focus on other priorities -- like putting a folksy creationist in the Oval Office.

"Let me know when Huckabee makes a truce with the WSJ editorial page."

The WSJ put out tentative feelers last week, empathizing with the principle of the Fair Tax while expressing the editors' concerns that 1) it would be politically impossible to enact; and 2) we'd end up with the worst of both worlds instead: a national sales tax and all the other current taxes.

Posted by Fred | December 11, 2007 1:18 PM

Well, after previously being all mushy and "compassionate conservative" on illegal immigration, Huck has just recently flip-flopped and released a plan that's highly punitive for undocumented workers. Presumably, this was sufficient to assuage Gilchrist and his "Shoot anyone who looks like a spic" vigilante squad.

And as for the Money Wing: Huck has already "taken the pledge," and as Fred points out is the proponent of a dishonest, regressive flat sales tax plan. Won't it be likely that the WSJ crowd will realize that when he talks in an economically populist way, he's just lying in order to gain support, the way he lies about the Dumond case? A greedy, ethics-violating ex-governor should be just what the doctor ordered.

Posted by mds | December 11, 2007 1:50 PM

At least Matt is slowly but surely realizing Huckabee's appeal. It's taken him a while, but he's getting it.
The same obviously can't be said for lots of the posters here.
Yes, Huckabee is a greedy, ethics-challenged, Neanderthal of a candidate. I'd never vote for him. Neither would the WSJ and Club for Growth folks. But if those folks had so much power, Steve Forbes would have been the GOP nominee at least once over the last 20 years.
Huck is not Pat Robertson or Pat Buchanan, each of whom had the political skills of General Curtis LeMay.
He is not going to wither away with more exposure, if he gets a bump out of Iowa. On the contrary, the more people who see him, the more impressed they will be.
"Gosh, he seems like such a nice guy! A reasonable guy too! Not like the religious nut everyone makes him out to be!"
Huck is simply the best politician in either party. His political skills rival Bill Clinton's skills. All of those cliches about selling ice to Eskimos would apply to Huck.
He is really, really good at being a politician and presenting himself - and his nutty views - to voters and that counts for a whole lot.
Its so amazing how little weight observers give to something that ultimately can be extraordinarily important: the political skills of an individual candidate.

Posted by frankie d | December 11, 2007 2:09 PM

Speaking about the WSJ, MattY sounds an awful like Bush when he calls the MMP anti-immigrant vigilante[s]. Gosh, who knew they were on the same page about something?

As for mds' far worse comment about the MMP shooting people, that's not just a smear but it sure looks like libel to me.

As for Huck's plan, MattY shouldn't worry: he's already admitted that he'll keep the cheap labor flowing. MattY would have told you that, if he understood these issues.

Posted by TLB | December 11, 2007 2:24 PM

TLB, the excessive concern that you have for immigrants is something you should examine with a therapist. Not with this blog. ... There is something really, really, very sad about you. You need help. You need somebody to help you. I know you feel insulted by that, but I'm being honest with you. This excessive concern with immigrants is a sickness.

I'm sorry. That's my opinion. You don't have to accept it. There are probably very few people who would be as honest with you about that. But you should go consult a psychologist or a psychiatrist, and have him help you with this excessive concern, how you are devoting your life to immigrants.

There are people in this city and in this world that need a lot of help. Something has gone wrong with you. Your compulsion about it, your excessive concern with it, is a sign of something wrong in your personality. I do not mean to be insulting. I'm trying to be honest with you and I'm trying to give you advice for your own good.

Posted by Rudy! | December 11, 2007 3:00 PM

We must halt the flood of ferrets coming over the borders!

Posted by Petey | December 11, 2007 3:08 PM

frankie d nails it. And this has been my fear about "Huck"' all of the time I've watch him this year.

The dude is smooth. He's smooth and he speaks to the economic insecurity of the GOP's middle class. It's a Deadly combination, because none of the other front-runners are even addressing those check book concerns.

The Democrats shouldn't dismiss this guy at all.

Posted by Sharon | December 11, 2007 3:25 PM

Huck is simply the best politician in either party. His political skills rival Bill Clinton's skills. All of those cliches about selling ice to Eskimos would apply to Huck.

This is mostly true, though Huckabee isn't the sharpest nail in the coffee can, and moreover has a slipshod approach towards policy. I don't know if the latter is from laziness or vanity, but it threatens to needlessly complicate his candidacy.

Posted by kth | December 11, 2007 3:33 PM

I think it's just a little too facile to dismiss Huckabee as "smooth." Frankly, I don't know much about the fellow, but it seems to me pretty plausible that he looks sincere because he actually *is* sincere.

Consider his whole "pro-immigrant" position regarding tuition, social services, etc. Can't see the "devious ulterior strategy" behind it in today's GOP. Since the "pro-immigration" wing of the GOP is really just its WSJ "pro-business" wing, they'll never support him on economic grounds, so he gains zero politically.

Now it's perfectly fair to critique his tax proposals or whatever as actually benefiting the wealthy in practice, but I suspect that's mostly because he's just totally ignorant on a huge number of issues and doesn't have any "policy staff" since his campaign doesn't have any money and he was at 1% until recently.

Since he'd apparently never even heard of the Iranian NIE after 24 hours of national banner-headlines and also supposedly believes the world was created 6000 years ago, is it really so ridiculous to imagine that his tax proposals are just equally ignorant?

Posted by RKU | December 11, 2007 3:38 PM