Committing “Huckacide”
Written by Sam on December 14th, 2007After many false prophecies, Dean circa 2008 has finally arrived. He is former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. Not because he will inevitably blow himself up in Iowa. But because, like Dean, his nomination would represent an act of suicide by his party. Like Dean, Huckabee is an under-vetted former governor who is manifestly unprepared to be president of the United States. Like Dean, he is rising toward the top of polls in a crowded field based on his appeal to a particular niche of his party. As with Dean, his vulnerabilities in a general election are so screamingly obvious that it’s hard to believe that primary voters, once they focus seriously on their choice, will nominate him.The GOP’s social conservatism inarguably has been an enormous benefit to the party throughout the past 30 years, winning over conservative Democrats and lower-income voters who otherwise might not find the Republican limited-government message appealing. That said, nominating a Southern Baptist pastor running on his religiosity would be rather overdoing it. Social conservatism has to be part of the Republican message, but it can’t be the message in its entirety.
This is exactly what I have been saying for a few months now. Social conservatism cannot be the only Republican message. We need a candidate that will appeal to both social and fiscal/small government conservatives. Huckabee has so many flaws. He will alienate the fiscal conservative independents, libertarians, and conservative Democrats that sometimes cross the aisle when the Democrat candidate is too extreme. The man is not electable.
On a similar note, Huckabee leads in South Carolina now:
CNN POLL: SOUTH CAROLINA
Huckabee 24%
Thompson 17%
Giuliani 16%
Romney 16%
McCain 13%
Paul 11%
14
AM
I’d also add that a Rasmussen poll in FLORIDA!!! had the following:
Mike Huckabee 27%
Mitt Romney 23%
Rudy Giuliani 19%
Fred Thompson 9%
John McCain 6%
Ron Paul 4%
What is scary is that if Huckabee wins Iowa, then South Caroline (while doing good in New Hampshire, Michigan, etc. if not outright winning) and THEN wins Florida he is basically the nominee.
A anybody-but-Huckabee movement has to start really, really soon.
14
PM
Since when is a two term governor of a southern state not electable? I guess Bill Clinton wasnt electable either. I think any two term governor is electable to the white house. We dont have a candidate that appeals to the social and fiscal cons. Its going to be a rough ride this year.
14
PM
Since that two term governor is Mike Huckabee. He has a terrible fiscal record. He commuted the sentences of over 1,000 criminals, some of them violent offenders and murderers. He’ll be another “compassionate conservative” just like Bush and expand the size of government and probably take us over the $10 trillion debt mark providing Bush doesn’t get us there first.
Furthermore, he’s made some damaging remarks in the past on issues that are now coming out that make him sound like a big religious nut.
If either he or Romney is nominated, we lose. Giuliani, Thompson, or McCain would at least have a fighting chance.
14
PM
I think there is one factor that everyone is overlooking in regards to Huckabee’s meteoric rise. His likeability. I disagree with him on some of his economic policy. I like the fact he supports the Fair Tax. But ultimately he is the only candidate who has a positive outlook. all the others
Lets face it Romney is more plastic than a Ken Doll, Giuliani is gruff and unapproachable, and Thompson seems too bothered by the whole process to improve his own chances.
I will support the nominee whoever it is. I have previously thrown my support behind Thompson, but he has been a severe disappointment.
14
PM
Any two term governor is electable to the White House?
Come on. Blanket statements like that are obviously not true. Being electable is much more complicated then that.
Nominating Huckabee would be a huge mistake.
I think there are two candidates actually who can appeal to social and fiscal conservatives. Thompson and McCain.
14
PM
Thompson would be the perfect choice but he needs to wake up first. His late arrival into the game has affected his campaign “legs”.
14
PM
One reason Huckabee is not electable because of his lack of experience on the international scene. Clinton was a Rhodes scholar and worked with foreign policy think tanks before being nominated for President.
14
PM
Say whatever you like, but Huckabee is as electable as Thompson or any of the rest of them. ONCE AGAIN: I am not saying he is a good choice, but he is capable of winning the election. The pea brains here need to separate their feelings on the guy from reality. “Unelectable” candidates dont win governorships in middle of the road states. But you guys shouldnt get caught up on things like “evidence” or “facts”.
Thompson is a total disaster of a candidate, its time to admit this. I like his positions, but he has no appeal to social conservatives, and I dont consider 1.5 terms in the senate that impressive. Clinton, Obama and Edwards have roughly the same level of experience and I think they are pathetic.
As for clinton: I know several Rhodes Scholars very well, and I can tell you that being one does not do jack for experience or knowledge. Its just a sholarship to study in England. I would rank Obama’s kindergarten in asia on the same level as the Rhodes experience. And think tanks? Give me a break.
And dont forget, W won the election and had absolutely no foreign policy experience. So clearly the american people dont hold that standard that high.
14
PM
the question is, where would the money come from for a huckabee nomination. the big donors have no time for a populist/protectionist.
14
PM
President of the United States is not a job you can elect just anyone to. Mike Huckabee is not electable. And I am capable of separating my feelings for a candidate from reality. I love Senator Demint, but I don’t think he is electable. I don’t care for Hillary Clinton but I think she is electable.
Lets talk about how Mr. Electable, Huckabee, got elected. As Lt. Gov he took over when the Gov resigned because of the Whitewater scandal. So Huck achieved the lethal advantage of incumbency by not getting elected but rather because of a resignation. He then won a full term by defeating an attorney named Bill Bristow. Beating a B list candidate shouldn’t qualify you as being electable.
I will concede that Huck beat an A list candidate in 2002 to win a second full term but I don’t think that qualifies him as electable.
14
PM
So by your reasoning, Chris, Huckabee is unelectable because he won the governorship of AR twice, once to a B-lister and once to an A-lister. But, Hillary is electable because she waltzed into the senate in a state he hardly had set foot in because of her name? Lets just boil that down: Americans are stupid people. We can agree to disagree on this, but Huckabee good at being a candidate (not his positions for all of you that are hyperventilating out there) and that means he is a serious contender in this “voting culture” in which we live.
14
PM
In regards to the comment about George Dubs winning the election with no foreign policy experience….I think that has more to due with the fact that he won election (first time) in 2000 A.K.A PRE-9/11!!
I would strongly agree with the comments by Sam that if Huckabee or Romney is nominated, we lose. Lets be serious, Huckabee’s ceiling of support is capped somewhere around 40-45%, at least I strongly believe so. As well, The Huck’s likeability will wear thin very short. His stupid, stupid expressions and metaphors get old after about two debates. Then you feel like you’re back in elementary school.
In regards to Romney, there’s something about him that a large % of people don’t like. I don’t know how to describe it but there was this “The Onion” satire article about how “Mitt Romney is the candidate that voters would most like to get into a bar fight with”…and I think it’s true. You just want to hit him.
On the other hand, McCain has the lowest levels of core opposition amongst pollsters, Giuliani would expand the electoral map to include New Jersey, New Hampshire, Conneticut, etc, etc. Thompson as well I think would do well….all realms of the conservative kingdom would support him. As well, he’s hillarious, as indicated by that Des Moines Register debate a couple of days ago.
14
PM
Huckabee’s a nice guy and all, but I hope to God that he’s not the GOP nominee. As has been said by many people, the GOP is made up of three coalitions: national security hawks, fiscal conservatives, and social conservatives. They’re all important and necessary if we’re going to win in November. Huckabee’s candidacy makes him a social conservative but little else. The GOP will lose big-time if he’s the nominee.
We need someone who will appeal to all three coalitions. I know you that most of you guys are against him, but I think Romney’s the guy. He’s got executive experience and is brilliant, was an amazing businessman, has a platform that truly appeals to all three coalitions (”stronger military, stronger economy, and stronger families”), has a clean past, and has the energy and ability necessary to fight the Dems and the MSM in the general election. Sure, he’s changed some positions. But haven’t they all? I also think Fred could be that person to unite all three coalitions. He kicked ass in the Iowa debate, but I’m not sure if this amazing performance came too late. I wish he had been able to show this side back in September, then I think it would be a different race. Giuliani loses the social conservative coalition, and any gains made with moderates are negated by his alienating conservatives. And though I like him personally and think he’d be a true foreign policy go-getter, his personal baggage is unlike any other candidates. Plus, there’s no way, as his campaign argues, that he’ll expand the electoral map. The campaign map is going to stay pretty much the same as in ‘04. With Giuliani as the GOP nominee, NJ, NY, CT, PA, and CA will remain sizable, if lesser in magnitude, victories for the Dems.
Anyways, whatever you do, whoever you support, just understand that Huckabee, despite his positives (solid social conservative, great campaigner, nice guy), has too many negatives (horrendous fiscal policy history, antagonistic toward fiscal conservatives like the Club for Growth, clueless on foreign policy–he didn’t know about the NIE assessment when asked last week, and rarely talks about national security). Stated simply, the GOP will lose big if he’s the nominee.
14
PM
I said Hillary is electable. I didn’t say her electability was a result of winning two senate races. I think it is pretty obvious that her strengths as a candidate don’t originate from her time as a Senator.
Dave, my point wasn’t that Huckabee is unelectable because “because he won the governorship of AR twice, once to a B-lister and once to an A-lister.” I think his unelectability lies elsewhere.
You implied that because he won two terms as governor that he is electable. My point is that winning two terms as governor is not always sufficient, particularly in Huck’s case, in order to be elected to President of the United States.
15
AM
I think that the South Carolina poll and several of the other polls this week really illustrate that the Republican Party of 2007 doesn’t a unifying element. In 2004, we seemed to have so much unity and focus. That seems to be all gone now.
The Democrats have unifying elements — end of the Republican White House, end of the Iraq War and perhaps to a lesser extent, universal health care.
In 2007 and 2008, what is the one or two easy-to-articulate things that the Republican Party brings to the table?
BTW — you see that 11 percent in South Carolina for Ron Paul? In my opinion, that 11 percent is an important group of Republicans that the other candidates should be thinking about. Those are libertarian-oriented members of the party who the GOP establishment needs to attempt to bring into the fold to get to 51 percent in November.
15
AM
Let see.
Huckabee–someone who is approachable by non-conservatives, you say is unelectable.
But Hillary, someone that I have reservations about(Oh, I did tell you that I am not a conservative, right) is electable?
I think your political math is screwed by your conservative perceptions. Huckabee, McCain and Rudy are the three electable candidates you have. McCain and Rudy because it is recognized that they are not as conservative as you may wish. Huckabee due to his social nature–lean back yet spirited.
Right now, your candidates are trying to run as far right as possible(poor Rudy and McCain!) to win the nomination.
Huckabee can go as far right as he likes due to his social conservativism. Probably a much larger group than seen nationally and Huckabee’s personal appeal draws people to him. In fact, he can say some “fanatical” things and get away with it in the early primaries. Also, Huckabee will bring voters to the polls as well.
One problem I find with Huckabee–he should not attack candidates but counter-attack them. This will add to his personality and help add supporters across the board.
And I do mean from across the board.
A suggestion:Try to surround Huckabee with some Fiscal conservatives. Lots of them.
15
PM
Bush won by combining the votes of social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and people who see national security as their main issue.
McCain can hold these three groups together and even bring in more independents. I believe Thompson can do the same. Rudy and Romney may be able to as well.
Huckabee is unelectable because he can only win social conservatives. I don’t believe Americans will elect someone without foreign policy experience in a post 9/11 world. He didn’t even know about the report of Iran’s nukes.
15
PM
Bush and fiscal conservatives?
Hardcore Fiscal conservatives were angry before the 2004 elections. The only reason they voted Republican is because the alternative was a Democrat! With McCain backing Bush, those voters would see Bush in him. McCain will not have them in the primaries–too many better alternatives.
Romney can hold all three. Rudy will lose social conservatives. Thompson is built on media hype, and now that it is gone, he is fading to.
By the way, Americans elected Reagan who did not have foreign policy experience(Bush Sr. Did)–And looked what happened to the march of communism!
15
PM
chaoticform… the Soviets were on the march, but flying planes into American buildings.
15
PM
Let see, two enemies bent on global domination. One more organized with equal weapons and reasons not to use it directly against us.
The other that is not really commited to protecting the people they say they are fighting for. In fact, attack individuals that do not adhere to their beliefs.
When I make the comparison, I realize that someone with experience in religous fanticism is more important than foreign policy! Yep. Huckabee is the best thing coming!!