« Dear Winter | Main | Learned Hand »

March 07, 2007

More Huckabee

This seems like the sort of attack that will do some damage to the GOP's current frontrunners:

What do you make of candidates like Giuliani, Romney and McCain—all of whom have moved to the right on social issues?
The first thing is: imitation is the most serious form of flattery. Some are having a late adult moment to come to a position I’ve held since I’ve been a teenager. Voters will have to determine if they’re seeing the politics of conviction or convenience.

On the other hand, Can Huckabee really afford such lapses into tolerance as this one?

Do you believe that gays are going to hell?
No. I don’t know that Baptists would make a statement that anyone goes to hell based on sexual orientation. Heaven is about one’s personal faith and therefore it has to do with one’s relationship to Jesus, not someone’s relationship to someone else.

Or kind words about Clinton?

You have a lot in common with Bill Clinton. You both come from Hope, Ark., and went on to be governors of the state. What do you think of him and Hillary?
I have a rather different point of view on Bill Clinton [than others have]. We’re dramatically different, in lifestyle etc. But I don’t hate this man. Whether you liked him or not, give him credit for being a kid who came out of a dysfunctional family and an obscure town to become president. Don’t take that away from him, because if you do, you take that away from every kid who grew up on the other side of the tracks. I want that kid to grow up saying, “by golly, I’m going to be president, I’m going to be a PhD, I’m going to be a nuclear physicist.

And this, frankly, surprised me:

Is there anything else you’d like to talk about?
There’s one issue I want to touch on. A key element of education is music and art education. It’s not expendable, extracurricular or extraneous. The future economy of America is going to be a creative economy. I am very passionate about it. Math, science and language scores improve dramatically when the student has music skills. Spatial reasoning is enhanced by music instructions. It is who we are. It defines us as a culture and a civilization. Very few people my age are still playing tackle football, but I’m still playing bass guitar in a rock-and-roll band.

Anyway, I don't have any mega-analysis here, but it's a good interview and Huckabee's clearly an interesting, eccentric candidate. One problem, though, is that he currently lacks a message. There's no theme to his answers, no broader appeal woven into his discussions of issues. We're early in the process yet, so he's got plenty of time to create one, but he's going to need to sharpen the argument for his candidacy if he's going to pierce the bubble around the Big Three.

March 7, 2007 | Permalink

Comments

"The Big Three"? I must say I'm very confused that there's all this commentary about candidates like Huckabee and Brownback and their inability to break into the top tier when one of those Big Three polls at 4%. I get the feeling that this limit isn't defined by objective criteria, but already predetermined and messaged. In which case, breaking into a pre-determined group seems nigh impossible.

Posted by: Tony V | Mar 7, 2007 10:51:16 AM

No. I don’t know that Baptists would make a statement that anyone goes to hell based on sexual orientation.

Wait, what? Maybe not appeasenik American Baptists, but Southern Baptists most certainly raise a fuss about such "abomination." I find it unlikely that they skipped that part at Southern Baptist seminary when Governor Huckabee was becoming a pastor. If I may quote yet again from the Baptist Faith and Message of the Southern Baptist Convention:

Marriage is the uniting of one man and one woman in covenant commitment for a lifetime. It is God's unique gift to reveal the union between Christ and His church and to provide for the man and the woman in marriage the framework for intimate companionship, the channel of sexual expression according to biblical standards, and the means for procreation of the human race.

And:

In the spirit of Christ, Christians should oppose racism, every form of greed, selfishness, and vice, and all forms of sexual immorality, including adultery, homosexuality, and pornography. [Emphasis added]

So, is Mr. Huckabee a genuine maverick within his denomination, or is this another attempt to snooker mainstream voters with compassionate conservatism? Granted, he has some room to weasel, because presumably if a gay person did develop a "relationship with Jesus," they wouldn't practice homosexuality anymore. People go to hell for rejecting Christ, not for the acts themselves.

Posted by: mds | Mar 7, 2007 11:03:22 AM

Tony v,

Remember that GOP primary voters tend to not care much what the political gurus in the comment theads of liberal blogs think about their candidates.

The media is intent on denying Guiliani the nomination. He's dead in the water. Raw Story says that McCain staffers are already starting to bail. And Mitt Romney is a Mormon from Massachusetts.

These losers are the "Big 3" because they're getting all the attention. Thing is, none of it is any good. Huckabee, as Ezra points out, is also too far off the reservation.

That leaves Brownback, who will win unless Chuck Hagel enters the race. Those two are the only ones who can reliably appeal to the Religious Right, and in the GOP primary, the Religious Right is the only constituency that matters.

Posted by: Stephen | Mar 7, 2007 11:14:13 AM

I personally am not a big fan of the "Do you think so and so is going to hell question" but since it's on the table can I assume from his answer that those of us who are Muslims or Jews are going to hell? Why wasn't he asked that?

Posted by: Abu Noor al-Irlandee | Mar 7, 2007 11:48:05 AM

Stephen: By your logic it's easy to prove anyone will win. You point out all the reasons the other guys WON'T win, and say "ergo, it must be this guy".

The guy getting 40+% in the polls right now really shouldn't be dismissed as getting denied the nomination.

I really don't know who it will be, I just note that one of the supposed "Big three" polls at 4%, and so it just seems really unlikely that he is proposed as top tier because of any objective criteria, but because he's been Chosen. It's much harder for Huckabee and others to break into the racket of being Chosen than it is for them to actually meet some objective criteria.

Posted by: Tony V | Mar 7, 2007 11:50:11 AM

Tony v,

You apparently didn't read what I wrote. I'm not saying that Brownback will get it just because he's the only one left in the race after the others get disqualified.

Brownback - and Hagel if he runs - is the only one that offers the Religious Right what they really want. The fact that McCain has been pandering to them doesn't mean that it's been working.

Unless there is a constituency for the GOP primary that matters more than the Religious Right.

Posted by: Stephen | Mar 7, 2007 12:02:58 PM

McCain and Giuliani combined have 80% of the nationwide Republican vote at the moment. That's an awful lot of people who are happy with them given that "they don't give the Religious Right what they want".

I personally feel that what the RR really wants is an authoritarian who will express their resentment at the left, and Giuliani fits that mold rather well. His dalliances and moderate positions matter even less than the fact that W never goes to church and W is fine with civil unions. But regardless of these pop-sociiology theories, just paying attention to the evidence, which is some huge poll numbers, has to tell you something.

And yes, you used reductionist logic to reduce it to two people instead of one. Except Hagel stands even less of a chance than the others because, like McCain, he has stood up to the President too much and really isn't known as much more than a Republican Joe Lieberman. And if we wanted to be further reductionist, I'm sure I could come up with an absolutist argument for why Brownback is a sure loser too.

Posted by: Tony V | Mar 7, 2007 12:10:52 PM

One of the thousand problems for the GOP is that governors make the best candidates but if you're a good Governor you're probably not kosher on tax cuts.

Anway, it's a really screwy race, with a Southern Baptist minister too tolerant for the troops.

Posted by: david mizner | Mar 7, 2007 12:12:11 PM

can I assume from his answer that those of us who are Muslims or Jews are going to hell?

No. You'd have to ask him, but I rather doubt he believes that.

Posted by: Sanpete | Mar 7, 2007 12:29:39 PM

I personally feel that what the RR really wants is an authoritarian who will express their resentment at the left, and Giuliani fits that mold rather well. His dalliances and moderate positions matter even less than the fact that W never goes to church and W is fine with civil unions. But regardless of these pop-sociiology theories, just paying attention to the evidence, which is some huge poll numbers, has to tell you something.

At this point in the runup to 2000, John McCain was the front-runner for the GOP nomination. It was his to lose, the press loved him, he had the momentum and money. How'd that work out for him? This time around McCain is more vulnerable than before. He's older, sicker and has spent the last 7 years doing nothing to insulate himself from the type of attacks that brought him down last time.

Richard Land disagrees with you about Guiliani. Since he's the "head of public policy for the Southern Baptist Convention," his opinion on Guiliani is more credible than yours.

Bush was in church way more in 2000, and has always been able to use the right words and phrases to appeal to the Religious Right.

Recent polls show very negative views about Mormonism among religious conservatives. Since these views have been in place among them for the entire history of Mormonism, it's unlikely that Mitt Romney is going to be able to overcome it in the next 12-14 months.

This isn't "reductionist logic." It's taking into account recent history as well as factors that will ultimately matter to the Religious Right far more than polls taken in March 2007.

Posted by: Stephen | Mar 7, 2007 12:39:50 PM

Recent polls show very negative views about Mormonism among religious conservatives.

The poll you cited in your thread on this showed conservatives to be about equally split on Mormons. The really negative views were on the Left. Anti-Catholic prejudice was older than that against Mormons, but Kennedy managed to overcome it. Not that I think Romney is a Kennedy.

Posted by: Sanpete | Mar 7, 2007 12:52:10 PM

That bubble you see around "the Big Three" as you term them is a soap bubble, bound to burst on its own.

The biggest problem faced by any candidate for the Republican nomination is the obvious fact that the incumbent Administration has absolutely no interest in seeing a Republican elected in 2008. All the evil consequences of Bush profligacy and foolishness are to be foisted on to his successor, who, therefore, must be a Democrat.

When "the Big Three" candidates are all repulsive in not one, but many ways, to the religious and reactionary electoral base of the Republican Party, and all the candidates, who might be acceptable to the base, are clearly unelectable, you'd think the big implication would be clear.

The "Big Three" are the leading candidates, because they are all, conceivably, electable. They want the nomination for that reason, and they think it is available, because the Republican powers-that-be are not putting anyone up.

Huckabee and Brownback and a few other self-appointed darkhorses are hoping to preserve the Republican Reactionary coalition, against the depredations attendant on having the nomination hijacked by a moderate Republican. Huckabee, a happy mercenary for the Plutocracy despite his populist praise of Clinton, probably thinks his own affable charm might make him a serious candidate for President, should the Republican powers-that-be have second thoughts about the strategy of yielding the Presidency in 2008.

Posted by: Bruce Wilder | Mar 7, 2007 12:53:28 PM

I'm with Stephen on this. Tony claims that evangelicals didn't care about Bush's stand on civil unions. That's not true. Civil unions were not a hot-button issue in 2000, and the press didn't harp on the candidates' positions as much as other important issues of the time (e.g. the "lockbox").

Evangelicals love W because he talks the talk. It never mattered that he doesn't (and didn't) walk the walk. Guiliani is a New Yorker though and through. I can't think of a more polar opposite personality that the RR will embrace than Guiliani.

Posted by: verplanck colvin | Mar 7, 2007 12:57:44 PM

At this point in the runup to 2000, John McCain was the front-runner for the GOP nomination. It was his to lose, the press loved him, he had the momentum and money. How'd that work out for him? This time around McCain is more vulnerable than before. He's older, sicker and has spent the last 7 years doing nothing to insulate himself from the type of attacks that brought him down last time.
So McCain will lose because he lost last time and he has some more handicaps? This rather selectively ignores a lot of things to his advantage (namely, he’s done a much much better job of impressing the GOP higher-ups who backed Bush last time and have already started raising large dollars for him now. I mean really, he’s managed to bring on board the very dirty-tricksters who accused him of having an illegitimate black child last time.) This is really the flaw with using your own reductionist logic and ignoring evidence.

Richard Land disagrees with you about Guiliani. Since he's the "head of public policy for the Southern Baptist Convention," his opinion on Guiliani is more credible than yours.

And I am to believe everything every GOP spokesperson says about who will win the nomination? Wow.
Recent polls show very negative views about Mormonism among religious conservatives. Since these views have been in place among them for the entire history of Mormonism, it's unlikely that Mitt Romney is going to be able to overcome it in the next 12-14 months.
You’re right. Romney is a dead duck. Which is why the entire point of my first comment was “why do we call a guy polling at 4% in the Big Three?” I do think Romney has the backing of many party elders which causes him to get disproportionate media attention, and who knows where that will go (since it was half the reason Bush won in 2000, the other being perverse name recognition).
This isn't "reductionist logic." It's taking into account recent history as well as factors that will ultimately matter to the Religious Right far more than polls taken in March 2007.
You apparently have a masterful understanding of the religious right that is above the available statistical evidence. You really should go to tradesports.com and invest hugely in Brownback and Other. (The reason I wouldn’t do this is because their current ratings really do reflect my judgment on the matter, hence not much room for profit for me).

The simple point is that when it comes to the Republican nod, everyone is playing this silly game. Combining a list of reasons every potential nominee WON’T get the nod, and saying it therefore must be the one guy who they haven’t the list of reasons he won’t. News: they all suck, one of them will get the nod, and a number of them have positive things working in their favor that it is very easy to forget.

The only person mentioned today who I would say has no chance of getting the nod is Chuck Hagel – and that’s probably the reason he isn’t running.

Posted by: Tony V | Mar 7, 2007 1:02:07 PM

Ignore the previous comment, as the formatting is gone to hell.

At this point in the runup to 2000, John McCain was the front-runner for the GOP nomination. It was his to lose, the press loved him, he had the momentum and money. How'd that work out for him? This time around McCain is more vulnerable than before. He's older, sicker and has spent the last 7 years doing nothing to insulate himself from the type of attacks that brought him down last time.

So McCain will lose because he lost last time and he has some more handicaps? This rather selectively ignores a lot of things to his advantage (namely, he’s done a much much better job of impressing the GOP higher-ups who backed Bush last time and have already started raising large dollars for him now. I mean really, he’s managed to bring on board the very dirty-tricksters who accused him of having an illegitimate black child last time.) This is really the flaw with using your own reductionist logic and ignoring evidence.

Richard Land disagrees with you about Guiliani. Since he's the "head of public policy for the Southern Baptist Convention," his opinion on Guiliani is more credible than yours.

And I am to believe everything every GOP spokesperson says about who will win the nomination? Wow.

Recent polls show very negative views about Mormonism among religious conservatives. Since these views have been in place among them for the entire history of Mormonism, it's unlikely that Mitt Romney is going to be able to overcome it in the next 12-14 months.

You’re right. Romney is a dead duck. Which is why the entire point of my first comment was “why do we call a guy polling at 4% in the Big Three?” I do think Romney has the backing of many party elders which causes him to get disproportionate media attention, and who knows where that will go (since it was half the reason Bush on in 2000, the other being perverse name recognition).

This isn't "reductionist logic." It's taking into account recent history as well as factors that will ultimately matter to the Religious Right far more than polls taken in March 2007.

You apparently have a masterful understanding of the religious right that is above the available statistical evidence. You really should go to tradesports.com and invest hugely in Brownback and Other. (The reason I wouldn’t do this is because their current ratings really do reflect my judgment on the matter, hence not much room for profit for me).


The simple point is that when it comes to the Republican nod, everyone is playing this silly game. Combining a list of reasons every potential nominee WON’T get the nod, and saying it therefore must be the one guy who they haven’t the list of reasons he won’t. News: they all suck, one of them will get the nod, and a number of them have positive things working in their favor that it is very easy to forget.


The only person mentioned today who I would say has no chance of getting the nod is Chuck Hagel – and that’s probably the reason he isn’t running.

Posted by: Tony V | Mar 7, 2007 1:03:41 PM

At this point in the runup to 2000, John McCain was the front-runner for the GOP nomination. It was his to lose, the press loved him, he had the momentum and money. How'd that work out for him?

Actually, no. Around Jan/Feb of 2000, McCain was the beloved maverick challenger to the frontrunner that had all the press buzz, but if you go back to March of 1999 (and, IIRC, all of 1999), GWB was firmly entrenched as the frontrunner at 42%, followed by Liddy Dole at 22%, with McCain at 8%.

Posted by: Royko | Mar 7, 2007 1:06:33 PM

Vernplank: I was referencing Bush in 2004, when he personally had the same exact position on gays as Kerry (no to marriage, yes to civil unions).

You're right that it's not about policy, it's about attitude. I personally feel it's not about culturally identifying with the south (which is what I would interpret what you said as), but just about an attitude of screw the left. A number of columnists agree with me, I may still be wrong, but when Rudy is polling at 40% I feel pretty comfortable with this idea.

Posted by: Tony V | Mar 7, 2007 1:07:32 PM

Evangelicals love W because he talks the talk. It never mattered that he doesn't (and didn't) walk the walk.

He's done plenty walking the walk too, more than anyone else who appealed to conservative Christians ever has. That's one reason (though he too seems to discount the walking as opposed to the talking) Stephen is right to point out that the conservative Christians are a bit spoiled now and might hold out for someone as good for them as Bush.

Posted by: Sanpete | Mar 7, 2007 1:30:58 PM

As a solid lefty Democrat, I'd just like to say that if Huckabee is sincere about this kind of stuff, I don't think I'd hate him as president.

Posted by: Hamilton Lovecraft | Mar 7, 2007 1:32:41 PM

Hagel's gonna run. Am I'm silly to think he might attract enough glowing media coverage, moderates, anti-war Republicans, and pragamatists to get some traction? Oh, and by the way, he's a talented pol and a rock solid conservative.

God forbid Republicans figure out what they have.

Posted by: david mizner | Mar 7, 2007 1:42:18 PM

Sanpete,

I was going to try to prove that W doesn't really walk the walk, but I looked for some generally-accepted guidelines on what evangelicals really believe and came away surprised:

1. Biblical inerrancy
2. Salvation comes only through faith in Jesus and not good works. (in particular the belief in atonement [2] for sins at the cross and the resurrection [3] of Christ)
3. Individuals (above an age of accountability) must personally trust in Jesus Christ for salvation.
4. All Christians are commissioned to evangelize and should be publicly baptized [4] as a confession of faith.

Never mind. Bush really is a good evangelical.

I thought evangelicalism paid heed to respecting life and at least attending church regularly. Turns out that none of that is necessary, just get baptized, and say you believe in the Bible and trust Jesus. Nothing else required.

My respect for evangelicalism just went down two more pegs.

Posted by: verplanck colvin | Mar 7, 2007 1:48:59 PM

The media is intent on denying Guiliani the nomination. He's dead in the water.

This is the strangest comment in the entire thread. What makes you think that, Stephen? From what I can tell, the media adores the man they dubbed "America's Mayor".

Posted by: Tractarian | Mar 7, 2007 1:51:24 PM

Tony,

Bush was running for re-election in 04 during a war. You think that a few throw-away lines on civil unions were really going to lose Bush the evangelical vote? 2000 is a much better parallel to today.

I wasn't actually talking about a southern-centric culture. I'm talking about an anti-New York City culture. That's a much broader coalition stretching from Texas to Idaho to Virginia. It even includes upstate New York, for that matter.

Posted by: verplanck colvin | Mar 7, 2007 1:53:37 PM

As a solid lefty Democrat, I'd just like to say that if Huckabee is sincere about this kind of stuff, I don't think I'd hate him as president.

At the risk of... something, Mr. Lovecraft, can I direct your attention to the second comment in this thread? The one that points out that the comment, taken at face value, contradicts the doctrines of the faith in which Mr. Huckabee is a minister? The fact that there is a subtle loophole dependent on other fundamentalist doctrine (verplank colvin's #2 point) doesn't really make such a statement more honest.

Posted by: mds | Mar 7, 2007 2:03:16 PM

can I assume from his answer that those of us who are Muslims or Jews are going to hell?

No. You'd have to ask him, but I rather doubt he believes that.

I don't know - I think it follows pretty directly from his answer that he DOES in fact believe that Muslims and Jews (and Hindus, etc.) are going to Hell (or at least not going to Heaven - those are the only two options, right?).

Huck says:

"Heaven is about one’s personal faith and therefore it has to do with one’s relationship to Jesus."

Presumably - possibly by definition - your typical Muslim or Jew doesn't have a personal faith in Jesus. Ergo, eternal damnation for them!

Posted by: Jason | Mar 7, 2007 2:06:24 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.