« Reporting That Makes Me Sad | Main | Saturday night at the movies »
December 08, 2007
Wedgies for Huckabee
By Neil the Ethical Werewolf Crossposted to Cogitamus
I've got a couple more things to talk with y'all about before it's time to bid Ezra's blog farewell, and one is Mike Huckabee, who's now leading the GOP Iowa polls. He's a good bet to win the state -- his straw poll success was a good test of his organization, and he has the most appeal to Iowa religious conservatives. For a long time, I've regarded him as the most dangerous general election opponent. Like most Democrats, I remember how easily a red-state Republican cast himself as a 'compassionate conservative' in 2000, and I'm worried about seeing it again.
But the more I think about Huckabee, the less I worry. I think people underestimate the extent to which his brand of social conservatism is a real liability in a general election. Bush's success doesn't have any positive implications for Huckabee, as Bush always blurred the lines on social issues before elections. For example, here he is in October 2004, saying that civil unions are okay if states want them. And we all remember Bush's cryptic "Dred Scott" reference in the debate. That's the kind of dog-whistle politics you engage in when you're afraid to come out and say that you want to overturn Roe.
Having made his religious views such a big part of his public image, I doubt that Huckabee will be able to hide himself nearly as well. He's stuck with extreme positions like opposition to civil unions even in states that want them and support for a Constitutional Amendment banning abortion. And if you want to see something really crazy, take a look at this, from 1996:
Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas today refused to authorize a Medicaid payment for an abortion for a 15-year-old girl whose stepfather has been charged with incest, despite a Federal judge's order that such payments were required by Federal law.
Yeah. He blocked federal Medicaid funds so that an incest victim would have to bear her stepfather's child. Maybe Scott Lemieux or somebody can weigh in on the legal reasoning that Huckabee cites in the article, but it looks really thin to me. In any case, the dude is nuts.
We've seen Republican presidential candidates get stung by right-wing social views before -- think of Pat Buchanan's 1992 speech at the GOP convention, which hurt the elder Bush's re-election campaign. The main reason that social issues are regarded as difficult for Democrats today is that the younger Bush managed to triangulate away from our wedge issues. But if the focus returns to birth control, Constitutional Amendments to ban abortion, and civil unions, we're back in favorable territory.
It's a lot like it is on foreign policy -- if Democrats just show the same kind of confidence on social issues that they do on economic issues, they can come up with a way to defend progressive positions and win. Rather than making a big deal about extreme they aren't, they need to show how extreme their opponents are. It was hard to do that with Bush, because he was very effective at blurring the lines. Huckabee is going to be a lot easier.
December 8, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
I totally agree. Plus, if they want to be a purely Deep South regional party, no one can be the poster boy for that like Huckabee.
Posted by: calling all toasters | Dec 8, 2007 7:42:51 PM
I agree, too. I think events of the past eight years -- especially Iraq and Katrina -- combined with the shitty economy of 2008 -- translate into real problems for the GOP. I think they're especially in trouble in places like Ohio and Florida. The "Conservative Republican" brand has been terribly weakened. And I think that means they need to nominate someone who at least can be spun as a moderate who can take the country in a different direction. So that means McCain (a media darling who condemns torture), Rudy (used to live with gay guys and provided sanctuary to immigrants) or Romney (used to run the most liberal state in the country). Not that I think any of these three would prevail in a general election, but I can at least imagine a plausible strategy being put together for one of them to run to the center in a general election (much as the eventual Democratic nominee will do the same). And who knows, maybe the economy is stronger next year than I think it will be, and it ends up being a tight race.
But I just don't see how the GOP possibly wins with a guy who thinks the Flinstones is a documentary. Sure, he's a nice, personable southern gentlemen who lost a lot of weight. He's just too much of a socialcon to be plausibly marketed to the disaffected, war-weary, Bush-fatigued, economically vulnerable purple state voters who want change, and who will decide this election. But hey, the Huckster will be certain to give the GOP great margins in holding down Idaho!
Bottom line: Huck is too much like Bush. And the last thing this country wants is another Bush.
Posted by: Jasper | Dec 8, 2007 8:32:13 PM
You are right that Huck is a lot like Bush. Both rely far too much assistants who dont know what the fuck they are talking about, and use their bullshit info to make absolutely insane decisions. Bush did it with Iraq intel, and Huckabee did it with the Wayne Dumond case.
In Huck's case, he used lies put out by a bunch of idiot evagelicals who were so mad at Bill Clinton that they were willing to let a serial rapist and murderer get off the hook because hte victim was Bill Clinton's cousin.
Huck even went so far as to claim that DNA evidence exonerated Dumond, which was an absolute lie. There was no DNA analysis done in that case because DNA collection methods were not used routinely by Arkansas PDs at that time.
Posted by: joe blow | Dec 8, 2007 9:20:26 PM
Huckabee is pretty much Bush with less warmongering and, somehow, even more theocratic tendencies. He's not very bright and lives the aphorism of repeatedly opening his mouth to prove himself the fool, he's bound to be a puppet if elected, he actually believes everything that comes out of the right wing noise machine rather than just cynically taking advantage of it like a decent Republican, he was a corrupt and ineffective governor, and he's perfectly wiling to set unrepentant and unreformed criminals free if that's what his base wants. He may not be obsessed with drumming up an excuse to nuke something in the middle east, and he may really hate the gays and think abortion to be murder rather than just halfheartedly endorse these views to wrap up the Republican christianist base, but otherwise he's the spawn of Barbara and George the Elder.
Posted by: Rob J | Dec 8, 2007 9:44:50 PM
Remember, his economic policy is basically the 'FairTax', which is Taxation For Dumbasses. The GOP's moneyed types might like the concept of a regressive consumption tax, but they also know it's untenable.
Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Dec 8, 2007 9:54:52 PM
"Bottom line: Huck is too much like Bush. And the last thing this country wants is another Bush."
He's certainly similar to the Bush that won (well okay, you know what I mean) the 2000 election. As for being similar to the Bush of 2007, that's much more questionable. I don't think Huckabee will be perceived as a continuation of Bush and the Bush agenda, even if in fact he is that in reality, and that makes him dangerous. Why can't he moderate his hard-line stance on social issues in the general election with fluffy rhetoric at the least and even some symbolic policy shifts if necessary? He's likable, he's charismatic, he doesn't seem angry or mean. If you want my uninformed take, I think Huckabee would have a damned good chance of beating Hillary Clinton. Edwards and Obama would probably do better, but he would still be a major threat. I'm definitely worried about this guy.
Posted by: Korha | Dec 8, 2007 10:07:45 PM
I agree Korha, I think Huckabee gives Clinton the most trouble in a general election. The reason he is where he is now is his charisma. Thats a real problem against Clinton and putting them side by side her shrillness becomes even more apparent. It's not an issue against Obama. Everyone knows issues and positions don't decide elections anymore.
Posted by: jenga | Dec 9, 2007 1:15:19 AM
I also used to worry about Huckabee, but now, after seeing more of him, I'm almost hoping they nominate him. This is partly because he doesn't seem like a very sharp campaigner - he's only just now starting to get attention from the other candidates; we'll see how he withstands it. There's also the Wayne Dumond thing, which I think is a big, big deal. That "Dear Wayne" letter will haunt him.
But the biggest reason Huckabee won't win this year is because he can't scare people. Think about it: Bush barely won in 2004, and I think we can all agree it was largely because he managed to convince a lot of people that if Kerry won, terrorists would kill us all.
I don't think Huckabee really has it in him to do this, and even if he wanted to, I don't think he could do it effectively. Huckabee is affable, but he also comes across as kind of a wuss, frankly. If the GOP nominates Huckabee, they will immediately throw away the most potent asset they have had over the last few years: people think they're "tough." Put Mike Huckabee on a stage across from Hillary Clinton, and that advantage evaporates.
Posted by: Jason C. | Dec 9, 2007 2:04:55 AM
I also used to worry about Huckabee, but now, after seeing more of him, I'm almost hoping they nominate him. This is partly because he doesn't seem like a very sharp campaigner - he's only just now starting to get attention from the other candidates; we'll see how he withstands it. There's also the Wayne Dumond thing, which I think is a big, big deal. That "Dear Wayne" letter will haunt him.
But the biggest reason Huckabee won't win this year is because he can't scare people. Think about it: Bush barely won in 2004, and I think we can all agree it was largely because he managed to convince a lot of people that if Kerry won, terrorists would kill us all.
I don't think Huckabee really has it in him to do this, and even if he wanted to, I don't think he could do it effectively. Huckabee is affable, but he also comes across as kind of a wuss, frankly. If the GOP nominates Huckabee, they will immediately throw away the most potent asset they have had over the last few years: people think they're "tough." Put Mike Huckabee on a stage across from Hillary Clinton, and that advantage evaporates.
Posted by: Jason C. | Dec 9, 2007 2:07:09 AM
Crap, sorry about the double post. Maybe the new blog will let us delete them?
Posted by: Jason C. | Dec 9, 2007 2:08:17 AM
That's not all that much stranger or scary as the sex offender he lobbied on behalf of to help him get parole just because Huck didn't like Bill Clinton and bought into some nutty right-wing conspiracy theory that the Clinton family framed the guy. Unfortunately the guy prompted raped and murder a woman upon his release.
The guy he helped get parole... not only did Huckabee receive numerous letters and statements from other victims of this pervert Huckabee helped free (which Huckster must have assumed were all part of some grand Clinton conspiracy?) but the guy in question strait up looked like a creep. You know how some guys look like child molesters? This was one of those guys. What horrible judgement in both of these instances. He is charismatic but I seriously have fears that he might accidently do something to seriously harm this country...
(Disclaimer: not all creepy looking guys are child molesters.)
Posted by: wiretapp | Dec 9, 2007 8:53:56 AM
The problem is not whether the Republicans can win election or not, but whether the Democrats are able of winning it.
With the exception of the Reagan victories, most of the defeats that the democrats suffered were because their campaign imploded. 1988 is a good example, and 2000 and 2004 are not bad examples too.
It´s bizarre to imagine how Gore managed to lose not only his home state but West Virginia as well. And Hillary Clinton reminds me of Walter Mondale and Michael Dukikis(Without any of his qualities).
Posted by: André Kenji | Dec 9, 2007 9:37:03 AM
Talk of charisma and "shrillness" seems frankly idiotic. It should be clear by now that the mainstream pundits dislike Hillary much as they hated Gore, and this is my main worry regardless of the candidates. (Queen Bee Maureen Dowd already has slanders ready for Edwards and Obama in case of an upset). So stop repeating the pundit scripts if you have any sense at all, people. I wouldn't call them biased. It's much worse than that -- they'll subvert democracy just for a lark.
Posted by: hf | Dec 9, 2007 2:36:00 PM
Forgot my original comment:
Huck even went so far as to claim that DNA evidence exonerated Dumond, which was an absolute lie. There was no DNA analysis done in that case because DNA collection methods were not used routinely by Arkansas PDs at that time.
In fairness, that could be stupidity on his part. They apparently used a less reliable test in place of DNA.
Posted by: hf | Dec 9, 2007 2:49:09 PM
think of Pat Buchanan's 1992 speech at the GOP convention, which hurt the elder Bush's re-election campaign.
Maybe, on the margin. But overwhelmed in influence by
1)'the economy, stupid', and
2) Perot's 'sucking sound' that stole away whatever Reagan Democrats were left.
Posted by: Kenny | Dec 9, 2007 3:57:49 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
