Yeah, this pretty much sums up the opinion I have had of Mike Huckabee since the Primaries last year. When he exposed his shameless bigotry for all to see, going after Mitt Romney on his Mormonism, I knew right then this guy was a flaky a-hole. Why *anyone* continues to support this jackass, I have no idea.
The first is that I find him so transparent and shameless in his manipulations that I weep for those who are somehow prey to it. He’s underhanded and mercenary and self-pitying and always manages to be nasty with that smooth, soft demeanor. I just hate his guts on a personal level. It bothers me that he’s so damned obvious about his manipulations and that many people’s bullshit detectors are so defective they fail to go off.
The second is that he is simply not savvy enough to be President. He’s a chump, a rube, a simple-minded dupe. We don’t know yet what his reasons for pardoning this particular possibly-oversentenced repeat felon are, but we know the long sordid history of his pardons: left-leaning pastors knew they only had to utter the magic words “Saved by the Grace of Christ” to Huckabee and there was a fair shot that hardened career criminals would get the Get out of Jail Free card they sought.
Can someone be this easily gulled, over and over, and yet be crafty and devious enough to defend America against a host of enemies and adversaries?
[ … ]
I think he’s only capable of fooling the 20% of the country that is the most fooled by his particular act (i.e., those who want to believe the best about a man representing himself as God-fearing and morally-straight) and that’s not enough for me.
RUSH: Mark in Standish, Michigan, I really appreciate your holding on. Welcome to the program.
CALLER: Hello, Rush.
CALLER: Sorry to deviate from your monologue for just a minute, but you had a woman call yesterday that just frosted me to no end that if either Huckabee or McCain won the nomination she was going to sit the election out.
CALLER: People like her, I coined a term, a call them TV Republicans, and it doesn’t stand for television, it stands for tunnel vision, because they need to take the blinders off and see the bigger picture. If they sit out the general election, the Democrat wins it by default, whichever one of the Three Stooges wins it. Guess what? In the next four years, there’s going to be probably one, maybe two Supreme Court vacancies come up. Do they really want one of the three bozos over there appointing the next two Supreme Court justices? Is Clinton gonna appoint another Ginsburg, or is she going to do another Scalia? Is Obama going to appoint another Justice Thomas or is he going to do somebody like Breyer or Stevens? Do they really want a liberal appointing the next two Supreme Court justices? They need to take the blinders off, Rush. They need to look at the bigger vision and quit being Tunnel Vision Republicans.
RUSH: I understand what you’re saying. I hate to tell you this, but she’s not alone. I’m here to tell you, if either of these two guys get the nomination, it’s going to destroy the Republican Party, it’s going to change it forever, be the end of it. A lot of people aren’t going to vote. You watch.
Cross-posted at my MySpace blog where I left these comments in response to comments left there:
I don’t necessarily agree with you on Rudy destroying it. If he is fiscally conservative and strong on foreign policy, then the GOP will remain strong. And if he doesn’t push the homosexual agenda or the abortion agenda and nominates judges who aren’t liberal activists, he will be fine.
But, he is my last choice among Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani. Those are the only 3 candidates I will consider. Mike Huckabee and John McCain will simply never get my vote. To me, they are just liberal Democrats who reside in the Republican Party. They will not get my vote.
Now, I will not be encouraging anyone to not vote for them. However, I will not be campaigning for them and I will not be supporting them either. And, when they end up doing exactly what everyone said they would do in office, enact liberal policies and help the Democrats more than the Republicans and conservatives, you won’t find me having any sympathy for the people who voted for them.
Posted by Michael in MI (Thompson ’08) on 16 Jan 08 Wednesday at 02:08 AM
You know, I forgot about the gun issue with Rudy and that is a HUGE one with people. I’m blaming me overlooking that on the fact that it is late and I should be sleeping for work (at this rate, I am gonna get less than 3 hours sleep UGH), because the 2nd Amendment issue is the 1 issue I hear about people not supporting Rudy. And the sanctuary city issue is a close 2nd, with abortion and homosexual marriage being 2b and 2c.
His main support comes from people who believe he is tough on crime and tough on The Long War. I really don’t think that he is any tougher on The Long War than any other candidate. He just has the benefit of being the mayor of New York on 9/11 and helped the city recover from that. I give him credit for that, but that doesn’t mean he understands The Long War and what we face with Islam.
But, the big things for him are the 2nd Amendment and his socially liberal stances. I do believe that will hurt him with the social conservative base of the GOP right now.
So while I am rethinking the effect he would have on the GOP and tnd to lean towards your theory more now, I still think Huckabee and McCain are worse, because they are trying to move the GOP to populism and basically want to end conservatism. Rudy doesn’t seem to want to do that. He admits he is no conservative and doesn’t claim to want to transform the party from its conservative principles. He just states that he has other strengths that qualify him for the Presidency. I can get behind that honesty, rather than someone who wants to transform the party away from conservatism.
But your points are well taken. As I said, I will consider him, but I would rather only have to vote for either Fred or Mitt. If Rudy gets the nomination, I would have to think long and hard about whether to support him leading the GOP and the nation in the future.
Posted by Michael in MI (Thompson ’08) on 16 Jan 08 Wednesday at 02:52 AM
I dunno, Jake. I know I am somewhat unique in my take on things sometimes, but I have to believe there are a lot more people out there who see Huckabee and McCain as I do: just as bad as Democrat. Not to mention that a McCain or Huckabee Presidency would be worse than a Democrat Presidency, because we would have failing liberal Democrat policies being enacted by a Republican, and so the Republican Party gets blamed for their failures. Not to mention that nominating a populist would be spun as the end of conservatism.
I know there has to be many, many more people who are seeing this as I do, Jake. McCain and Huckabee would not only be as bad for America as a Democrat, but worse, because they could lead to the end of the GOP and the end of the conservative movement, as it would be attacked from the populists, the Democrats, the liberals and the mass media.
People are focusing too much on policy and not enough on ideology. Rush, God Bless him, is trying his best to get people to see the big ideological picture here. But people don’t seem to be listening. They are focusing on “popularity” and “beating Hillary” or “beating Obama” or “populism” or “momentum” and they are simply missing the whole bigger picture that we are dealing with and that is conservatism. Policy is based on ideology. It is not good enough to just “be right” on policy, there needs to be a reason why one is right on the policy. The person needs to explain where the policy position came from. Rush is pounding home conservatism as the answer. But people seem to want to run away from that.
I agree with you that the 2 groups who will be most inclined to not vote if not happy with their choice are the “religious right” and the 2nd Amendment folks. However, don’t discount Reagan conservatives, such as myself, who are looking at the big picture here. There are a big block of people who are not just talking the talk about Reagan conservatism, but are prepared to walk the walk. (or, in this case, NOT walk the walk to the polls to vote for a populist/liberal Republican)
Posted by Michael in MI (Thompson ’08) on 16 Jan 08 Wednesday at 11:36 AM
As you listen to this, notice that Rush is not talking about polls, is not talking about “electability”, is not talking about this article or that article or “popularity”. No, he is talking about ISSUES and Conservative PRINCIPLES. Something people supposedly stand for in this country. But apparently, they only stand on principle when it is easy and not when it is the right thing to do.
Quite a shame.
But this is why I choose to listen to Rush and ignore the pundits and fair weather conservatives.
He is a nice enough guy, charming and witty speaker and a populist politician. That’s fine if you want those things in your elected officials. But it is not fine if you are a believer in the Reagan Coalition: Reagan Conservatives Say: Huckabee Not One of Us!
“Since he is not running for head of a theological college, what is he doing proclaiming himself a “Christian leader” in an ad promoting himself for president?…I suspect that neither Jefferson’s Providence nor Washington’s Great Author nor Lincoln’s Almighty would look kindly on the exploitation of religious differences for political gain.”
“If the Republican party chooses to follow Huckabee’s lead, it will allow political sweet talk to destroy its greatest electoral and policy-making advantage: the GOP’s traditional political consensus built around limiting the size and scope of government.”
“Indeed, Huckabee explicitly seems to want to destroy the longstanding partnership that has defined the Right. Ed Rollins, Huckabee’s campaign manager, recently dismissed the Reagan coalition as “gone,” saying “it doesn’t mean a whole lot to people anymore.” That’s quite the claim, but perhaps it shouldn’t be a surprise. Huckabee has every incentive to distance himself from the GOP coalition; his nomination rests on its demise.”
Granted, I will give Mike Huckabee credit. Unlike John McCain, who seems to be trying to redefine conservatism to fit his moderate/liberal policy positions, Mike Huckabee makes no bones about the fact that he is running his campaign on the basis that the Reagan Coalition is dead and he sees that as a good thing.
I give credit to Rudy Giuliani for also running on an honest campaign of being a Republican with socially liberal policy positions. However, neither of these politicians will be getting my conservative vote. But I do appreciate them being somewhat honest. Granted, this pretty much shows that Mike Huckabee, like John McCain, is not trying to attract Reagan conservatives, but rather “independents” and “moderates” and those whose main concern is a “Christian Leader”.
Despite the mantra of the mass media, some political pundits and some bloggers, the evangelicals are not a voting bloc which votes blindly to support a certain political party or person. While I don’t support Mike Huckabee at all, I was a bit annoyed by all the “Iowans are idiots” or “Evangelicals are morons” talk coming out of Mike Huckabee’s win in the Iowa caucus and his rise to frontrunner status in the national polls among Republicans. Unfortunately, our society likes to do this: denigrate an entire group of people based on the actions of a few.
There was only a small percentage of Iowans who even bothered to vote in the Iowa Primary, yet people still decided to say that all Iowans were “stupid”, because a few thousand of them voted for Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama? Also, Mike Huckabee did not even get the majority of the evangelical vote in Iowa. He earned a higher percentage than any other candidate, sure, but they all did not vote for him. So the contempt shown by people across the country for certain groups, based on small amounts voting, is purely ridiculous.
In that vain, here is a post by “I Pity the Fool!”, an admitted evangelical, who states his reasons for not supporting Mike Huckabee: An Evangelical’s Explanation of Why He Doesn’t Support Huckabee
It has come to my attention through various conversations over the past few months that there is a general belief among the Republican (conservative) faithful that in order for someone to beat Hillary/Obama we must be moderate. A truly conservative candidate would be nice, they say, but this is just not reality. My friend told me just last night that former Senator Fred Thompson (R-Tenn) would be nice but in order for the GOP nominee to win he must be closer to “moderate.” The logic here is “be more like them in order to beat them.” This logic is such that I must respectfully disagree. The Republican nominee that goes with the if-you-can’t-beat-’em-join-’em routine will be soundly defeated. Here’s why: If you don’t differentiate yourself from your opponent the American people will have no reason not to vote for your opponent. After all, if many positions are the same then one only has two things to work from: 1. Your personality and 2. Whoever has had this position the longest. Either way is bad.
The former Governor Mike Huckabee is just such a moderate candidate. If nominated, I firmly believe (if his record is exposed) that he will be soundly defeated as the swing voters will just stick with the Democratic nominee. As the title of this blog entry indicated I can be classified as an “evangelical Christian,” one of the more powerful voting blocs in the nation at this point. I am ashamed to say that we have been fooled by Huckabee. [ … ]
Go there to read the rest.
Here are a few comments I left there:
“Finally, I do not support Mike Huckabee due to his attempted manipulation of the American voting bloc known as evangelical Christians. “Vote for me–I’m Baptist” is hardly convincing to me.”
Bingo. Aside from all the policy issues on which I disagree with Mike Huckabee, his identity politics and using religion as a weapon in this race has been the biggest turnoff for me with him.
I’m supporting Fred Thompson as well and have been supporting him for months now, after I determined he was the only conservative in the field other than Duncan Hunter and Ron Paul. Unfortunately, Ron Paul’s white supremacist and isolationist positions eliminate him from consideration for me. He just does not understand foreign policy at all. His latest comments on the Iranian incident clinched it. Apparently he knows about Gulf of Tonkin, but has no memory of the more recent USS Cole incident.
Hopefully, conservatives will come to their senses in the coming weeks and vote how one should vote – on principle – instead of based on “elecatability”. The Left and the Democrats used that tactic in 2004 with John Kerry and were ridiculed by Republicans. Unfortunately, it seems like many Republicans are now using the same tactic. Instead of talking about policies and principles, Republican voters are talking about “electability”. Funny how 3 years has turned Republicans voters into Democrat voters, huh?
Posted by Michael in MI (Thompson ’08) on Sunday, January 13, 2008 at 4:26 PM
” Would he be better than Hilary or Obama? Absolutely.”
One more thing… I disagree with this statement. Mike Huckabee is basically a Democrat who is anti-abortion. I don’t call him pro-life, because he has accepted donations from embryonic stem cell research groups. So he is not very principled. The only thing he really has going for him is his charm. However, Bill Clinton had charm too. That is not what makes a good President.
You allude to Jimmy Carter, which is spot on. The only difference I see between Mike Huckabee and Jimmy Carter is that Jimmy Carter was a Democrat and Mike Huckabee is a Republican. Jimmy Carter made the Democrat Party look bad with his weakness and we then had 12 years of Republicans in the White House. Mike Huckabee would have the same effect, only having people entirely lose faith in the Republican Party. As such, I believe Mike Huckabee would be worse than Hillary or Obama in office. 4 years of them and we might have the country wake up to realize that conservatism is better for America than socialism. But 4 years of Mike Huckabee in office might turn off the entire country to both conservatism and the Republican Party.
Something I hope people think about.
Posted by Michael in MI (Thompson ’08) on Sunday, January 13, 2008 at 4:31 PM