Why does the GOP Establishment fear Huck?

I'd vote for Huck, if he's the Republican nominee. But I'm a conservative Baptist, and Huck speaks language I'm familiar with. Huck is not running to be our pastor, and there is no way that he can win the general election.

There's an awful lot of so-called mainline Protestants, not to mention moderate Catholics in vital states such as California, Michigan, New York, Illinois, and Ohio. These folks, Republican or not, are not very likely to vote for a man perceived as a knuckle-dragging fundie.

That Huck won't toe the Republican Party line isn't terribly important to moderates in both parties. That he seems to be a mile wide but an inch deep on everything except his Christian faith will ultimately be his undoing in any general election.

Evangelical enthusiasts can only take a man so far in the Republican primary season.

"c) Huckabee's rise shows how badly, perhaps irretrievably, the fusionist settlement (uniting social and economic conservatives) has broken down, leaving the GOP in a shambles."

Has the settlement broken down to the degree yet that we can stop lying to ourselves and admit that libertarians are not "economic conservatives"?

quote: "But lo, it turns out that the candidate who's caught fire comes straight out of the religious/social conservative wing of the coalition, and he is unsound on issues most important to the fiscal wing. It's not supposed to work that way. Nobody at the elite level seems to expect the economic conservatives to suck it up for the sake of party unity. What does that say about the place of social conservatives in the party all these years?"

I don't think Huckabee will get the nomination, and he certainly is a flawed candidate (though who isn't among the certain GOP crop). But the reaction of establishment type Republicans to Huckabee's rise is interesting. They just can't stand the thought of them being at the back of the bus instead of social conservatives.

rr

My objection to Huckabee is not his lack of clubability. Nor does it arise from greed.

Here's my objection: he's asking the state to do the church's job. Worse yet, he's probably never thought about it in those terms. Asking the state to do the church's job is bad for the state; more importantly, it's terrible for the church. (Remember what Roger Williams wrote about breaking down the hedge?)

There are those of us who are fusionists based on our understanding of scripture, you know.

Sorry, I'm not buying. This goes far beyond a lack of clubability. It goes beyond foreign policy ideas borrowed from Jimmy Carter or a record on taxes at the state level that is comprable to, or even worse than, Bill Clinton's. It goes beyond lying (and lying stupidly) about his personal history. Alone among significant politicians during my lifetime, Huckabee has actually attempted to turn religious bigotry to political advantage. "Don't the Mormons think Jesus and Satan are brothers?" You can't overlook something like that for the sake of party unity.

Huck is not a conservative on economics. Romney is and thus is the annoited. Romney was more liberal than Huck when he governed but nobody critiques that. The social conservatives are being thown off the train by the economic ones. End of the Reagan era has arrived.

I am an evangelical Christian, and I don't like Huckabee based upon his record, his anti-free market and nanny-state rhetoric, his idiotic embrace of the "fair" tax, and his foreign policy that has equal whiffs of Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama, mixed in with a little Pat Buchanan.

Do I need to say more, because the above list is certainly not exhaustive?

The main thing I hold against Huckabee is that he has announced through a megaphone that he is an evangelical Christian, as well as a (not currently working) pastor. As such, he is to be held to a very high standard of conduct; he must be 100% above reproach in everything he says. At this he has failed miserably. He has been caught time and again in half-truths, outright lies, and exaggerations. He has been confronted with obvious mistakes or contradictions in his past record and statements, and has been unwilling to humbly admit his missteps.

This stuff about "the establishment" not liking Huckabee because he is a Christian is laughable and reeks of delusional paranoia. Ever hear of a fellow named George W. Bush, who just happens to famously be a born-again Christian? The establishment has been standing pretty firmly behind him, no?

In fact, I would suggest the exact opposite of what you describe is happening. Many Huckabee supporters are supporting him SOLELY because he is an evangelical. Look at the numbers form one of the Iowa polls released today. Romney is easily rated the highest as the best leader and having the greatest list of accomplishments, and is also rated as the most likely to be able to win in November, yet Huckabee has a small lead. Huckabee is rated as most trustworthy.

Personally I trust the guy with greater prior accomplishments who has proven to be a good leader and might actually be the President because he has a chance to win over the guy who has talked about a national smoking ban and has come dangerously close to saying he would regulate CEO pay if necessary.

Rod: John Cole, not Juan Cole!

I think the Establishment fears Huck for three reasons:

1. wrong fiscally; 2. unintelligent/unprepared/unpersuadable, thus, untrustworthy; and 3. not electable

Regarding 1, my sense is that fiscal conservatism is more important to the GOP than social simply because fiscal conservatism affects so many people (vis-a-vis low taxes and a strong economy) than are affected by social conservative issues.

Regarding 2, think Harriot Meyers. They want to trust that when facts and sound arguments dictate a particular action, that the President will be astute enough to hear and understand those arguments and make the right choice. This point is admitedly elitist, but conservatives care more about getting things right than about a clash of classes (hence the distaste for populism).

Regarding 3, see 1 and 2.

"For Huckabee to ask whether or not Mormons believe Jesus and Satan are brothers is no more bigotted than to ask, "Don't Roman Catholics believe in transubstantiation." Because that is a doctrinal statement of the LDS Church."

Um - baloney. Sorry, but as an ex-Mormon raised in the South I know all about the "Jesus and Satan are brothers" routine. I used to hear it from classmates all the time. It's a half-truth - known in the bible as "bearing false witness." If Baptist preachers bothered to put the claim in the context of Mormon theology most Baptists wouldn't find it all that shocking - and so, of course, they don't put it in context. They toss it out to get their congregants to hate Mormons.

As an ex-preacher, this wasn't some vaguely remembered fact Huckabee was trying to recall. When he tossed it out he knew very well what he was doing.

"Huckabee was right to apologize for bringing that up, but then again, when Mitt Romney says in his College Station speech that he believes in the same Jesus that everyone else does, that is something he should apologize for."

Which raises the real issue: why are we discussing theology in a presidential campaign at all? What does "the nature of Jesus" have to do with who should be our next president, anyway? Maybe you believe a president's religion is a perfectly valid concern, but given the luck we've had with the judging the religiosity, real or purported, of certain presidents - Clinton, Carter, W - maybe we should stick with judging their other qualities and leave the religion out of it.

That's JOHN Cole you're citing, not JUAN Cole.

You really should fix that and make a note you've done so.

There is a real difference between nominating someone who is fiscally conservative but socially moderate. I can't do anything about national defense or foreign policy if a limp wristed wuss is president. I can't do anything about enforcing our boarders if someone soft on illegal immigration is elected. But, I can help locally with counseling to help slow down abortions. I can work locally in my state to help pass defense of marriage amendments. I can work locally to help get school choice. Having a president support these issues is nice, but I can still act locally. I cannot act locally on national defense and Huck scares the hell out of me!

In addition, if the perfectly social conservative is elected who also wants to spend my tax money on whatever he thinks is proper, I can't really do anything about that either. I think the issue is that a social conservative who is worse than a democrate on national defense, immigration, taxes, and entitlements will do far more damage than someone who is fiscally conservative and strong on national defense. I cannot do anything to mitigate a Huck presidency, I can with the others.

Either way, I agree with the previous commenter, I hope to avoid all of these problems by nominating Thompson. I just wish others saw it that way.

This is really really weird. I'm not religious. I'm not a social conservative. I should be running away from Huckabee. But I find myself more and more attracted to him. Especially the more criticism I hear from establishment Republicans and the press.

Even though it is obvious how religious he is, I find him non-threatening. That's scary, isn't it? But, damn, I want some healing in this country and the wierd thing is that I think Huckabee would do a better job of that than Obama.

And Huck is smart. Throw the right advisors at him and he'd do fine with foreign policy. Let the fiscal conservatives suck it up this time because I blame them for our loss of Congress in '06. They had their say, sat out the election, and I can't say I enjoyed the results so they can take their Porkbusters and eat it. (Said with a smile.)

Be afraid, be very afraid, of the Huck. He's a brilliant politician and communicator. And he has darned good answers to criticism. And if he is nominated I will support him fully.

GOP candidates? Take a look at their families and their family values. Giuliani - oh man. Romney - he supports the occupation but dismisses sending any of his sons. Same for Huck whose boys enjoyed slitting dogs' throats for fun. The only integral one is what's-his-name, the guy who knows what torture is because he went through it for years while serving his country in its armed forces during war, the one whose got a son overseas occupying Iraq, the one who speaks his mind and is ok with the religious hawks. I forget his name because he's only been a senator for so many years. Of course, his problem with the big-spenders is that he is more interested in his country than he is in the conglomerates that so love to send all those American jobs to China. His name will come back to me soon, I'll send it over sometime soon.

I am totally into social conservatism.

The government out of my social life. I don't want abstinence taught in school nor promiscuity. And all the rest of it. None of their business. It is my job as a father.

I agree with Thompson. Most of what the Federal government does these days is none of its business. And as soon as we give some power to our favored Republicans some Democrat will get into office and pervert it.

The most socially conservative thing we can do is reduce government meddling. That is not what Huckabee is about. I'd rather have Alan Keyes and I detest him for his holier than thou attitude.

Just think. Bush beat Keyes in Illinois by 20 points in 004. Huckabee would do much worse. A socialist with a minister's collar. Feh.

So, if I'm worried that Huckabee as Governor simply oversaw a rise in taxes, a rise in government size, a rise in government scope and intrusiveness, and a "listen to his heart" wishy washy illogical plan of pardoning and commuting sentences of violent felons; I'm attacking his religion? I'm worried he's "not clubbable"?

No dammit, I've said this on numerous boards. I don't care about his religion, and I don't care about who his parents were. I care that he's to the left of Hillary as far as his record goes on nearly every topic he could affect as President.

Is that somehow unclear? Are you still ignoring the text and specifics of the blatant and specific arguments against Huckabee to focus on the "nuance and hidden arguments" I might be making?

Damn I hate this debate. I argue that Huckabee is liberal, the response is "Why do you hate Christians?". I claim Huckabee is a big government nanny state tax raiser and I'm asked "Why won't you let someone outside of the elite make a run?".

I'm not being obscure here. I'm not trying to pass any %#*&%%# coded messages. I'm stating very clearly and very explicitly why I don't like Huckabee. His record as Governor of Arkansas is left of most Democrats. Electing a Liberal Democrat as President is fine, but can we elect a democrat on the democratic party ticket?

So can we get to the REAL real problem with Huckabee? that he's a liberal who has a history of strong liberal action, big government, nanny state government making choices for you, and ignoring evidence while listening to his heart and pardoning violent felons?

Or are you going to continue to ignore every real tangible and specific argument while pretending I said something else yet again? I guess I shouldn't be too surprised, none of the Huckabee "defenders" have bothered to actually defend his history, his actions, or his statements; but instead have pretended that the problems with Huckabee were never the topic of discussion to begin with.

Will you at least feel silly continuing this line of inanity if I point out clearly what you're doing?

Rod,

Mike Huckabee is a weasel, a liar and a wacked-out leftist carrying around a cross to hide behind. He can't distinguish between taxpayer funds and charitable donations, and seems to believe that whenever compassion is stirred in the American soul, large amounts of tax dollars should be the response. He claims the white cross on his TV ad wasn't purposeful, but anyone with any common sense knows they did that on purpose.

He claimed to have a theology degree, then said he really didn't.

He claimed not to know much about Mormonism, but he was a keynote speaker in the late 1990s at a baptist shindig held purposefully in Salt Lake City to confront the 'cult of Mormonism'... there's no WAY Huckabee doesn't know much about it. "jesus and the devil are brothers...?" A slimy weasel.. and a dumb one.. he doesn't know that we've been backchannel talking to Iran for years, thinks we've just not been in touch at all... he's a rube and a wishful thinker, and can't be trusted with ANYTHING.

And he loves taxes and raising them.

God help us if he is the CONSERVATIVE flag carrier. I was glad to hear a Christian minister was running until I learned what kind of guy he was... and my concerns have NOTHING to do with his theology degree-- um, whatever.

It's funny, but when it looked like Rudy Giuliani, a social liberal, was going to be the nominee, we didn't see many, if any, establishment Republican opinion leaders freaking out over what kind of danger to the future of the party and the nation he represented, even though as Ross points out, Giuliani hasn't exactly been deep on policy (I had to research Giuliani for our Dallas Morning News editorial board debate on which candidate to endorse, and I was genuinely startled by how vague he was on many things). I think it's fair to say that it was assumed that Giuliani would be a sound representative of the Republican Party, and that the social and religious conservatives would do like they always do and get in line. Pat Robertson sure did.

But Rod, Rudy Giuliani hasn't been going around saying the stupid things Huckleberry is saying, to wit:

“You treat others the way you’d like to be treated. That’s to me the fundamental issue that has to be re-established in our dealings with other countries.”

I think you're all wet on this one; George Bush was the born-again candidate in 2000 and he was a conservative. Tax Hike Mike can't say the same thing.

The GOP doesn't fear Huckabee, they just know he's unelectable. The only reason we're talking about him is the media is salivating at the prospect of him joining McGovern, Dukakis, and Carter in the general election hall of shame.

Conservative like giving big tax cuts to the wealthy.

I prefer Huckabee who will do something for the little guy.

The demographic winter is coming to the US.

Aging workforce.
geocities(dot)com/demographic_crash

Good information on the subject.
Welcome for a visit.

I'm just curious why you can support a Republican candidate who has two positions in common with the Republican Party. Huckabee is badon all policy fiscal and foreign. He is pro regulation, pro raising taxes, and anti-free trade. His comments on foreign policy, which can be seen in Foreign Affairs, are terrible. He pardoned more criminals then the last three governors before him combined. He's pro-life, great. Super. That's fine. You know who else is pro-life? Thompson, Hunter, Ron Paul, and maybe Romney, depending on when you ask him. Every Republican except for Rudy is pro-life. Same with gay marriage. So I have to ask this: Why are you supporting a pro-life version of John Edwards?

Yep, the fiscal Cons always get what they want. Which is why nominee G.W. Bush went down in flames so badly, and President Steven Forbes has been running the show for 8 years.

Because only the Fiscal Cons get to pick, and they'd never pick a pro-Religion candidate like Bush.

Yep, woe is you, because the Fiscal Conservatives have gotten record level Government growth for the past 8 years; obviously they're winning and you (with Bush promoting Federal funds to religious charities) are losing horribly.

Obviously the solution is to see if the fiscal cons can get screwed even harder this time. So run a candidate who is in fact bad on every single issue the fiscal cons have?

That sounds like a good way to keep the coalition together. I mean the fiscal cons accepted the beating that was Bush, obvious they can be beaten even harder if you try. Why not tell them its their fault for being hit this hard?

Oh, you are. Well good show.