I’ve been reading various conservative blog posts on whether Huckabee cost Romney the nomination. Why isn’t the question posed the other way around? Why aren’t conservative anti-McCainiacs complaining that Romney cost Huckabee the nomination?
Based on market performance, Huckabee is clearly the better candidate. Having spent a fraction of the money, he’s won almost as many states as Romney. While Romney became conservative in the last year, Huckabee has been conservative his whole life. He has more experience in government, is more articulate, and a better campaigner.
So why is there this complete assumption that if any one of them had an obligation to leave it was Huckabee? First, a lot of conservative religious leaders simply didn’t like Huckabee. Some of this is based in ancient history. During the battle to take over the Southern Baptist Convention in Arkansas, Huckabee was viewed as being on the “moderate” side (though he was plenty conservative). Many religious right leaders never forgave him.
Second, the Conservative Media Establishment really is far more concerned with economic issues than values issues. When push comes to shove, Rush Limbaugh cares more about taxes and immigration than abortion. Huckabee is viewed as soft on taxes, which apparently is more important than being strong on oppositing abortion. So much for the holocaust of the unborn.
The more cynical interpretation is that values voters have gotten a peek at the true priorities of the conservative establishment, which wanted evangelical votes but, when forced to choose, simply didn’t view the values issues as paramount. Every time I hear one of the anti-Huckabee conservative say Huckabee isn’t a serious candidate, I wonder what really is making them say that. Do they think he’s unserious because deep down, they really don’t think banning abortion is all that important? Is this one of those rip-off-the-mask moments when values voters get to look into the eyes of their conservative allies and see what’s in their souls?
If this theory is true – that they unfairly dissed Huckabee because of cultural arrogance – then in the way of karma, they’re getting their just reward: the nomination of their number one nemesis, John McCain.
Beliefnet
Advertisement
posted February 8, 2008 at 1:50 am
Steve, the reason why conservatives felt that Huckabee and not Romney was the spoiler had nothing to do IMHO with the reasons you cited. It’s not because they value economic issues over social issues.
For one thing, Romney was well ahead of Huckabee going into Super Tuesday. This was valid for all three measures of success: number of delegates collected, number of states won, and aggregate votes cast. Indeed, coming out of Super Tuesday, Romney was still ahead in all three measures. As the third-place contender, Huckabee was in a roughly similar position to John Edwards a few weeks ago. It’s only natural to expect the lower-ranking contender to drop out in order to winnow the field.
Secondly, Romney’s appeal was broader and his approach was more national. In most states where Huckabee won, Romney came in second or a close third (e.g., Iowa, Missouri, Georgia). However, outside of the South and Iowa (where evangelics dominate the GOP primary), Huckabee ran poorly. Romney may have failed in attempting a “national” strategy but give him credit for trying. Had he prevailed in NH and Florida (both of which he lost by only 5 points), all the pundits would be hailing Romney as a genius.
As party nominee, Mitt would have done better in November than Huck. Granted, in the South, anti-Mormon prejudice would have hurt Mitt but the prospect of a liberal Democrat controlling the WH would have kept most politically-conservative evangelicals in the GOP column.
Outside the South, Mitt would have fared far better than Huck. The Democrats and the media would have eaten Huck alive on his ethical lapses as Governor of Arkansas and his public statements on religion. Mrs. Huckabee would have been picked apart and become an easy target for left-wing ridicule in the same way as the right went after Teresa Heinz Kerry four years ago. Mitt wouldn’t have had those problems: (1) the Boston media never uncovered any ethical lapses on Romney’s part, including as Governor; and,(2) while the Dems and the MSM might have tried to demonize Mormonism there appears to be nothing objectionable that Mitt himself has ever said regarding his faith.
In one sense, Romney was smart to get out on Thursday. If Huckabee hangs on too long, he’ll start to look frivolous.