I Agree With Alot of What You Are Saying. (0.00 / 0)

A few other points though:

1.  I think the most likely economic conservative/royalist candidate will be McCain.  I think after a Huckabee win in Iowa and a continuation of the recent Romney-Guliani fued, McCain will win the NH primary. After that the economic royalists will flock to McCain as the best one to beat Huckabee.  Ultimately, I think McCain will be the nominee

2.  Still I agree Huckabee might be the nominee and that he is the strongest GOP candidate, though he has tremendous weaknesses too.  I dont have a link but in the last week or so I read a great article from a progressive Arkansas reporter saying that MH has real weaknesses in the ethics, conflict of interest areas.  Plus his 30% sales tax is a disqualifyer, in my opinion.  He will probably abandon it if he gets the nomination, but that will make him look weak.  Finally, Huckabee is not going to satisfy the anti-inmigrants section of the party, thus is likely to lose support to a third party candidate.

As always, good post though Mike.  I like how thoughtful you are even if I dont always agree with you.

---

by: Andy Katz @ Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 10:22:37 AM CST

Third Party Candidates (0.00 / 0)

So, if he is the candidate, would you like to see a single-issue anti-immigration third-party candidate emerge to suck votes away?

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

---

by: Anthony de Jesus @ Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 10:55:40 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Self-destructive Republicans. (0.00 / 0)

I would never be too unhappy with any self-destructive thing right wing assholes want to do to each other. But I guess I'm not Machiavellian enough to actually wish for racist demagogues to get themselves a platform like that.

---

by: Mike Lux @ Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 12:32:02 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Same Here (0.00 / 0)

Predicting it, as I have done, is not the same as wishing for it.

---

by: Andy Katz @ Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 12:52:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Agreed (4.00 / 2)

Voters vote for people, not for platforms, and they'll warm to a guy who's batshit crazy on some issues if they believe he's sincere and authentic in those beliefs.

---

by: Adam B. @ Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 10:23:41 AM CST

Tricky Mickey Huckabee (0.00 / 0)

[Click here for larger image]
I am not a kook.

Setting aside his resemblance to Dick Nixon, I think Huckabee presents an appealing veneer. He is cordial, has a sense of humor, and seems like the kind of guy you might want to have a beer with. His success will all depend on how the media depicts him. Is he a kooky right wing ideologue who let a rapist out of jail to spite Bill Clinton and wants promote class warfare or is he a bass playing, god fearing family man with just the right executive experience? I think he is a dangerous kook when it comes to abortion, contraception, evolution and  he loves charlatan preachers. He is the your neighbor, over the fence, who keeps up his yard real nice and hates all the same people you do.

---

by: Duke.S @ Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 12:31:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I.E. George W Bush (4.00 / 1)

---

by: Mike Lux @ Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 12:32:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Don't worry (0.00 / 0)

Iowa Republicans always reward the "conservative" candidate with a strong second place finish but never give him (it's always a him) the most votes.  That was true for Ronald Reagan (1976, 1980), Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanan and Steve Forbes.  The losing winger always pulled between 23% and 30% of the vote (1976 was the exception but it was the least organized process by far for Republicans in Iowa).  Huckabee is on track to fall within these parameters, probably on the low end.

Huckabee is not your nominee.  Romney might very well be their candidate though.  Iowa is not a cheap state to campaign in.  It only masquerades that way and only Mitt is spending the moolah.

---

by: David Kowalski @ Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 10:55:53 AM CST

Robertson. (0.00 / 0)

Reverend Pat did win the IA caucuses in 1988.

---

by: Mike Lux @ Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 12:34:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Dole won, Robertson second (0.00 / 0)

Republican Iowa caucus winners.

---

by: Shawn @ Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 13:07:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Nope (0.00 / 0)

1988 Republican results:

Dole  40,661 votes (37.4%)
Robertson  26,761 (24.6%)
GHW Bush  20,194 (18.6%)

Robertson did not win but he blew out expectations and did finish clearly ahead of the sitting VP.

---

by: David Kowalski @ Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 18:08:34 PM CST

[ Parent ]

And... (0.00 / 0)

Besides what Mike said about Robertson, all the other wingers werent serious candidates.  No one really thought Forbes or Buchannan was going to get the nominee.

The only one of your examples that is a good point, in my opinion, is GB's win over Reagan in 1980.  I think that win was more Reagan ignoring the state then an ideological preference.  Also, I think the Reps have moved to the right since then. 

I guess I agree that there is probably some ceiling that a purely religous-oriented right winger can get in Iowa, though as Robertson showed that ceiling is pretty high.  But also consider that part of Mike's piece was about Huckabee's economic populist appeal.  While to some extent, the religous and Republican economic populist voter universes overlap, they certainly are not identical.  When you add the two groups together, that is a tremendous base for Huckabee to secure a victory in Iowa in a multiple candidate race.

---

by: Andy Katz @ Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 12:59:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Let's Not Forget His Willie Horton, Folks! (4.00 / 3)

As reported at Hullabaloo, less than a month ago:

Huckabee Is Lying

by tristero

[UPDATED]

Huckabee is lying. He was deeply involved in the release of Wayne Dumond, the serial rapist who, upon his release, raped and murdered at least one woman. And the mainstream press - by refusing to do even the most basic investigation into the Huckabee case - is colluding with Huckabee in his lies. By the press, we're not talking a loony tune like Malkin but the oh-so-respected Gail Collins of the oh-so-mainstream New York Times bending over backwards to absolve Huckabee. Those fluffing Huckabee aren't the likes of James Guckert pretending to be a reporter instead of a hooker, but the Associated Press failing to report facts, just taking Huckabee at his word.

Here's the truth

  about the extraordinary steps Gov. Mike Huckabee took to help win Dumond's freedom. He has since blamed others for Dumond's release to kill again, but his actions over many years demonstrated his support for Dumond and, ultimately, the instrumental role he played in the parole board's decision to free him.

The truth is that Wayne Dumond was a rightwing cause celebre. They thought Dumond, who was in jail for the rape of a distant cousin of Bill Clinton, was a victim of Clinton's vengeance and may have been innocent. In fact, Dumond had a long history of violence, including involvement with murder, as well as sex crimes before his incarceration for the rape of Clinton's distant relative. And Dumond was positively identified by his victim.

Actually much, much worse than Willie Horton. After all, there was never any concerted liberal effort to get Horton released.

Except, of course, Dumond wasn't black.

And Huckabee isn't a Democrat.

So, nevermind.

Nevermind my ass.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 11:04:44 AM CST

Huckabee not a threat (4.00 / 1)

While Huckabee could win in Iowa and some other states I doubt he could win the primaries. In the case that he does, he would not be a threat in the general election. His stances are so outside of mainstream thought as to be easy to point out. His record as governor is also terrible and he is not liked in Arkansas (doubtful that he could carry the state against Clinton or others). From Dumond to his numerous ethical scandals to his thin skin regarding criticism he would be mincemeat in tough general election campaign.

The Club for Growth crowd also despises the guy; utterly loathes him. They control the party and when they want to detonate Huckabee they will. Romney will likely go nuclear on Huckabee before they do. It shouldn't be hard.

---

by: Paul Blumenthal @ Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 11:19:07 AM CST

Maybe. (0.00 / 0)

I suspect you are right about the Club for Growth/Norquist guys being able to stop his nomination, but I think it's a mistake to underestimate him.
In terms of his looney tune views making him easy to beat, don't forget who our current President, who was
re-elected, is. 

---

by: Mike Lux @ Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 12:38:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

This was said about GW Bush (0.00 / 0)

That he was like Dukakis--a governor from a state  out of step with the rest of the country and with severe communication issues. 

---

by: Valatan @ Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 13:18:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Money (0.00 / 0)

W had it; Huckabee does not.  Money goes a long way in the GOP.

---

by: David Kowalski @ Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 18:10:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Huckabee Will be Tough to Beat (0.00 / 0)

I think it would be great to see JRE v Huckabee.  I think JRE could take him.  Populist v populist. 

---

by: spanky2007 @ Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 11:28:43 AM CST

As always, especially with the bad guys, it's all about the $$ (0.00 / 0)

As long as Guiliani and Romney have orders of magnitude more bucks than Governor Huck, they'll be able to, as you say, detonate him. Lord knows he has his weaknesses. But so did Clinton in 92 and he managed to sneak up on his opponents nonetheless. And if he has a roughly comparable checking account and can fight back, watch out.

I agree with the first poster on this thread. Still think BOTH Guiliani and Romney will be footnotes by South Carolina. That party will NEVER nominate a pro-choice candidate. For all of McCain's idiocy and implosions, he has never really fallen through the floor poll-wise. He is easily within range to win New Hampshire. I think Huckabee wins Iowa, McCain wins New Hampshire, Guiliani and Romney slink away, and it becomes a two way battle royale on February 5. And believe it or not, I think McCain has the edge.

BTW, what is it about Arkansas politicians? They manage to have all the folksy charm but none of the drawly scariness that drives everyone above the Mason-Dixon line away.

---

by: ColoDem @ Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 11:36:09 AM CST

Arkansas (0.00 / 0)

It's really more of a border state.

---

by: Mike Lux @ Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 12:41:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I agree completely (4.00 / 1)

Huckabee can win Iowa, and if he manages that and South Carolina he gets to fight against the economic royalist wing of the Republican party.  That fight would be good for the Republicans and good for America.

As a Democrat I hope that fight happens, as a Democrat I hope that a battered and bruised Rudy emerges from that fight.  I think that all of our candidates can beat Rudy.  Huckabee is their strongest General election candidate IMHO.

My job is not to represent Washington to you, but to represent you to Washington- Obama
Philly for Obama

---

by: Luam @ Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 11:46:07 AM CST

As a democrat, I think I agree with you (4.00 / 1)

but as an American, I want Rudy as far from the presidency as possible

---

by: Valatan @ Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 13:20:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I am not so nervous (0.00 / 0)

Personally I'd be bothered if I thought that he could get a republican congress or senate to back him up.

When you get a president that provides a bipartisan support to any bill a lot can get done even if that president is crazy.  See Nixon for example.

So you might find that Huckabee would have the easiest time passing populist legislation compared to the democrats.  And the hardest doing anything else.

Unfortunately that would mean that non populist issues would probably fall by the wayside, but most of the people who have other issues that need to be addressed also have populist issues that need to be addressed.

So while I'd prefer a democratic president the only thing I worry about is not having a democratic congress.

---

by: Astera @ Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 11:52:24 AM CST

Huckabee as the Republican McGovern... (0.00 / 0)

I fully expect Huckabee to be Deaned, but if he won the nomination, I could easily see a McGovern style situation happening.  While some of his populism is undoubtedly a facade, he is his own man, and did show a clear record of willingness to raise taxes in Arkansas.  I fully expect the David Brooks and George Wills of the world to endorse Clinton or Obama over Huckabee, after some hand-waving.  A known quantity, conventional-wisdom Democrat for four years is less scary than someone who could really signal the end of control of "their" party.  A lot of the party may politely sit on its hands and not campaign too hard - certainly there won't be much in the way of corporate donations going into the Republicans - unless Edwards is the candidate. 

Could he still win?  Undoubtedly - he's already shown more natural political skill, measured by metrics, than anyone in the race, Republican or Democrat.  But that natural skill will be tempered by a divided party and wealthy pushing for the Democratic candidate for a change. 

---

by: telephasic @ Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 13:41:37 PM CST

Here's my nightmare. . . (4.00 / 1)

Huckabee v. Clinton.

Awhile ago, I came to the realization that Huckabee is the real version of what Bush portrayed himself to be in 2000 - an honest to God compassionate conservative.  A William Jennings Bryant-type populist, if you will.  And he's great on television.

Now, against Obama and Edwards, Huckabee would get killed because his moderating economic views get cancelled out by their economic plans.  So it would be the anti-choice guy v. the pro-choice guy.  We win.

But if Clinton is the nominee, then the dynamics work differently.  Huckabee can now run to Clinton's left on economic issues, and run to her right on social issues.  The media would wet themselves over his "centrism" and Clinton would have a fight on her hands.

That said, Huckabee hasn't gotten the full attack-mode treatment.  I imagine that will happen very, very soon.

---

by: jim_treglio @ Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 14:59:20 PM CST

I Might Heart Huckabee (0.00 / 0)

Economic issues determine who I support, so Hillary will never get my vote.  The plan for me if she is nominated is to not vote for President.  If Huckabee is on the ballot, however, and if he runs to Clinton's left on economic issues, I might cast a vote for him.  Of course, I'm liberal on social issues. But since I believe that almost all social issues are really economic issues personified, Huckabee looks very attractive.

I doubt that Huckabee will win the nomination, and if he does, I doubt he will maintain his leftist economic platform.  So it looks like I won't be voting for president in 2008.

Of course, a John Edwards nomination would solve all my problems. 

Rudy is a Tyrant

---

by: lassallean @ Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 15:19:06 PM CST

That's (0.00 / 0)

a joke.  I don't love Clinton, but Huckabee supports a flat tax, and Clinton has a(n excellent) plan for universal health care.  She's a conservative Democrat, and he's a populist Republican, but they are worlds apart.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

---

by: Sam L @ Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 16:07:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Clinton's Health Care Plan (0.00 / 0)

Clinton has a(n excellent) plan for universal health care.

Really?  An excellent plan?

What's that?

Lose to Kucinich in Iowa?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 17:09:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Ok (0.00 / 0)

Well, I didn't mean compared to Kucinich.  But it's as good as Edwards', and beats Obama's. And, I hate to say it, if Dennis K were the next President, the best health care he'd pass would be along the lines of what Clinton and Edwards are proposing.

She's no Republican, is my point.

Does Mike Huckabee have a plan for covering every American? Oh, no, wait. His plan is to dramatically cut taxes for the rich! Because unless our war Iran is paid for by a tax on food and clothes, the system is just plain unfair for the good folks who keep their money in Hedge Funds.

He's a theocratic, fanatical, corrupt, right wing lunatic who is only taken seriously because the Republican field is so profoundly pathetic.

What do you think of voting for him over Hillary Clinton?

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

---

by: Sam L @ Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 19:12:21 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Pretty Much My Politics Exactly (0.00 / 0)

I could never vote for Huckabee because of his sales tax idea, but if he ditches that in favor of a more progressive tax, I will at least give serious consideration for voting for Huckabee if he runs versus Clinton.  It is very very unlikely I could vote for HRC, though I am going to wait to see how she campaigns in the general if she gets the nomination to decide for sure.

---

by: Andy Katz @ Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 18:45:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Clarification (0.00 / 0)

If you read my post again, one theme becomes apparent:

A Hillary Clinton nomination so depresses me that it makes Huckabee look more attractive than he should be.

But, let's engage in some strategery here:

If Huckabee were to become President, he would have a Democratic Congress to work with.  If he is as populist as he claims to be (and we'll see in the general election campaign), he's going to sign lots of the same bills that Hillary would sign.  In fact, the content of those bills might be more progressive with Huckabee as President since Hillary would have a greater power to lobby her own party in order to avoid the appearance of party disunity.  In Congress, Hillary could do a lot of arm-twisting as President that Huckabee could not do. 

Now it's the 2010 midterms. An economic populist President Huckabee is probably pretty popular with Democrats, but half of the Republican Party hates him - HATES him.  Do you think those Republicans will show up at the polls?  No.  More Democratic gains in Congress.  Now, what if Hillary is President?  Assuming she's a 50%-winner in the general, almost half the country will still rabidly hate her.  The Republican base is extremely energized, and progressive activists like me are hitting the bottle hard.  Who do you think wins seats in Congress and in the all-important decennial state races that year? Republicans - and they win BIG.  What becomes of the progressive agenda then?  Hillary enters her husband's post-1994 phase and starts taking credit for things like Welfare Reform and Free Trade deals.

There is a reason why Republicans like Bush and Rove are saying nice things about Hillary.  She is the Renaissance of their broken party in 2010.

Rudy is a Tyrant

---

by: lassallean @ Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 06:32:31 AM CST

[ Parent ]

You watch the GOP debate? (0.00 / 0)

I did.  Huckabee did a very good job.  He fended off the attack video by Thompson and gave an excellent answer to a question about believing in the bible.

Meanwhile, Romney often looked dazed and had no substantive response to McCain on the issue of torture/water-boarding - although that did not prevent him from blabbering on and on.  He lost some ground - did not appear "presidential" - and his jokes fell flatter than the tax Huckabee proposed.

Thompson was almost a non-participant - other than a very negative video attacking not one, but two other Republicans.  Clearly, any allusions to Ronald Reagan on the part of Thompson will be undercut by his violation of the 11th Commandment that is so often attributed to Reagan.

Ron Paul - I don't think he helped his case.  His isolationist and nativist rhetoric became a bit more transparent.  But the real damage was his stand against science and technology funding (he went way beyond the question of putting humans on Mars, which was the question).  I can't see how that stance will play very well with the corporate cronies of the GOP that suck up alot of those R&D monies.  He was spouting off about "revolution", fer crissakes.

McCain - Strong performance, but his stage patter is so repeatitive that it makes him sound like a pre-recorded message.  Plus, as much as he tries to run away from GWB, his insistance that the "surge is working" ties him directly to the failed policies of the Bush Administration.

Guliani- Weak and defensive.  He made no case for his candidcay whatsoever.

Tancredo and Hunter - why bother.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 08:53:39 AM CST