Posted on 12/12/2007 12:34:05 AM PST by lesser_satan
Mike Huckabee's star may fall as precipitously as it rose in the presidential stakes, but it is time to ask if something mysterious but important is happening in the electorate or if his rise is only evidence of a field of fatally vulnerable candidates.
In the six months between the beginning of the debates and the Iowa caucuses, the only Republican candidate who has not fallen in the estimation of the polls is the one who is inarguably the most liberal and the one who sounds most like a Democrat. Huckabee would dispute that description but it comports with his record in Arkansas and even with his public utterances when he is forced to defend that record and in thoughtful moments far away from the madding crowds of Iowa and South Carolina Republicans.
A month ahead of the caucuses Huckabee is leading the field in Iowa, and he has risen sharply in national polls so that he competes with the incredibly shrinking big four, which has to be a reflection of his glib, witty and saccharine performance in all the debates. It has liberal pundits across the country gushing about what a generous, reasonable and straight-shooting person he is. Those are not adjectives that many in his own party in Arkansas would have applied to the governor even a year ago. The Republican leader of the state Senate once called on him to be kinder in his public remarks about fellow Republicans.
If Republicans are turning to the moderate in a field of sullen men bent on seeing who can be the most reactionary, it is an unusual phenomenon. Republicans suspected they were nominating a liberal in 1952 when they picked Dwight Eisenhower over Mr. Conservative, Robert A. Taft, in the most contentious convention of modern times, but they did so because they thought he could beat the Democrats and that the sainted Taft, who wanted to roll back Social Security and the whole New Deal, couldn't. But winnability isn't Huckabee's secret. The same polls showing him gaining say that Republicans think he would be less likely than others to win.
On the other hand, maybe the conservatives who see him as the truest ideologue just do not know him. His standard stump talk, which you can catch often on C-SPAN, does carry a litany of conservative dogmatisms: lower taxes, smaller government, abortion, gay marriage, and even tough immigration controls.
Huckabee's immigration stance is at once the most emblematic of his liberal impulses and politically the most paradoxical because immigration is the dominant GOP issue. The campaign of Sen. John McCain, the early front-runner, imploded over his steadfast support of the administration's humane immigration bill, but Huckabee makes McCain look like a nativist.
Romney tried to nail Huckabee in the last debate for passing a law giving children of illegal immigrants state-paid college scholarships and in-state tuition rates. Huckabee defended it eloquently, pointing out first that it did not become law — the House of Representatives passed it easily but Republicans blocked it in the Senate — and that he wanted to live in a country that did not punish children for the sins of their parents. (He also said the youngsters would have to have applied for citizenship to get a scholarship, which was not true. The bill said youngsters would have to give the college a statement that they intended to seek legal status some day.)
That bill was not an isolated instance. The highlight of his last two years in office was his running war with Republican lawmakers and the “Shiite wing” of his party — his words — over what he called their bigotry and fearmongering over immigration.
He bitterly fought (with Democratic help) a Republican bill restricting government services to U.S. citizens, calling it race baiting and demagoguery, and when the bill failed he condemned a plan to put the same proposal on the ballot and doubted the “Christian values” of the sponsor.
“What this has done is inflamed a whole lot of people's emotions, making them think we've got to rush in and pass some laws to stop some terrible thing going on that isn't going on,” he said.
But it was going on. At Huckabee's behest, the state became one of only seven states that used Medicaid money to cover prenatal care for immigrant women because Hispanic women had an unusually high prenatal birth-defect risk.
Over the objections of conservative nativists he worked to get a Mexican consulate in Little Rock to help immigrants with labor problems and getting papers. He condemned federal agents for raiding an Arkadelphia plant and instantly deporting Mexican workers and splitting their families. When a key administration official sent an email with some derogatory doggerel about Hispanic immigrants Huckabee dumped him with the admonition “racial stereotyping by state leaders is simply not funny and must be consequenced.”
In a remarkable talk to the Political Animals Club he said God had given America “a second chance” to do the right thing by treating Hispanics better than it had treated blacks for much of its history.
“One of our greatest challenges is making sure we don't commit the same mistakes with our growing Hispanic population that we did with African-Americans 150 years ago and beyond,” he said. “I feel the Lord, frankly, has given us a second chance to do better than we did before. I hope we will do that.”
Immigration is supposed to be the wedge issue for Republicans next year. If that's so, let's hope that Mike Huckabee is their man.
ping!
“Interesting.”
And telling. Dems are gleeful that if Huckabee gets the nomination, whoever wins, a liberal will be in office. They know, even if a lot of Republicans haven’t figured it out, that the President has very little real power with regard to abortion, and aside from that and a few other issues, Huckabee is virtually indistinguishable from mainstream Democrats. Now if the early Republican primary voters would only get a clue.
Ah, sigh, probably true...but likewise is the fact that Romney is virtually indistinguishable from Bill Clinton.
“Ah, sigh, probably true...but likewise is the fact that Romney is virtually indistinguishable from Bill Clinton.”
Can’t argue with that, except I give Romney points for keeping his weenie in his pants. Not that I’ll vote for him, though.
From the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
“The labor market was sluggish in 1992, as the economy struggled to regain ground lost during the 1990-91 recession.”
In spite of this, one of Bill Clinton’s first acts was to raise taxes.
Huckabee will raise taxes regardless of economic conditions, so he can express his compassion with other peoples’ money. It’s what liberals do.
Great. The guy's essentially a Democrat.
Huckabee is a friggin animal. I think I would prefer Giuliani to Huckabee.
Of all the GOP candidates in the race, only Hunter and McCain have sons currently in the military. Romney's five sons are campaigning, in the belief that they are doing the same for their country as they would if they were in the 120-degree dessert heat of Iraq. Indeed, the Romulan's entire family heritage is one of disservice to the country in time of war. And the Huckster is little better.
Sounds like the situation here in Calif, where our “Republican” Governor has switched in all but name to the Dem Party. Thus the Dem/Liberal dream of elections ala the old USSR can come true. Voters get a choice of candidates, of one Party.
In the next election where Calif Gov Arnold S. runs against a Dem candidate, the voters will have a choice to vote for the Dem, or to vote for the Dem.
“but likewise is the fact that Romney is virtually indistinguishable from Bill Clinton”
Are you freaking kidding me?
Comparing Romney to a morally bankrupt crook does not paint one in a positive light. I question your judgement, to say the least.
Romney’s record speaks to as much. As do his business and mangerial successes and his personal life on top of that. I find it incomprehensible that so many people pass by Romney’s success in business as if it was nothing. Romney has more real world success than anyone in this race.
People seem to have major issues with a guy who actually has a resume, and I’m not sure where that comes from.
Yeah, I’m biased. I support Romney and Thompson in this race. But I’d like to think I came to that bias through logical reasoning as opposed to smears that demean a man’s well-earned character.
That ought to scare the heck out of Americans. What's next - reparations for blacks and hispanics?
I thought that Ernest Dumas was a Democrat and one of Clinton’s pals. I might be mistaken.
I thought though, if this is true, I think Republicans are better off listening to themselves than being directed by a democrat. You know they would pile it on no matter who is top runner for the Republicans. Frankly, I’m not thrilled about any of our top guys but the worse of them are by far a lot better than the Democrat alternative.
Good or bad, at least Huckabee has a record to look at as do most of the Republicans. The Democrats are running on nothing but theory only. Their two top candidates are on top because they want to make the Presidency of the United States into a social experiment. They want to see what would happen if you stick the first black man or first woman in the White House and their lack of experience or qualifications are meaningless.
Maybe that would OK if we weren’t in a war but now is not the time to put any of those lames excuses in line for such a position.... without looking at the crap they’ve come up with in the past and still coming up with now.
It wasn’t all that all that long ago that Clinton the same as called the commanding general in Iraq fighting a war, the same as called him a liar in front of the nation and SHE wants to be commander in chief? That just have to be a joke right?
So no..... I wont listen to what the Democrats have to say nor should any honest republican.
They say on the news that this time around, Iraq won’t be as much of an issue. (for example) I say why not? Because it is looking a whole lot better now? Because what all the little Democrats have said in the past couple years? What the Democrats are still saying about it and about our soldiers, smearing our soldiers that is doing the fighting there? I think all the crap they’ve been throwing should be thrown right back in their faces and not let them change the subject. I don;t think we should let any one of them or their media dictate who we think or about vote for any candidate.
For myself, I’d rather do my own research and find these thing out my own. I don’t trust a word they have to say.
very true. The most dangerous person is someone who is "driven" to do so called good with other people's hard earned money. Our Republic can't survive such evil. Their own egos drive them to trample on the Constitution if it makes them "fell better." Huck would do tremendous damage to our Liberties and push us further towards a socialist hell.
LLS
LLS
LLS
“I don’t trust a word they have to say.”
Smart move.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.