Are we lemmings, or do we want to win? Rudy, Romney and Thompson have a chance against the Hillarhooror....
Posted on 12/13/2007 2:44:10 PM PST by Responsibility2nd
The ghost of Howard Dean haunts the pundit class. As soon as a candidate of either party spikes up in the polls, he is compared with Dean, who had a spectacular boomlet in the second half of 2003 only to deflate as soon as people began to vote in early 2004.
After many false prophecies, Dean circa 2008 has finally arrived. He is former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. Not because he will inevitably blow himself up in Iowa. But because, like Dean, his nomination would represent an act of suicide by his party.
Like Dean, Huckabee is an under-vetted former governor who is manifestly unprepared to be president of the United States. Like Dean, he is rising toward the top of polls in a crowded field based on his appeal to a particular niche of his party. As with Dean, his vulnerabilities in a general election are so screamingly obvious that it's hard to believe that primary voters, once they focus seriously on their choice, will nominate him.
The GOP's social conservatism inarguably has been an enormous benefit to the party throughout the past 30 years, winning over conservative Democrats and lower-income voters who otherwise might not find the Republican limited-government message appealing. That said, nominating a Southern Baptist pastor running on his religiosity would be rather overdoing it. Social conservatism has to be part of the Republican message, but it can't be the message in its entirety.
Someone needs to tell Huckabee. His first TV ads in Iowa touted him as a "Christian leader," and his target audience of evangelicals has responded. But according to a Pew poll released in early December, only 1 in 7 nonevangelical Republicans support him in Iowa and 1 in 20 nonevangelicals in New Hampshire and South Carolina.
Huckabee has declared that he doesn't believe in evolution. Even if there are many people in America who agree with him, his position would play into the image of Republicans as the anti-science party. This would tend to push away independents and upper-income Republicans. In short, Huckabee would take a strength of the GOP and, through overplaying it, make it a weakness.
He'd do the same on taxes. In general, the public tends to support Democratic proposals for bigger government, which Republicans counter by saying that the proposals will require higher taxes. Huckabee will be equipped poorly to make this traditional Republican comeback, given his tax-raising history in Arkansas. Huckabee tries to compensate with a sales-tax scheme that allows him to say he supports eliminating the IRS, but is so wildly implausible that it would be a liability in a general election.
Then, there's national security, the Republican trump card during the Cold War and after 9/11. Huckabee not only has zero national-security credentials, he basically has no foreign-policy advisers either, as a New York Times Magazine piece this Sunday makes clear. In a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in September, Huckabee struck notes seemingly borrowed from Barack Obama, hitting the Bush administration for its "bunker mentality" and strongly supporting direct talks with Iran. A foreign-policy debate with a Democratic nominee would be a competition over who can promise to be nicer to foreign countries.
None of this is a winning formula. Huckabee has been running his campaign out of his back pocket, and has done it extremely well. There's a reason, though, that serious candidates surround themselves with policy experts. It's necessary to running a campaign based on more than sound bites. Wherever you scratch Huckabee on policy, he seems an inch deep. Do Republicans really want to enter what is already a tough political year with a candidate apparently allergic to preparation, and who has shown no predilection for organizing or fundraising, when he can do cable TV appearances instead?
Democrats have to be looking at Huckabee the way Republicans once regarded Dean -- as a shiny Christmas present that is too good to be true.
Rich Lowry is author of Legacy: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years .
Huck is not as nutty as Dean, but there are parallels.
He is 100% unelectable. He will fade.
I’m just not impressed with all these pronouncements: Fred Thompson needs to make a “comeback,” it will be a disaster if Mike Huckabee is nominated, etc.
News flash, y’all: NOBODY HAS VOTED YET!
Huckabee would be a disaster for the GOP, if nominated. He would surely lose.
Yah, Huckabee's personality is almost opposite of Dean's. Huckabee is basically genial. Dean is basically overly aggressive. That said, the undervetted line sounds right.
No votes have been cast yet. It’s a volatile time with a 24 hour news cycle. This will all sort itself out...
Are we lemmings, or do we want to win? Rudy, Romney and Thompson have a chance against the Hillarhooror....
In the intrest of full disclosure Lowry should of mentioned that NRO has endorsed Romney and he, Lowry, is the loudest Romney supporter there.
Lowry isn’t trying to draw parallels between Huckabee and Dean, he is drawing parallels between their candidacies, such as their limited appeal and the affect that their nomination would have on the parties.
I would like to throw in one more parallel, both candidates appealed to a very narrow group of ideologues on the fringes of the parties, who thought/think that their ideals should define the party without any room for compromise.
Huckabee tries to compensate with a sales-tax scheme that allows him to say he supports eliminating the IRS, but is so wildly implausible that it would be a liability in a general election.
-
he may be very popular for this fair tax, which has a lot of grass roots support. It just doesn’t work, especially for a big tax and spender like Huck.
Thank you. I was gonna say that Lowry was a Rooty-Tooty supporter. But clearly, Lowry is anti-Huck.
My take: Anybody but Giuliani.
Recall the Dean Takedown of 2004. It was a perfect plan, perfectly executed. The idea that dean was unstable, on drugs, in psychotherapy, etc, were slowly planted over time. The groundwork went on for months. Then, in one unscripted moment, Dean confirmed every suspicion with the “Yeeeeaaagh”.
Taken in isolation, the “Yeeeeaaagh” was the kind of run-of-the-mill crowd-stoking that candidates do every day of the week. But after the seeds had been planted so carefully, it only took a little nudge to get everybody in the Round-Heeled Media to say that it was an idication that the stress of losing Iowa had put Howard Dean over the edge.
Now, what are the seeds being planted today about Huckabee? Holy Roller... Bible Thumper... Religiously Intolerant... These perceptions are being carefully nurtured. Eventually, Huckabee is going to do something that plays into this perception, and it will get five days of air-play, and it will all be over.
The trap is being set even as we speak.
agree. The sooner he fades the better.. In the coming weeks more people in the voting states will focus more clearly. I have a hunch Huck's numbers will start falling and falling.... I can't wait for this leftist statist to exit the scene. What will the poor Huck-o-phants that post every 15min do?
no, it’s that he is *not* appealing to fiscal and national security conservatives. Reagan and Bush proved you can appeal to both social as well as fiscal and national security conservatives.
Though I might add the GOP has still been unable to come up with someone who is strong on immigration.
Well, of course none of us likes a liberal like Dean, but he was actually the best candidate, much stronger than that jackass jean vietnam kerry.
He was nailed by a single episode, endlessly repeated and distorted by the MSM, on orders from the Party. Teddy Kennedy wanted Kerry, and hillary wanted to remove Dean from the scene because she was afraid he might win and spoil her plans for 2008.
As govenor of Vermont, Dean was actually a fiscal conservative, and repaired a badly bleeding budget. Then the press did a job on him, and that’s all anyone can remember.
Sure, sometimes he rants and raves, but so do all the other uberliberals.
Huckleberry, on the other hand, is a total jackass. Dean was actually a pretty good governor, within his limits. Huckleberry is a lousy one.
My take: anybody but Huckabee. I hate to say it, but even McCain would be better than Huckabee.
In New Hampshire, absentee ballots have been available since Monday.
No, Ron Paul is the GOP Howard Dean.
Huckabee is running on his religion. He has nothing else to run on. Regan was a conservative, but he was a secularist conservative with a respect for God. Bush acknowledges his religious beliefs, but he didn’t say vote for me because I am a born again Christian.
Huckabee’s record on taxes is poor, and his record on immigration is worse. What else does he have to offer, except his self proclaimed moral certitude.
Bottom line -- get out and fight for Fred Thompson. He is the only chance for victory.
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.