“On a more practical note, if the key for Palin is to get the Huckabee voters, making them hate you by attacking his core beliefs this way is going to do the opposite of what you want.”
Is there such a thing as a “Huckabee voter”? What exactly is that? And why is a Romneybot like you interested in Huckabee? Divide and conquer, maybe?
What you call “Huckabee voters” are prolife voters who felt in 2008 they had nowhere else to go. They couldn’t go to Mittens or Rudy who were proabortion or to McCain who was untrustworthy and supported stem cell research. (Hunter and Brownback never took off) And it is fair to comment when a candidate criticizes over and over again embryonic stem cell research and then takes money from one of the biggest purveyors of this research.
In 2008, Huckabee was the only prolifer and religious conservative in the race. It will not be so in 2012. Palin will suck the oxygen out of the balloon, since she appeals to both those constituencuies, in addition to economic conservatives (like Club For Growth) who detest Huck. The “Huckabee voters”, as you call them are religious conservatives, who are pro-life. They are not wedded to Huckabee. Pointing out his lack of principle on the prolife issue, in hte context of these fess, is just fair comment. It is the only issue on which he has a claim to principled conservatism(given his big government nannystatism and his execrable pardon record) The $35,000 “consulting fee” from Novo Nordisk raises the question whether the principle might be flexible.
After all, even Mittens sold the Novo Nordisk stock when he was caught with his hand in that cookie jar. Huck kept the loot. that may offend someone, but the truth hurst and I retract nothing.
Huckabee has said numerous times on fox news that he’s against ‘repeal and replacing’ of obamacare(just as lisa murkowski has said). He said that he wants to “keep the good parts”, which is completely invalidated because “keeping the good parts” means you’re keeping the law itself in place and giving full authority to the fed govt. to enforce their death panels and whatever they deem necessary to not cover. Of course, huckabee was trying to be clever, going with the flow with charles “leave the room” krauthammer. Huckabee was boldly declaring his opinion on not repealing and replacing obamacare right after it was rammed through into law back before the polls went 25 points against it(50-50 to 75-25 against). Then huckabee scampered into the tall grass with romney, daniels, et al watching Sarah Palin walk to the front line of the battle and take on the entire obama WH, press corps or “corpse” as barry would say, and the entire media and democrat party and many at fox news(the entire fox&friends crew, cavuto, shep smith, greta, geraldo, juan williams, kirsten powers, et al). They were basically cursing her on air as harshly as the crazed haters at msnbc.
This is what happens when you try to twist the facts that are right in front of you to fit your preconceived notions of the world. A good analogy would be the guy who is certain that it won't rain on his golf day, so when he's standing on the green getting wet, he keeps asking, "how did they make a sprinkler system you can't see, and why are they running it while we are trying to play?"
In 2008, I disliked Huckabee as a candidate. Nothing has really changed my opinion, but there's no reason to automatically assume that people keep the same end-choices from election to election regardless of circumstances. For example, if the tea party tide keeps rolling through 2012, and the public mood stays negative toward the liberal takeover of government, I would expect conservatives would be LESS LIKELY to compromise on a candidate than they were in 2008, where there was a limited choice, and a grave threat of losing the election.
But that's just common sense, and explains the source of your confusion.
Is there such a thing as a “Huckabee voter”?
I'm not particularly concerned with polls this early, but they are what we have to measure with, and others like them. A recent poll showed that the four "front-runners" split the vote pretty evenly with "other", all 5 groups getting 20%.
Some have speculated, including some serious Palin supporters here at FR, that Huckabee and Palin split a common demographic, and that if Huckabee dropped out, "his" voters would naturally gravitate to Palin, giving her 40% of the vote to the 20% of the other three groups.
I use the term "Huckabee voter" to indicate that 20% of the polled electorate who express a preference for Huckabee. The polling does suggestion Huckabee and Palin are somewhat drawing from the same demographics, but not nearly as much as some have suggested. That's why I said "IF the key", rather than "Since the key" -- I'm not sure I buy the premise.
What you call “Huckabee voters” are prolife voters who felt in 2008 they had nowhere else to go. They couldn’t go to Mittens or Rudy who were proabortion or to McCain who was untrustworthy and supported stem cell research. (Hunter and Brownback never took off)
Rudy was a no-go for the pro-life group. Fred Thompson was the candidate who actually got NRLC pro-life endorsements. But Romney and McCain both picked up significant pro-life support, much to the chagrin I know of many. And I don't think the pro-life vote is wanting for candidates this time around, as many of the names suggested, including all 4 front-runners, have been pushing pro-life positions and are expected to run on pro-life platforms.
I don't think it is "pro-life", it's evangelical that seems to be the distinction. In the recent Quin. poll, Romney was actually the favored candidate among Cathlocs, while I believe Huckabee and Palin had the strongest support among voters calling themselves evangelical (I'm not arguing the poll is right or wrong, just saying what the poll said).
I would also expect that there are other social issues on which distinctions might be made; gun rights for example might well split more favorably to Huckabee and Palin, rather than other candidates who were late to the game.
And it is fair to comment when a candidate criticizes over and over again embryonic stem cell research and then takes money from one of the biggest purveyors of this research.
That is the point we are arguing. I have offered reasons why it is not rational or fair to do so; your opinion that it is relevant, while not to be dismissed, was already known (you already said you thought it was), but is not an argument in response to the dissent.
I have seen too many good conservatives smeared on these guilt-by-association arguments, and this one is weaker than most. You might as well say that since Huckabee was Governor, and took money from the state, that he is therefore a hypocrit any time he says the state shouldn't do something. Unless he "consulted" with them on how to sell their research, the fact that he was paid for a job, BEFORE the connection was made, says NOTHING about hypocrisy. And attacking a good evangelical christian man that way, questioning his integrity and beliefs on that matter, without any real connection, I think is wrong.
So why do I defend Huckabee, when he's not "my candidate"? The same reason I defend any candidate against an attack -- if I think the attack is unfounded, and thus constitutes a personal attack against their character that is unwarranted, I will respond. I think we can elect a great president without falsely tearing down the other candidates, at least those who are mostly on our side.
Pointing out his lack of principle on the prolife issue, in hte context of these fess, is just fair comment. It is the only issue on which he has a claim to principled conservatism
Again, as much as I don't support Huck, I think pro-life is NOT the only issue on which he has such a claim, although there are many issues for which he does NOT have a claim. But your statement I think explains WHY you have launched this attack, but not how the attack is a valid one.
I already knew WHY. It was clear that pro-life is a Huckabee strength that might threaten YOUR chosen candidate -- and so you decided he had to be attacked on that issue to help your candidate. I just don't think we should be falsely accusing candidates of lack of principle on issues they clearly HAVE principle on just to try to help our own candidates.
I doubt Sarah Palin would question Huckabee's sincerity on the pro-life issue, nor would she sanction her supporters doing so. I say that because I see her has being much more principled than that.