Huck = Harriett Miers?

Huck = Harriett Miers?

A conservative counter-revolution is breaking out in the talk radio universe and on prominent conservative blogs.

The same forces that joined to force the White House to withdraw Harriett Miers' Supreme Court nomination, a tender by the president that was as explicitly grounded in Miers' identity as a born again evangelical as Huckabee's presidential campaign surge is based on his choice of career and religious affiliation.

Rush Limbaugh, still the most listened-to talk radio host on the planet, has taken to calling Huckabee the "Huckster." Not even Mitt Romney, in his most profane of moments, goes there.

Limbaugh theorizes that the media is rooting for Huckabee because they know he's the kiss of death in the general election. And he has compared Huckabee unfavorably to Jimmy Carter -- as a snake oil salesman in Southern Baptist garb who later sold his soul to liberals.

On the major conservative blog sites, Huckabee has almost no proud partisans; even the Club for Growth, perhaps Huckabee's biggest critic, has quietly receded into the background, allowing others to take up the attacks. Some conservative bloggers are suggesting that the only thing Huckabee's good for -- or bad for -- is a brokered convention.

Other conservative intellectuals have taken to arguing that he can never unite economic conservatives and national security conservatives, and that, in some ways, Hillary Clinton's instincts on defense policy might be better than the other man from Hope's

So far, these bad feelings haven't filtered down the chain of tissue to Iowa Republicans, but is there a cause, in recent memory, that the conservative echosphere hasn't influenced?

Comments

I do not think Huck will get to be the nominee. It is either Romney or Rudy. It is bad. I would rather have McCain or Paul.

Anyway, here is a scare: Edwards, Clinton, and Obama in Iowa.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/18/524511.aspx

How did this happen? Simple: Shaheen, Clinton, Kerrey, and the Register-Clinton Machine.

Too bad. What is the Press doing? Why is there no one (outside of the campaign) talking about how dirty the Clinton Machine is playing with Obama.

Is there Justice in this world?

Help Iowa: Please support Obama.

Posted by eorse | December 18, 2007 10:47 PM

I'm not sure Marc is accurately characterizing the opposition to Miers. Some conservatives opposed her because they were not sure where she stood on issues like abortion. Others opposed her because they viewed her as a crony pick. Neither of those is a problem for Huckabee.

eorse,

The "highly likely" numbers are more relevant.

Posted by DTM | December 18, 2007 10:53 PM

Yes, but the second-choice is for Clinton. How did this happen? Simple: The Clinton Attack (Shaheen, Bill/Charlie Rose, Bill/Register Board, who then supported Clinton, Kerrey, etc.)

The truth is that Obama and his staff are unable to accept the truth: The Clinton Machine shows not mercy.

Why cannot the Press play the role of an Umpire? Why is NYT (The paper of record) not doing anything?

Why I feel like a loser already? What is Obama's campaign doing? Why is Oprah not going again to Iowa? Why is Gore not endorsing Obama?

What is happening? The world is coming apart.

Posted by eorse | December 18, 2007 11:00 PM

I really don't understand the point of this piece.
I'm an Evangelical Christian who has been active in politics for 20 yrs in Washington State. Our groups were opposed to the Miers nomination and held it against Bush for the poor decision. We applauded the change of course and never heard of a desenter. From my perspective everyone thinks it turned out peachy. Who came out with this perspective? I take it that it was a Beltway type.
Huckabee has been a phone ringer at our house. Since no one really likes anyone running he definitely got a heads up. We sent out his positions and the ground swell stopped. He's good on life and guns and everything else he is not a conservative.
He won't last.
I'm leaning toward Thompson as a full disclosure.

Posted by linda | December 18, 2007 11:30 PM

I recall it the way Marc does, but her abortion position was murky and the cronyism, especially, was a feature of the most salient issue: she wasn't an intellectual and there were so many other finer, much finer, minds to choose from. Everyone across the political spectrum was flabbergasted that the position of Supreme Court judge, which requires such a fierce intellect and wisdom, was treated as a perk position to hand out to a nice friend.

Posted by Emily | December 18, 2007 11:32 PM

The other complaint about Miers was that she "only" went to SMU for law school. Now, I get that there's some major elitism among Republicans, but there's no question that it is harder to get into Harvard's law and business schools and rank in the top 5% than it is to go to a year of divinity school. I'm not saying Huckabee is an idiot (draw your own conclusions there) but it's pretty safe to say Mitt's no dolt. Huck's unfavored ideology is in line with Miers', but so are the concerns about his competence.

Posted by Mike | December 18, 2007 11:32 PM

Comparing Miers and Huckabee is very prescient. Miers was a mediocre option at best, and the conservative opposition to her appointment resulted in the vastly superior Alito. This illustrates one of the few circumstances where "elitism" is preferable to populism.

I think Huckabee is another one of those situations - he's popular and charming, but in the long run, he's a fairly shallow choice compared to some of the other candidates out there.

Populism can be very healthy in tilling the soil of an exhausted political system, but it can be somewhat short-sighted, whereas the "elitists" tend to be playing with the long-term in mind.

Posted by Citizen Grim | December 18, 2007 11:35 PM

But the question is whether questioning Huckabee's intellect/education is enough on its own to rebuild the anti-Miers coalition. Personally, I am skeptical, again because a lot more was going on with Miers than just "elitism".

Posted by DTM | December 18, 2007 11:42 PM

LISTEN GUYS AND GALS, YOU ALL HAVE TO VOTE YOUR HEART BUT I AM VOTING MY HEAD. AND, IT TELLS ME THAT I WILL VOTE FOR THE PERSON WHO I FEEL SURE WILL BE THE BEST IN PROTECTION. YOU KNOW WHO THAT PERSON IS. SOME OF THE WIMPS RUNNING WOULD BE RUNNING TO THE BASEMENT OF THE WH IF WE HAD ANOTHER 9/11. TAKE YOUR CHOICE THOMPSON, MCCANN OR GULIANO.

Posted by CLAIRE SCHEXNAYDER | December 18, 2007 11:44 PM

Conservatives aren't the only ones in the Republican coalition. We libertarians are in the GOP too, and we're hoppin' mad at Huckabee.

Huckster's campaign has served to unite the entire Right-wing from Rush to Rudy Giuliani supporters like me and even Ron Paul. We're all against him. Ron Paul even called Huckabee a "Fascist" on Fox News this morning.

The fact that Rudy backers, Romney-bots, Fred Heads, Ron Paulists, and Rush Ditto heads are all united against Huckabee, tells you something.

Posted by Eric Dondero | December 18, 2007 11:44 PM

The fact that Rudy backers, Romney-bots, Fred Heads, Ron Paulists, and Rush Ditto heads are all united against Huckabee, tells you something.

It tells me that the GOP is going to lose the Fundies' votes.

Posted by Steve J. | December 18, 2007 11:51 PM

Harriett Miers was not an evangelical/religious issue, it was a lack of experience issue...we simply didn't know anything about her decision making abilities because she had no record. Huckabee on the other hand has a very detailed record and that record many find wanting. He shows consistent weakness on crime, immigration and fiscal responsibility. If Harriett had such an observable record, the fight over her nomination would have been a non-issue.

I agree, however, that the echosphere will have its say...Huckabee will be continue to have his record scrutinized and it will be kind to him.

Posted by Mike | December 18, 2007 11:55 PM

...will NOT be kind to him. Sorry

Posted by Mike | December 18, 2007 11:57 PM

ha ha, you morons are going to elect the Huckster and he's going to lose to hitlary! praise the church! sieg heil new world order! coronate the broom jockey!

Posted by captaindog | December 18, 2007 11:58 PM

I just can't see Huckabee coming close to winning. We'll just have to agree to disagree about what was going on with Miers. It has been noticed in recent years, but not commented on too much, that the elite of the Republican party is not just mostly mainline Christian as opposed to evangelical, but is becoming more Roman Catholic. As such, it increasingly puts a premium on intellectualism, given their belief in Tradition. While exceptions abound, of course, there is a fundamentalist and hence, anti-intellectual strain, that runs through the evangelical movement. It should come as no surprise that Catholics are over-represented among the conservatives at the Supreme Court.
If Ambinder is right, and I believe he is, the better question to ask is: Who do the devout Catholics support?

Posted by Emily | December 19, 2007 12:00 AM

And all the attacks seem to be working. The latest just-released Iowa poll has Huckabee and Romney back in a complete toss-up.

Posted by Daniel | December 19, 2007 12:26 AM

The bandwagon effect, also known as social proof and closely related to opportunism, is the observation that people often do (or believe) things because many other people do (or believe) the same. The effect is often pejoratively referred to as herding instinct, particularly as applied to adolescents. Without examining the merits of the particular thing, people tend to “follow the crowd”. The bandwagon effect is the reason for the bandwagon fallacy’s success. Huckabee being the savy politician he is has no delusions as to who his demographic is in Iowa. He will say anything short of, ” the only person that can help a hick in Iowa is a hick his self”. And if he thought thought the evangelical center of the Iowa republicans would buy it, he would say it. Suffice to his saying that he is the “Christian candidate” and that he is choice of the disenfranchised underdogs of the country, this Elmer Gantryish candidate will do only one thing for Iowans, insure that their third choice in the republican nomintion gets nominated. Namely,Rudy Giuliani,because once he runs out of evangelicals he is toast. Or maybe Rudy Giuliani’s running mate. Oh well, same difference.On that note by all means forget about politics and have very merry Christmas,and a happy New Huckabee,"erm" New Year, sorry for the freudian slip

Posted by larry Anywhere, USA | December 19, 2007 12:34 AM

Three things: Huckabee needs some non-religion-oriented endorsements. He really needs an independent, non-social conservative validator out there. Perhaps one of his Governor buddies can be convinced to step-up and embrace him and defend Huckabee's record as a Governor. Second, he needs to fire his communications director, and get someone with better instincts for fighting back, and also someone who can, frankly, enforce some discipline on Huckabee. Huckabee needs to be talking up his own performance as a governor (jobs, education, and Katrina response) and how he plans to win the War on Terror. That's it. No more taking the media's bait and trading insults with Romney or Thompson over their attack ad du jour. He should never talk about arts education to a primarily GOP audience again. He should be more aggressive in pushing back against the pro-business anti-taxers who keep shrieking about his populist economics. Their shrieks are a good thing. A GOP brand of populist economic messaging is a winner in a general election and clearly has support in quite significant GOP precincts. Lastly, Huckabee really needs to step up the online fundraising. He needs to pull of a newsworthy q4 fundraising total to shore up his legitimacy in the eyes of the media.

Posted by dry_fish | December 19, 2007 12:41 AM

I'm not a fan of the conservative echosphere and I am sympathetic to Huck. But it seems to me that here, as with Miers, they *do* have a point. Miers had a underwhelming resume; similarly Huck has a pretty underwhelming grasp of the issues.

I don't know that their actual reasons for opposing Miers or Huckabee are but when they argue that Huck and Harriett just don't seem up to the job, I think they're correct.

Posted by Exile on Ericsson St. | December 19, 2007 1:00 AM

We libertarians are in the GOP too

If you're still in the GOP you can't call yourself a libertarian. Not after Iraq, increases in discretionary spending, Terri Schiavo, wiretapping, no.

You're a Republican who smokes pot.

Posted by Exile on Ericsson St. | December 19, 2007 1:03 AM

Marc,
Here is an article from W. James Antle III written right after Miers was withdrawn. It refreshed my memory as to the role of some prominent evangelicals and confirmed your account of the identity politics that played a part in her pick. He doesn't explore the forces that stopped her, though.

He questions:
"At issue is not just the effectiveness of evangelical activism – although the fact some Christian Right leaders are such an easy sell may explain why only two of the seven Republican-appointed justices are solidly anti-Roe – but its central purpose. Are evangelicals values voters or just another group practicing identity politics?"

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1105/1105evangelicals.htm

(A lot has changed. We've gotten two very solid conservatives on the bench since, and Roman Catholics aren't simply overrepresented among the conservatives on the Supreme Court, all five indeed are Catholics.)

Posted by Emily | December 19, 2007 1:05 AM

When Huck loses Iowa (and he most definately will lose in Iowa), it'll be over for him. He's out in front because he "fits" the MSM mold of what they (the media) think a Republican candidate "should be". Yeah, he's got some ground covered with evangelicals, but that won't carry him into victory in Iowa or anywhere else.

He'll bow out soon after SC where he will also miss the first place mark.

It's kinda nice to have him out in front right now though, so the other candidates can get their platforms out there while Huck does the dance for the MSM.

--Jason

Posted by Jason Coleman | December 19, 2007 2:37 AM

It's amusing that the conservative elites are now trying to reassure themselves: "We really are influential, right?" "We really can dissuade people from voting for Huckabee, right?"

People will caucus and vote in the primaries, and we'll see what happens.

Naturally, if Romney gets nominated, I'll vote for him in the general election. But he has to get nominated first, and in my primary I'm voting for Huckabee.

Posted by Ed J | December 19, 2007 7:27 AM

Ambinder - Limbaugh theorizes that the media is rooting for Huckabee because they know he's the kiss of death in the general election. And he has compared Huckabee unfavorably to Jimmy Carter -- as a snake oil salesman in Southern Baptist garb who later sold his soul to liberals.

Limbaugh has always been a good analyst of the media, love or hate his politics.

The notation the media gives a pass then puffs up unelectable Republicans and Democrats is true. Some hardcore Lefties at Yglesias site readily admit that the buzz is they should do their best to build up unelectables like (1)McCain, (2)Huckabee, (3)Paul to help take down the more "dangerous" candidates like Rudy and Romney.

Their other game is to build up a middle-of-the-pack candidate just to tear them down. Fred Thompson and Edwards being good examples.

And of course, when they go into raw hatred of someone like Nixon, Dubya, or Rudy - it never lets up.

The sense of the 3 puffed-up ones, why they are not threats to the Democrat victory the media owners want?

Is that McCain is easily defeatable because he is old and tired and half the Republicans hate him as a treacherous guy who routinely goes back on agreements and shows up announcing a backroom "compromise" with Ted Kennedy, Feingold, Schumer. To which, a faction of POW-Victimhood worshippers point out he deserves the Presidency because he was taken by the enemy, and/or - he suffered.
Ron Paul is not criticized by the media or hard Left because he is so extreme as to be deranged on certain foreign policy and fiscal matters and quite unelectable. He is entertainment and his legions of young pot-smoking Darwinists who flood the Internet are entertaining, too.
Huckabee is the new media hope because he is clearly unelectable outside the Bible Belt, possibly in every state outside the South. And he offers the media hopes that he can destroy the Republican Party by peeling off the Fundies with a holier-than-thou, our way or the highway, this is Terro Schiavo II, and we will win approach.

A lot of people, like with Miers, think he is another preachy self-righteous Big Government as Our Savior, liberal social engineer elected to do what Jesus wants...type...as Jimmy Carter was.
And like Jimmy Carter, Pastor Huckleberry with his "I am the most religious and pure and good" message rubs other candidates the wrong way.

Posted by Chris Ford | December 19, 2007 9:23 AM

It tells me that the GOP is going to lose the Fundies' votes.

Which is why the GOP needs to nominate Fred Thompson. Fred has wrapped up every Right to Life endorsement and, while not the first choice of the Huckabee-evangelicals, would at least not alienate them. Meanwhile, federalist Fred (Frederalist?) would bring in libertarians. And NRA A Fred would satisfy the pro-gun crowd. And fiscal conservative Fred would keep the Wall Streeters on board. And strong-on-immigration Fred will please the Minutemen (not sell out Gilchrist, but the actual members out there giving it their all). And experienced foreign policy Fred will please the those worried about America's place in the world. And I-helped-John-Roberts Fred will satisfy those who opposed Harriet Miers and are concerned about judicial appointments.

Face it, EVERY group in the "big tent" GOP has something to like about Fred. He is the only consistent conservative. Rush himself said so. And he is the one with the likeable charm (Huckabee isn't: he fools his base, but too many folks like me see him as the snake oil peddler).

Like Fred said, when America's enemies are sitting on the other side of the table in a crisis, who do you want representing you at the discussion? I could maybe see Giuliani or McCain in that situation. But each one has a problem with a core GOP base. Fred has the commanding presence, the force of leadership necessary to take on that role as Commander in Chief, without the baggage of liberal stands on key issues.

Fred has gotten a bad rap over the last few months. It hasn't been earned. It has been the result of deliberate attacks by his opposition in the media. They tell you he is lazy, when he is out there campaigning just as hard as anyone. They tell you he has no "fire in the belly." Well, if that isn't a planted talking point, I don't know what one is. It reminds me of the way every pundit back in 2000 all came up with the term "gravitas" (not even a real world in our English language) to describe GWB's shortcomings.

Now that we are getting into the final stretch before votes are cast, it is time to start actually LOOKING AT THE CANDIDATES, instead of listening to opposition talking points. Fred is the only one who stands up under scrutiny. Voters will see this, and he will begin to climb back up in the polls - especially as more and more dirt comes up on Huckster.

Support Fred Thompson: the only clear, consistent conservative; the man to unite the GOP and America against the leftists of the democrat party.

Posted by Gullyborg | December 19, 2007 10:48 AM

If that’s bookshelf where are the books Mike? And try and convince me no one in the campaign didnt review the tape before sending it out to be aired. Oh I can hear their backroom surprise now, ” hey isn’t that weird Mike?, that bookshelf just conveniently to the right of your head looks like a christian cross”. What are the odds that a glowing cross should mysteriously appear like that for the “Christian Candidate” I guess it’s like the old saying by P T Barnum, there is an evangelical Christian born every minute. PS , looks like the mysterious “oh those bad rogue push polling suppporters of mine grew wings or more funds and followed Mike to New Hampshire and are tring to grab McCain’s votes, since trying to steal Mitt’s over there is a useless endeavor. I wonder if this is the honesty that evangelicals are really looking for in a candidate, or is that they just hate Mormons that much?

Posted by Lawrence S | December 19, 2007 11:08 AM

Aren't we glad that Rush Limbaugh doesn't get to pick the president!

Read Glenn Greenwald if you want to know why conservatives are sniffing at Huckabee:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

Posted by Jim | December 19, 2007 11:32 AM

Greenwald, that's a laugh. Which Greenwald should we read? Ellers, Ellison, or one of the other sockpuppets Greenwald uses.

If you take Greenwald seriously, you're really a kool-aid drinker. Of course, given Greenwald's history, Jim here might be Greenwald himself.

Posted by Jason Coleman | December 19, 2007 12:36 PM

I don’t know what is more scary, all the so called Christians getting their panties in a bunch because anyone might point out that Huckabee is simply pandering to the evangelicals of the republican center, or if they really think anyone is all that paranoid or even gives a rats “expletive” about a candidate wishing his would be constituants Merry Christmas. Guess everyone is alittle paranoid, yea that must be it. Also it’s interseting that only those that believe in Christmas merit a season’s greeting, seeing how there are no Jews in Iowa, New Hampshire and S. Carolina, and it is in fact also Hanukah, but he isn't directing his campaign ad at non Christians, because that would frankly make him a hypocrite, right?.Things that make you go hmmm?

Posted by true dat | December 19, 2007 1:06 PM

I guess the Right only wants just enough religion so they feel morally superior to the Left. A religion that mimics their party's platform that is.

Posted by Jakealope | December 19, 2007 2:50 PM

The current GOP slate affirms that the unholy coalition of Corporatists, Social/Religious Authoritarians, and Libertarians is (finally) coming undone as each group slowly realizes that the other groups do NOT have their best interests at heart, after all.

Posted by Cathexis | December 19, 2007 3:19 PM

Huckster = Old Media steroid candidate du jour.

He peaked too early and is on the decline. Now some areas are hyping Brokebank McCain again.

Yawn.

My money is on Dr. Paul, mainly because the polls are fatally flawed in their demographics, and unlike the rest, he has no debt. Plus he should see a slight bump as Tancredo drops out tomorrow to focus on losing a Colorado Senate seat. In the meantime he sits back and watches the other GOP candidates tear each other apart, and he laughs. The only reason he got into the Xmas commerical controversy is that the Huckster stole Dr. Paul's idea (an epidemic in the race of late!) and he was asked about it.

Posted by Tannim | December 19, 2007 7:01 PM

The coalition to defeat Harriet Miers included liberals, independents, and neo-cons. She was just flat out incompetent, and any one who values democracy knows how important a sound judiciary is.
As for Huckabee, he has his good points, and his bad points. Personally, I can barely see him being Governor of Arkansas, but President of the U.S.? Other than Bush, Romney, Giulani, and Thompson, who is he better than?

Posted by CaliforniaRetiree | December 19, 2007 9:52 PM

Conservatives and NeoCons have every right to feel superior to Huckabee. After all, they are never wrong. Huckabee worships an infallible God. NeoCons worship William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer. It's still worship, isn't it?

The real objections of Conservatives to Huckabee have nothing to do with foreign policy. They chose Bush, who can barely read a map, so obviously world affairs are unimportant to them. It's the sweat factor.

NeoCons like to sit in church and smile while they plan their next colonial adventure. Conservatives like to deconstruct the Gospel to prove that Jesus wasn't serious about helping the poor. This is why they can't comprehend the possibility that Huckabee really is a Christian.

I mean really. A Baptist? Maybe an Episcopalian.
Or a Quaker. But a Baptist? Not just a guy who gets Christians to vote for him by claiming he's one of them, but a REAL Christian? Bad idea. Greasy. Snake Oil. Ooh, yeah. Let's nix this guy.

Let's see, we've still got the Mormon. Well? Religion is religion, isn't it?

There's JulieAnnie. It's not like he's gonna cross-dress in the White House, or anything. You know, those cops taking his mistress shopping, that was a once-in-a-lifetime deal. It's over now. Forget it.

I bet Fred's a Christian too. Good old Fred. Hell, anybody but Huckabee.

Posted by Ardeur | December 19, 2007 11:34 PM

Sad, We use to have a freedom loving state such as New Hampshire Kick off the primaries. In a positive light, to somewhat sway the communist states such as New Jersey, California, New York and Mass into making a more constitutional or liberty choice(WHICH RARELY WORKED). Now we have a state that is the heart of the country/religous (I blame it on the fact they have no oceans or much other entertainment) that very well may determine the outcome of the election... If the Huckster didnt have Iowa as an early primary state, He would be all but washed up....
Sad with Hucks Background, this country could be in some trouble.
Note Originally from NJ so I labeled NJ the Commie state first.
Second I consider myself in self exile, Unlike all those hollywood phonies, I got sick and tired of what's going on and I LEFT THE COUNTRY.
3rd. I had followed Ron Paul for 3 yrs already, when I found out he was running, I said NO WAY, and if he wins, he would probably be killed. (MOSTLY I think because he is uncorruptable and does not belong to the ELITE,CFR TRI COMM. ECT.
Oh yeah he would take away the banksters unlimited way of keeping themselves rich, fed reserve corp.)

Sorry for the rant and good luck with the rEVOLlution. Wish I was there....

Posted by Expat but Still a Patriot | December 20, 2007 9:27 AM

I think what people overlook is, what happens if huckabee gets the nomination? Even the most diehard party loyalist is going to have a hard time stumping for him after some of the nasty attack Huck launched. (Stating anyone who opposes him opposes God's will and are just a bunch of greedy elitists.) The National Reviews and Weekly Standards of the world won't attack him if that happens, but they won't help him.

Every other candidate is playing it smart. They're not making enemies out of the conservative intelligista, knowing that eventually, they will need them.

Who is the Evangelical champion that will defend Huckabee to the death against the left? Chuck Norris? Give me a break.

If Huck gets the nomination (which I doubt) he's still screwed himself royally.

Posted by Kevin M. Tierney | December 20, 2007 4:35 PM