1

Congratulations to you and the rest of the campaign! I hope the victory in Iowa will give Huckabee the momentum to win the nomination and the White House.

2

This was a pretty good night for Huckabee. Congratulations, you probably had a little something to do with that Joe, as you did work for the campaign after all.

It will be interesting to see where the Republican primaries go from here.

3

All you need to know about the "conservative media" is that their darlings are McCain, Giuliani and Romney. These men are the least "conservative" in the sense that everyone else thinks about what conservatism means. Why, you might actually think that most of the people at these media outlets aren't actually conservatives with the way they vote.

4

Congratulations on the win. Let's see where we go from here.

5

The pundits were absolutely wrong on the people didn't listen to them. Perhaps the socons are finally getting tired of being pushed to the back of the bus.

6

I read the Newsweek bio article on Huckabee. I happened to tune into Hugh Hewitt when he said that Huck was playing dirty politics when Huck apologized for asking a question to a reporter about Christ and Satan being spirit brothers within the Mormon religion. HH thought it was a sham apology and a deliberate ploy. Dirty, despicable politics.

I've been kind of taken aback by HH's crass shilling for Romney. I thought he would have taken a more neutral position honestly. I've read his book "Embarrassed Believer" and was really impressed. I usually like his radio show very much. But between his mistaken prognosis of election 2006 and this Huckabee shilling, I've become rather disappointed in HH. I think he's too good to be hosing things up so badly. I'm hoping he turns it around.

7

I don't plan to vote for him, but I'm pleased. Obama vs. Huckabee promises to be a much more interesting and optimistic campaign than Clinton vs. Guiliani.

8

Huckabee wins in the cornfields. What a surprise! Let's see how he does in New Hampshire.

I would like to see him win the nomination, but not for the same reason you would.

9

How on earth can Huckabee be cast as "the most consistent conservative" of the GOP candidates when,

(a.) Only Fred Thompson talks about Federalism;
(b.) Huckabee's foreign policy statements, particularly about Iran, scream ignorance and flimsiness;
(c.) Huckabee's penchant for nanny-state-ism would, if anything, follow in the "compassionate" conservative trend of G.W.Bush, leading to yet more expansion of the federal government?

I mean, if Huck were an economic libertarian, and an informed foreign-policy hawk, and approached the Constitution from a framers-intent, Federalist point-of-view, he'd feel more like a Conservative for me.

Sure, it's great Huck's an evangelical. But at present, I just think that he reminds me more of Jimmy Carter. Speaking as a Georgian, I can't bear the thought of a Second Coming of That Bitter Embarrassment.

10

Huck is no true conservative. He's a professional politician.He let a rapist go free to rape and kill more people shortly after he got out. Why? It was a political move. He's no different than Bush or any other phony Conservative.

11

R.C. (a.) Only Fred Thompson talks about Federalism;

Federalism is not inherently conservative.

(b.) Huckabee's foreign policy statements, particularly about Iran, scream
ignorance and flimsiness;

How so? He says that he will use military force if necessary to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons. How does that differ from Thompson?

(c.) Huckabee's penchant for nanny-state-ism would, if anything, follow in
the "compassionate" conservative trend of G.W.Bush, leading to yet more
expansion of the federal government?

What is his "penchant for nanny-state-ism"? Can you provide, say, three examples?

12

Joe,

What I'd like to see is how Huck responds to our current tendencies towards a Wilsonian foreign policy. Got any info for us on that?

Collin
http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com

13

I suspect the biggest amount of criticism that will start coming against Huckabee over the next month or so will be his 'fair tax'. Now that he has established himself as a serious candidate and the others that had seemed like heavy-weights are showing their weaknesses (Mitt, Rudy, & Fred) people will start giving him the credit of taking him seriously.

It's pretty obvious from here that the Republicans should nominate McCain. He is conservative so that should make them happy but he also has the credibility as a long time Bush critic not to be 'more of the same' in the general election which is gearing up to be a Democratic sweep. Ron Paul would also be a good choice but he suffers from being a little too ideologically pure. Electing him would be too much like electing Ayn Rand IMO.

On the Democratic side it's interesting that their upset (Obama over Clinton) is intellectually stronger than the GOP's upset. While I'm sure Obama has his faults he seems to me to be more intellecutally solid over Hillary. Huckabee also appears more solid to me than Romney but the difference is striking. It's like Huckabee is the Wal-Mart brand and Mitt is the Wal-Mart 'clearance' rack while Obama and Hillary appear to me to be like Macy's versus JC Penny's.

I'm trying to make that observation in a non-partisan way. You can have smart Republicans and dumb Democrats just as easily as the reverse. Honestly, I think it seems this year we have the reverse.

Assuming some of you here are not of the opinion that intelligence only exists on your side of the asile...perhaps you can say what you honestly think of the quality of the two parties this year versus previous ones.

14

Hi, Joe.

Congrats on the victory.

I think this reflects a perennial divide between the elites and the average Joe (pardon the pun). This divide is replicated in Evangelicalism. The Evangelical elites are simply blindsided by someone like Huckabee.

BTW, Michael Medved is a honorable exception to the conservative groupthink on Huckabee:

http://michaelmedved.townhall.com/blog/

15

Nice try, but the numbers aren't that great. He got almost exactly a third of the overall vote. His poll numbers in almost every category are within a few percent of that figure. Where you cite him getting top percentage in every sub-group withing a given category, that percentage is almost always between 30% and 38%. And the other candidates don't show much variation between their vote percentages in those categories either.

What this means is not that he's the most popular among all voters. It means that the various categories you cite - "Events in Pakistan" (?), "Feelings about Bush Administration", etc. - are simply not breakdowns that influence voting choices among the electorate. The fact that four of the bottom five income categories deviated in their vote percentages for Huckabee by less than 4 points, while averaging within one point of his overall vote percentage, only means that income was not a decisive factor in their votes - it did not influence them to vote for or against him more or less than any other factor.

The real question is: in what categories did Huckabee's totals come to much greater than his overall average? That is, where are his votes mostly coming from? And there, the answers are not good - for Huckabee, that is.

The only categories in which he got more than 40% of the vote (given that he got 33% overall), are: Evangelical Christians; voters for whom religion matters "a great deal"; voters who vote for the candidate who "shares my values"; and, oddly, voters who made up their minds more than a week ago but not more than a month ago.

Ignoring that last bit (??), basically Huckabee got there in Iowa entirely on the backs of evangelicals, who made up 60% of the voters. But they make up less than a quarter of voters nationwide, and only about half of Republicans. Huckabee polled 14% (!) even among Republican non-evangelicals, coming in fourth place in that category. True to form, the evangelicals were a low-polling group for Romney, who does better the less religious the voters are. (Demonstrating how firmly they embraced his supposedly heartwarming message of religious tolerance [for conservative Christians].) Romney also polls OK with "moderates" (by GOP standards), while they are a very low-polling group for Huckabee.

So, Huckabee has a tough fight to win the nomination, but he's gloriously dead meat in the general election. He got less than half the evangelical vote in a state hugely dominated by evangelicals, and low numbers among everyone else. It's all downhill from there. If he's not even getting half of the half of the GOP base that's likely to vote for him at all, he's going to have trouble getting the nomination. But nationwide he's a no-hoper. 75% of the country is non-evangelical or "born again", and 86% of them who are Republican didn't vote for him in his strongest state.

I can't tell you how glad I was to hear he won Iowa. I do think it's a long shot, but I desperately hope he gets the GOP nomination. He'll destroy the religious right as a political force, and tank the Republican party - maybe even force a schism. He's the greatest thing for America that the GOP has ever produced - an evangelical who's not afraid to sound as crazy as he really is, and whose poll numbers are just what they should be. I want this election to happen. But Huckabee's only hope for that is if Romney and Giuliani both stay in the race as long as possible, splitting the sane vote for as long as they can. Huckabee simply isn't popular enough even with his own base to win the nomination on his own. His own victory numbers show that.

16

Colin What I'd like to see is how Huck responds to our current tendencies towards a Wilsonian foreign policy. Got any info for us on that?

At the August GOP debate in Iowa, Huckabee was asked if he supports Bush's foreign policy goal of exporting democracy. He strongly opposes it, and says we ought to mind our own business and fix our own problems.

See here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqzhzLyw-cM

17

Honestly, I think if Huckabee, McCain, or Giuliani get the candidacy, the GOP is in trouble for the general election. Each of the three are or have been in direct opposition to a portion of the conservative base of the party. Romney may be viewed warily, as folks question if he believes what he says now, but he’s at least talking the talk for conservatives.

I’m a Thompson guy myself, and obviously think he’d be the best guy for conservatives, but I also realize he’s a very long shot right now.

In 2000, McCain got his start campaigning against the conservative base of the party, and it carried him well until South Carolina. Huckabee seems to be doing the same thing now, if the tone of Joe’s posts is any indication.

18

Boonton:

I'm not sure I can really answer your question. There have been so many people (on both sides) who are just saying what will score political points, it's hard to tell what most of them actually think.

I think that Huckabee is right that the tax system is totally broken, and I think that you are right that the Fair Tax proposal is the wrong way to fix it.

I think the "immediate withdrawl from Iraq" Democrats are insane. They're either clueless about the mess we'd leave behind, or they don't care as long as it gets them elected.

Advantage: Huckabee. Why? Because Congress writes the actual tax laws, and the President has a much freer hand with foreign policy and as commander in chief. So stupidity (in a president) in the area of economic policy is less dangerous than stupidity in foreign policy. At least, that's what it looks like to me.

But I think it's great that Huckabee and Obama won Iowa, because I feel that those two are more honest and less just saying what they think we want to hear.

19

Joe,
I think you need to spread the word about what Huckabee's so-called populist proposals are instead of challenging critics to come up with them. I just checked out his website, and while he connects with people who are looking for help (I feel your pain), the solutions he talks about are mostly free-market answers.
He's connecting with the masses on what their struggles are. On the Dem side, when politicians do that, they say government pgms are the answer. I think that's why the economic conservative Repubs are wary of him (I was wary on that issue, until I read the website). What they don't realize is that he's talking about free-market solutions in health-care, for example.

I think he oversells the benefits of music and art in education. Those things are important, but I think he has a false correlation between music-art and general success in life. (More likely there are common causes for both success & involvement in music-art.) It's fine to make sure those remain part of education - but not wise to make that a centerpiece of your education platform.

Here's my hesitations about Huckabee. I have a little uneasiness about whether he's really what he says he is. This is because of the Romney (devil & Jesus are brothers, right? But hey, I'm not going to say anything negative about Romney's faith. Ooops, sorry.) insinuations and the latest I'm not going to play this ad on TV because it's negative and here's the ad I'm not going to play...Enjoy. Also, the folksiness probably works well on the stump, but it's a little too over the top during serious interviews on news shows. Cracking a joke every 3rd sentence makes me nervous no matter who I'm talking with. I feel like they're trying to distract me and pull a fast one. A little joking and connection with the audience is fine.
He should study Reagan's humor. He picked his moments better.

20

Question: Why aren't conservative Christians (RC's, EO's, and Prots) charitably giving grace to Huckabee?

They give a pass to other candidates on their "errors", but there's no grace or mercy for Huck's "errors". Why?

That seems terribly wrong and hypocritical to me.

21

The best thing I've heard said so far in this campaign is when Fred Thompson was asked something like, what's the biggest problem with education in America and he answered "The NEA". I think he's absolutely right, and his willingness to speak straight on an issue like that caused me to take a second look.

Based on the criticism of Huckabee's domestic policies by other Repubs and Huckabee's opposition of vouchers, I assumed he toed the line for Big Education. However, when you read his website on education, it's clear that the NEA will be no fan of him. He got a Fair Dismissal Law passed, which allowed poor performing teachers to be fired. (Can you imagine, what a concept.) He proposes making it tougher for teachers to gain tenure. Yet, in Ark., he did help raise pay for teachers that actually deserved it.

So anyway, I'm undecided. For different reasons, I like Thompson, McCain, Huckabee, and Ron Paul.
I think any of them could have a chance against Hillary, but I don't think McCain or Thompson would fare well against the energy and youthfulness of an Obama campaign.

22

Good point Truth Unites....
I do give a pass to McCain on some issues because of his strength in others. Same with Thompson on CFR.

For me, I think I have a sense of being burned in the past. Repubs always talk about shrinking government, but rarely do it. What good, in the long run, is it to cut taxes if you don't also cut spending? That's partly why I like McCain, he's demonstrated fiscal conservativism on spending during non-election years. You KNOW things would shrink under Paul. I don't know about Thompson. I doubt everything Rudy or Romney says.

23

Joe Carter,
Question:
Huckabee doesn't talk about whether he'd lower taxes. He did in the past, but his proposal is the Fair Tax. I haven't heard him discuss the size of government. Does he want the Federal government to shrink? Once the Fair Tax is established, there would be a few years of calibrating the pct. if he wants to keep government revenue at current levels. An experiment like that could collect way more or way less on the first attempts. Would he try to lower it or keep it as low as possible?

If he can't establish the FT, will he hold the line on taxes? Will he rein in spending? Is there anything in federal government he wants to cut?

Sorry for the many posts, just making up for being silent for 12 months or so, and trying to let you know how you could could convince me (and possibly others) that Huckabee is a true conservative.

24

First I have to say Kevin's analysis was pretty good. It's always better to look at actual numbers, but then I'm the type that doesn't really like numbers (which makes for an interesting life being that I was an economics major and now work in finance).

Mike
I think that Huckabee is right that the tax system is totally broken, and I think that you are right that the Fair Tax proposal is the wrong way to fix it.

Conservatives would do well to remember Burke. Things are entrenched in a society that seem stupid often have a hidden logic to them that are invisible until you try to go ripping it up to 'start from scratch'. A serious tax reform proposal would be incremental. Huckabee's isn't and I think it will start to show in the next few weeks.

I think 'plans' are a good indication of quality. The more 'big plans' the candidates have the lower the quality. The fact is if you're addressing anything big and complicated you're not going to be able to present much of a plan in a campaign. Any real life plan will be a comprimise that will incorporate a lot of different groups. The plans that high quality candidates have will either be about smaller, more manageable issues (like paying for college, better roads etc.) or will be very top level summaries that will be a few bullet points and keep the details quite fuzzy.

I think the "immediate withdrawl from Iraq" Democrats are insane. They're either clueless about the mess we'd leave behind, or they don't care as long as it gets them elected.

They aren't running. Neither Hillary nor Obama favor that. Everyone serious recognizes that it would be impossible to be out of Iraq in less than a year. What's equally insance but much more expensive are the "no timetable, lets hang out in Iraq forever" idea that is being espoused by just about every Republican. This is something that is quite frankly impossible because next spring we are going to start pulling out because we will literally start running out of troops. We are either going to be forced out of Iraq by simple mathematics or those seeking to stay there are going to have to us pay a huge price and its better that they be honest about that price now.

But I think it's great that Huckabee and Obama won Iowa, because I feel that those two are more honest and less just saying what they think we want to hear.

I tend to agree with you although the question I'm trying to ask is more subtle. Of the two upsets, which one represented higher quality candidates. I think this is a question that a partisan can anwer in a non-partisan way but it's pretty difficult. While I haven't watched Obama.v.Clinton as much I get a sense that it was a serious match against two different styles and serious policies. Much of the GOP matchup to me seems to a fight on a much lower intellectual plane. For example, I'm waiting for one of them to seriously propose building giant southward aiming catepults as a solution to illegal immigration. The "lets see who can be tougher on illegals" is almost becomming a joke and will probably end up becomming "let's see who can get the GOP to lose 100% of the Hispanic vote"...which is actually pretty sad considering that for a while the GOP looked like it might make real inroads in at least one minority community.

Compare this to the fight between Clinton and Obama over Iran. Even though there were silly points to the argument (over whether or not voting to declare the Republican Guard a terrorist organization was giving Bush a blank check to expand the Iraq mess into Iran) it did seem to revolve around a real policy debate of what should be the proper tone with Iran.

25

Elwood
Huckabee doesn't talk about whether he'd lower taxes. He did in the past, but his proposal is the Fair Tax. I haven't heard him discuss the size of government. Does he want the Federal government to shrink? Once the Fair Tax is established, there would be a few years of calibrating the pct.

1. Huckabee can't lower taxes, no one can. It would take a dramatic spending cut just to even out the budget. Our ability to borrow is getting squeezed by many factors, one being that China can't keep loaning us money forever.

2. The flat tax Huckabee is proposing is a joke.

1 The true rate is 30%. The way the plan is written, something that costs $1 will total $1.30 at the cash register. They get the 23% figure by dividing $0.30 by $1.30 rather than $1 as you normally would when talking about sales taxes.

2. The proposal will become an enforcement nightmare. Because the Fed. gov't will be sending out rebate checks every single month you still have to report your income to the gov't. That, of course, means you need the IRS to make sure people aren't under-reporting their incomes. Since everyone with a social security number will be getting a check there will be massive motivation to fraud since illegals and other will get free money if they can fake a social security # (and of course, ID theives will get YOUR check if they can steal your social security #....at least today they have to get your # and then get credit with it before they can financially gain).

3. The proposal has massive distribution issues. A married couple, for example, will get higher rebate checks than a single parent with several kids. Anyone buying a new house will get hit with a massive tax bill but not people buying houses that already existed before the tax (goodbye new home construction jobs). Those who have already saved will get hit with double taxation (if today you're a 60 year old who amassed a nest egg while you were working under the income tax system you will now get taxed on that income when you spend it even though you already paid the tax to earn it. And Remember Huckabee will tax EVERYTHING...that includes doctors services, insurance premiums, everything).

4. The plan creates a massive incentive for fraud. There's a reason why sales tax rarely hits services. Since cheating the taxman will save you 30-40% it will be very easy for people to pay for services under the table. the only conceivable way to counter this is to have massive gov't monitoring not of income but of EVERY single transaction you perform in your day to day life. The whole selling point of this plan is that it will 'abolish the IRS' but in fact it will have to do just the opposite.

4. a. This is why other gov'ts around the world opted for a Value Added Tax rather than a national sales tax. Even so, they only tax a portion of GDP spending....maybe 40% of GDP on the high end. This tax proposes to use the entire GDP as its base.

5. The plan double counts its revenue. It assumes the Fed. and state gov't will ALSO PAY the sales tax. So if the Defense Dept. buys a new weapon system for $100M it will really pay $130M. But of course, the plan gets its '23%' fictious rate by assuming no increase in spending. But by definition you're forcing an automatic 23% increase in spending. The double counting might balance out somehow for the Fed. gov't since it will pay the sales tax to itself but it doesn't balance out for the state governments who will either have to raise their own taxes to send to DC or cut local spending.

6. If the gov't really did implement this then every state gov't that has an income tax would have to as well. Right now the IRS shares its data with state income tax agencies. If the IRS got out of the income tracking game it would be almost impossible for states to have their own income taxes which means they would have to also implement sales taxes on top of the true 30% rate. When the dust settles you're looking at a sales tax of nearly 40%+.

Keep in mind most Americans are paying an effective tax rate of less than 25%. Even if you're going to keep the fiction of a 23% rate, in 2004 people who earned $207,200 paid an effective tax rate of 25.1%. The 'Fair Tax' would only be a tax cut at that level of income or higher which means its a tax hike beneath that level. You're talking about a tax increase on 80% of Americans. This is a pipe dream.

Bruce Bartlett has an effective analysis of the Fair Tax. At 14 pages it's a managable read if you want to explore it more. You can find it at http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/files/bartlett_fair_tax.pdf

26

In your listing of the numbers from the CNN Entrance Poll, you left out (accidentally, I'm sure) Huckabee's two biggest demographic numbers. He won 46% of those who self-identified as born-again or evangelical and a whopping 56% of those who said the candidate's religious beliefs matter "a great deal." Huckabee's win in Iowa, while noteworthy, is not as much about policy or experience as it is about religiosity and personality.

27

Why did the teachers union in New Hampshire endorse Huckabee if he's really conservative on education (ie vouchers, homeschool rights, etc.)?

Why does nobody give Duncan Hunter the time of day? He has no money to buy it... but neither did Huckabee a couple months ago. Hunter seems to be the strong, steady conservative leader that people are looking for but can't find in an uninspiring Thompson and a field of moderates.

28

ACF,

Perhaps Duncan should try my giant catapult idea.

29

Confession time!

(1) I don't care who wins the Democratic primary.

(2) I don't care who wins the Republican primary.

Why? Because I'll vote for whoever the GOP candidate is. I'm a two-issue voter. Abortion and Gay Marriage. The GOP candidate, even Rudy G., will nominate judicial conservatives to SCOTUS.

Voting 3rd party independent is just throwing away the vote. I've done that before and I'm not doing it again.

Lastly, even if Obama or Clinton wins the presidency, I'm still alright, although I'm not particularly happy about it. After all, my citizenship is in heaven.

Pax.

30

I'm a two-issue voter. Abortion and Gay Marriage. [...] After all, my citizenship is in heaven.

I'll say it is! You are not much of a citizen of the U.S. if your vote is based on the two issues you mention. Voters like you make my skin crawl.

31

Bruce Bartlett has an effective analysis of the Fair Tax.

Good cite, Boonton. One of the things you didn't mention, but something that always troubled me about the Fair Tax was the assumption that prices would stay the same, I would get a monthly check, and I would get to keep my entire paycheck; in essence everybody would get a huge raise at no cost. That assumption always struck me as "perpetual motion machine-y". Now I know why, for prices to drop 23% something else has to drop 23%, employer costs, including employee wages. Now logically I know that I wouldn't see a difference in my paycheck, my gross (which I would keep under a Fair Tax) would be roughly the same as my net (which I keep now), but emotionally I am not going to be happy about my employer dropping my $100k/yr (hypothetically) salary to $81k/yr. How do you think the UAW would like it when they go to negotiate their next contract?

32

Joe:

I have a lot of respect for you. However, I also have a lot of respect for some of the "elites" who are lining up against Huckabee because--they say--he is not a conservative. I can't argue policy and voting record with you because (as has been shown way too many times in the comments of this blog) the facts can always be twisted to support whatever position is being touted. You have answered every accusation that he is not conservative with facts and figures and legislation, etc. to refute those accusations. I'm still not convinced. Too many of those "elites" are convinced that he is conservative in only the social issues, which I believe trump all other issues for you.

I think much of Huckabee's support comes from people like you and me, who have felt that the GOP takes religious voters for granted. And I do believe they take us for granted because they know we won't vote for those demons from hell on the other side.

I truly believe that abortion trumps everything with you. In some ways it does for me, too. I will never understand anyone who is pro-choice.

However, I also don't understand how all these "elite conservative pundits" can be wrong about him on immigration, spending, pardons for criminals, Iraq, the list goes on.

Do they all dislike evangelicals? Are they afraid that Huckabee is simply too easy for Democrats to smear as a religious nutjob? Are they all wrong?

I'm worried that the emotions of the day are carrying you and many people to no-man's land. I told you once that I thought you jumped the gun when you wrote we had already lost in Iraq. Is it possible that you're jumping in too early here as well?

33

JD You have answered every accusation that he is not conservative
with facts and figures and legislation, etc. to refute those accusations. I'm still not convinced. Too many of those "elites" are convinced that he
is conservative in only the social issues,...

That should tell you something right there. While I've backed my claims up with facts all they do is make assertions.

Next time one of the "elites" makes a claim about Huckabee not being a conservative on an issue, asking them why they say that. Ninety percent of the time they'll respond by referencing 3rd party hearsay ("Well...cause the Club for Growth says he is bad on taxes...").

I was honestly shocked by how the "elites" simply repeat the same talking points without every bothering to look at the fact for themselves.

Do they all dislike evangelicals?

How many evangelicals are at NR or The Weekly Standard? Who is the most prominent evangelical in the "elite" circles? I'm not saying they dislike us...but you sure don't see them including us in the mix.

By the way, notice the language they use. They bash Huckabee for being "populist." His policies are nothing like John Edwards-style economic populism so what do they mean? Why are they against the idea that he is "of the people"?

34

While I haven't watched Obama.v.Clinton as much I get a sense that it was a serious match against two different styles and serious policies. Much of the GOP matchup to me seems to a fight on a much lower intellectual plane. For example, I'm waiting for one of them to seriously propose building giant southward aiming catepults as a solution to illegal immigration.

Boonton, you incredible nincompoop. Obama and Clinton and Edwards, etc. have been falling all over each other promising bringing "our boys home from Iraq," $5,000 baby bonds for every child born, free universal health care "for every American", free college education, delinquent mortgage payoff, taking profits from Exxon Mobil, a "true spirit of bi-partisanship", no more red-state blue-state just the United States, and all Americans will just love each other.

May the force be with you, my little green pointy-eared friend.

35

No matter what happens after tonight, Huckabee's victory proved that message can matter more than money. If the GOP would take that lesson to heart we'd soon be the permanent majority party in America.

Not any majority of which I'm aware. See, Huckabee's message just won't resonate with the overwhelming majority of the American populace that doesn't see eye to eye with the mullahs when it comes to whether theocracy is a good idea or not.

The vast majority does not want a young earth creationist who parolled a rapist because his victim was distantly related to Bill Clinton as president.

36

Joe writes;

That should tell you something right there. While I've backed my claims up with facts all they do is make assertions.

No offense Joe but I think you give yourself too much credit.

In my understanding these "elites" are merely the people who we know that are authorities and so they make arguments from authority. We all do that, don't we?

Of course, you argue that doing such is to become sheeple but we don't agree there.

Anyway, ive seen plenty of good arguments against Huckabee that is not at all assertion without facts. Factcheck.org showed that he did indeed run the ads he said he wasn't going to run, for example. That's a fact. He did raise taxes, that's a fact. But its ok with you that he raised taxes because you believe in your defense of Huckabee that sometimes you have to raise taxes, not everyone agrees with you. He did have over 1000 pardons, a fact, not just an assertion.

Seriously, all the complaints against Huckabee are factual complaints, not empty assertions.

Even so, I prefer Mike Huckabee over McCain and Guiliani and will vote for him if he is our nominee.

37

Rob Ryan,

Here's a one-issue guy. That ought to really make you stand up and clap.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GregoryKoukl/2007/11/06/when_compromising_is_not_a_compromise

38

Candidates, please raise your hand if you are a Republican in Name Only:

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/12/13/digging-deeper-the-enviro-nitwit-ization-of-the-gop/

39

#37:
While the article did have some good insights, it had some problems too:

1. It overlooks the possiblity of a third party candidate winning.

2. It overlooks the strategy of sending a painful message to Republicans who want to compromise core principles on the sanctity of life.

3. It overlooks the backlash effect. Having a baby grinding monster in office wakes people up sometimes.

If the author of the piece wants to advocate thinking two steps ahead in his strategy, he should also consider looking three and four steps ahead and realize that the calculus is not easy.

40

Joe Carter:

Why are they against the idea that he is "of the people"?

Because they're the elite. I think it's really that simple.

Elites don't seem to trust "We the people" very much. This doesn't change even if "We the people" wear the same liberal/conservative label as the elites.

41

Joe writes:

By the way, notice the language they use. They bash Huckabee for being "populist." His policies are nothing like John Edwards-style economic populism so what do they mean? Why are they against the idea that he is "of the people"?

I've been very critical of the "populist" Huckabee, but not because I think he is anything like Edwards. Edwards is a phony socialist who lusts for political power. What makes me uncomfortable is the "populist" rhetoric Huckabee uses. When you look at Huckabee's policies he's relatively conservative, and as such he's infinitely better then Edwards. But populist rhetoric of the kind Huckabee uses plays into the politics of envy and victimization that energizes the left in our country.

I think we make a huge mistake appropriating rhetoric of the left to sell ourselves to the electorate. You do it yourself, Joe, in your selective criticism of big corporations. No matter what our policy prescriptions are we play into the hands of big government liberals (sorry, there are no other kind) when we play "the people" or the little guy or the middle class off of the rich or Wall Street or the "elites".

Sorry to blather on, but this morning I read a piece by David Brooks (one of your mainstream conservative elites?) in the Times and I vented on my blog about it. Here is a sentence that rubbed me the wrong way: "A conservatism that pays attention to people making less than $50,000 a year is the only conservatism worth defending." What in the world does that mean? Brooks clearly likes Huckabee's rhetoric and thinks it's the future of conservatism. I think it will destroy conservatism, because the only answer to what "Pay attention" means is government transfer of wealth in one way or the other. Should that really be the message of conservatism for people who aren't making it? You are, implicitly affirmed, a victim? You can't make it yourself? You need government's help?

There's no other way to spin it, Joe. We play with fire when we play the populist rhetorical game. Why? Because human beings, sinners that we are, always look for the path of least resistance, and something-for-nothing is a destructive path that is alluring for people who struggle to get by. The top 50% of income earners pay something like 96% of income taxes. It's way too easy for the bottom 50% who pay almost nothing to be tempted by policies that take money from those they are told don't really need it to make their lives easier. Look what "compassionate conservatism" (a horrible self-defeating defensive phrase) did for George W. Bush. You give liberals an arm and they will demand two legs.

42

Kevin T. Keith writes:

Nice try, but the numbers aren't that great. He got almost exactly a third of the overall vote. His poll numbers in almost every category are within a few percent of that figure. Where you cite him getting top percentage in every sub-group withing a given category, that percentage is almost always between 30% and 38%. And the other candidates don't show much variation between their vote percentages in those categories either.

What this means is not that he's the most popular among all voters...

Stop Lying About Huckabee and Evangelicals! by Michael Medved

http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/004162.html

43

Nice post, Joe.
You said, "Ninety percent of the time they'll respond by referencing 3rd party hearsay ("Well...cause the Club for Growth says he is bad on taxes...")."

Yup. Last night's Big Loser---the Club for Growth. slouching towards irrelevance

Thanks for all you do.

44

Joe said: What is his "penchant for nanny-state-ism"? Can you provide, say, three examples?

I'm not entirely sure about the differentiation between nanny-statism and plain-old statism. I'll go with the latter. Here are a few more than three.

1. National ban on smoking in the workplace. “If there are two or more people, and as long as anyone under the age of 21 worked in that place, there ought to be some protections for them.”

[For the record, I absolutely despise smoking. I hate even being around anyone who smokes. I despise eating in a restaurant “no smoking area” where the putrid odor wafts from three tables away. Nevertheless, this is one of those areas where I put principle ahead of my own desires. Let the market decide. Where is the scientific justification for second-hand smoke mongering?]

2. Health “incentives.” Blogger Jason Steffens, describing a Huckabee appearance in July of this year, elaborates: I told him that I agreed with his statement that we do not have a health care problem in this country, we have a health problem, and asked him what he envisioned the federal government's role to be in improving citizens' health. He initially explained the basis for his belief that there is a health problem in this country, not a health care problem. He said that we have great health care, but we are too focused on intervention rather than prevention.

He noted that much of the problem is chronic disease and that can be attributed to three things: 1) overeating; 2) under-exercising; and 3) smoking. Other politicians do not focus on prevention because it will involve a cultural attitude shift that will not happen in the span of a presidential term. Gov. Huckabee then discussed, in general terms, shifting incentives away from fixing health problems and toward preventive health care and the success he had in Arkansas doing that.
/snip/
Our trouble with Huckabee is that he simply seems too intent on telling people how to live their lives. Hooray for him for losing all that weight. We could stand to lose a few pounds, too--but we'd rather do it without Washington's "help."
Opinion Journal, December 17, 2007

[My problem with this is that – as innocuous as one’s intentions – government involvement has a pernicious tendency towards incremental escalation. If Huckabee merely wants the camel’s head in, the next guy will have the whole camel.]

3. Opposes school choice, preferring a government monopoly. The government gets to decide the appropriate curriculum from sex education to revisionist history and there is nothing you can do about it. You are going to eat it and like it. The NEA hearts Huckabee. “The rich” get to pay for public schools and send their kids to private ones. “The poor” get to suffer government sponsored mind control.

4. Mike Huckabee supported an internet sales tax in 2001. (Source: Americans for Tax Reform, 01/07/07)

Mike Huckabee opposed a congressional measure to ban internet taxes in 2003. (Source: Arkansas News Bureau, 11/21/03)

Mike Huckabee publicly opposed the repeal of a sales tax on groceries and medicine in 2002. (Source: Arkansas News Bureau, 08/30/02)

5. GDP growth declines as the government’s share of the GDP rises. Huckabee, that economic wrecking ball, inaugurated new programs and expanded existing ones so that “the number of state government workers rose 20 percent during his tenure, and the state's general obligation debt shot up by almost $1 billion.”

His consistent contempt for the taxpayer has earned him “a lifetime grade of D from the free-market Cato Institute, noting that spending had increased at three times the rate of inflation during his governorship. Source

6. Supported expanding the SCHIP health-care program. Refused to endorse President Bush’s veto of the program expansion. “He says he is against socialized medicine, but don’t look for him to resist the drift toward it.”

7. Believes man-made climate change is a threat to the world as we know it. The implications are staggering. Will he finally sign Kyoto? Panders to neo-paganism and adopts state interventionism to "save" us.

8. Believes CEO salaries are unconscionable – but will save government intervention as a “last resort.” Plays to class-warfare jealousies and frankly, sounds little different than John Edwards. I am reminded that Bill Clinton was only going to raise taxes as a “last resort” when – two weeks into his presidency – he raised taxes RETROACTIVELY after “trying harder than he had ever tried in his life” not to. It is amazing how quickly the “last resort” is sometimes realized.

9. Favors in-state college tuition for non-citizens. I have never heard him talk about the priority of sealing the border or slowing the hemorrhage of unlimited benefits to illegal aliens. Huckabee smiles as an illegal invasion of socialists threatens to take over America. His recent “toughening” position on illegal aliens is unconvincing. Huckabee calls people with concerns such as mine un-Christian. Look for Huckabee to re-energize amnesty in the Bush mold (under a different name, of course.)

Huck quote:

When people come to this country, they shouldn't fear. They shouldn't live in hiding. They ought to have their heads up, because the one thing about being an American is, we believe every person ought to have his or her head up and proud, and nobody should have to be in hiding because they're illegal when our government ought to make it so that people can reasonably come here in a legal fashion.

"Let's unpack Huckabee's hucksterism: Illegal aliens in the U.S. are hanging their heads when they ought to be holding them high. The reason for these imaginary drooping crests is illegality brought on by harsh immigration policies. The way to raise heads high is to make illegality a thing of the past.

During the nationwide illegal-alien rallies, heads were held hubristically high. Since Huckabee, it would seem, missed those halcyon days, he would like to ensure illegals are hallmark happy by removing the reason for the slumping noggins. Translated from Huckabese, that means aiming to overturn, or leave unenforced, existing immigration laws, and thus disrespecting the rights of Americans and the country's social and economic fabric."

Huckabee disputes the in-state tuition characterization, but fact checking seems to support it. See here. Let the reader decide.

In 2005, a Republican state senator named Jim Holt introduced a bill to deny public benefits to Arkansas’ soaring population of illegal immigrants. Holt, a Southern Baptist minister, figured it was a rock-solid conservative idea – a matter, he said, “of right and wrong.”

Arkansas’ governor at the time was also a professed conservative, and also a Southern Baptist minister. But Mike Huckabee had only scorn for his fellow Republican’s proposal.

Huckabee called the bill “race-baiting” and “demagoguery,” and argued that the denial of health services could harm innocent children. The bill, Huckabee said, did not conform with his take on Christian values.

“I drink a different kind of Jesus juice,” Huckabee said.

10. Energy subsidies and farm subsidies must be increased, because they’re a matter of “national security.”

45

From Huckabee's foreign policy statement:

"The United States, as the world's only superpower, is less vulnerable to military defeat. But it is more vulnerable to the animosity of other countries. Much like a top high school student, if it is modest about its abilities and achievements, if it is generous in helping others, it is loved. But if it attempts to dominate others, it is despised."

Lets be nice to the world so the world will like us. That's leadership for you! (not)

"The first rule of war is "know your enemy," and most Americans do not know theirs. To grasp the magnitude of the threat, we first have to understand what makes Islamic terrorists tick. Very few Americans are familiar with the writings of Sayyid Qutb, the Egyptian radical executed in 1966, or the Muslim Brotherhood, whose call to active jihad influenced Osama bin Laden and the rise of al Qaeda. Qutb raged against the decadence and sin he saw around him and sought to restore the "pure" Islam of the seventh century through a theocratic caliphate without national borders. He saw nothing decadent or sinful in murdering in order to achieve that end. America's culture of life stands in stark contrast to the jihadists' culture of death."

And then three paragraphs down:

"We must first destroy existing terrorist groups and then attack the underlying conditions that breed them: the lack of basic sanitation, health care, education, jobs, a free press, fair courts -- which all translates into a lack of opportunity and hope."

So is islamic terrorism the result of a murderous ideology or is it just the frustration bred from poverty and repression? And if we're to stay out of other nation's business, how are we going to give them sanitation, health care and a free press?

Face it Joe, your man is a total amateur with no coherent vision. He knows how to throw out platitudes, which isn't surprising for a preacher, but there's no "there" there when it comes to his foreign policy convictions. Only statments of goodness. Fairy dust.

46

Joe writes: The conservative punditocracy thought they could bluff their way into a Huckabust. They assumed that if they just ignored his record and his policy positions (the generous interpretation) and labeled him a "populist"

and then writes:
We may let the DC/Manhatten-axis think they are the "elite" but the true leaders of the resurgent GOP were at the Iowa caucus.

How'd They Miss It? -- The conservative media is part of the GOP establishment so it's easy to comprehend how they missed the rise and appeal of Huckabee.

If he had a degree from Yale rather than Ouachita Baptist University, if he spoke with a Midwestern twang rather than a Southern drawl, and if he had spent a decade as an investment banker rather than a pastor then Mike Huckabee would be the Republican establishment's "favorite son" right now.

Joe, you're repeating all the tropes of classic populist mentality - the anti-establishment resentment, the small-town, little guy identity platitudes, the paranoia. Face it, your guy is a populist. It's all identity politics. Resentful identity politics. That's what populism is. George Will nails him in his latest column:

Huckabee told heavily subsidized Iowa -- Washington's ethanol enthusiasm has farm values and incomes soaring -- that Americans striving to rise are "pushed down every time they try by their own government." ... Strangely, these fists have imposed a tax code that makes the top 1 percent of earners pay 39 percent of all income tax revenues, the top 5 percent pay 60 percent, and the bottom 50 percent pay only 3 percent.

Huckabee, a compound of Uriah Heep, Elmer Gantry and Richard Nixon, preens about his humble background: "In my family, 'summer' was never a verb." Nixon, who maundered about his parents' privations and wife's cloth coat, followed Lyndon Johnson, another miscast president whose festering resentments and status anxieties colored his conduct of office. Here we go again?

Huckabee fancies himself persecuted by the Republican "establishment," a creature already negligible by 1964, when it failed to stop Barry Goldwater's nomination. The establishment's voice, the New York Herald Tribune, expired in 1966. Huckabee says "only one explanation" fits his Iowa success "and it's not a human one. It's the same power that helped a little boy with two fish and five loaves feed a crowd of 5,000 people." God so loves Huckabee's politics that He worked a Midwest miracle on his behalf? Should someone so delusional control nuclear weapons?

No, he shouldn't.

47

Robert Duquette,

You nailed it!

Joe, you're repeating all the tropes of classic populist mentality - the anti-establishment resentment, the small-town, little guy identity platitudes, the paranoia. Face it, your guy is a populist. It's all identity politics. Resentful identity politics.

And woe is us if the Republican Party goes down this path as its reigning paradigm.

48

Robert Duquette:

You're on the right track. My general observation is that Huckaby is a more liberal version of President Bush.

President Bush has been criticized by conservatives for abandoning small government principles, embracing big government programs, and being soft on illegal immigration. This is the beef. By and large, many are happy with his strong stand in the GWOT. Bush has won on this issue. History will show that he is a bigger winner on foreign policy than many realize. The Bush doctrine rules. Socially, Bush is pretty conservative. Good job here as well.

Does Huckabee propose to correct the areas where Bush is deficient? No. He intends to move even farther left.

Where does Huckabee's criticism of Bush lie? In the area where the president has been most successful!

I really think the Huckabee agenda is propelled in large part by the elites. Global warming? Check. Class resentment? Check. Failed Bush presidency mantra? Check.

I fear that, when challenged, Huckabee is going to fold on just about everything but a few key social issues.

“Mike has always sought the validation of elites.” - Pastor Rick Scarborough, head of Vision America

49

I know that Americans use the word "liberal" somewhat differently to the rest of the world, but it needs to be said: "free market" economic principles are not conservative, they are liberal. Radical individualism in economics leads or follows radical individualism in every other sphere of life. The "right" to choose an abortion is merely the extension of free market principles into social life. The same is true for the abomination of homosexual marriage. After all if consumer choice and freedom should exist in economics then why not in marriage and other social arrangements?

If the GOP is going to be a genuine Conservative Christian party (and it should be) it needs to tell the neo-liberal economists and the libertarians to get off the bus.

Vladimir Putin is a conservative. Ron Paul is not.

50

A House Divided Will Not Stand

In the aftermath of the Iowa Caucas, there are lessons to be learned; and Republican voters must heed them, and soon coalesce around their most formidable candidate. What are these lessons, and who is this candidate? See the answer here:

http://sheetanchor.wordpress.com/2008/01/05/a-house-divided-will-not-stand/

51

All very nice. But the cental issue is that Huckabee is the overwhelming favorite of a decreasing sized and increasingly marginalized group. George Bush has shown the empty nature of the evangelical policy base: there is nothing there but rhetoric. In Bush's incapable hands this vacuity has killed innocent people, devastated a country, weakened the US, and damaged the world's ability to cope with its inherent stresses. By emphasizing differences instead of seeking common interests GWB has driven the world and the US back 50 or 60 years. Huck is more genial but no better schooled or skilled. It is a sad day for faith when its adherents seek to promote their own against the interests of the poor and the innocent.

52

All very nice. But the cental issue is that Huckabee is the overwhelming favorite of a decreasing sized and increasingly marginalized group. George Bush has shown the empty nature of the evangelical policy base: there is nothing there but rhetoric. In Bush's incapable hands this vacuity has killed innocent people, devastated a country, weakened the US, and damaged the world's ability to cope with its inherent stresses. By emphasizing differences instead of seeking common interests GWB has driven the world and the US back 50 or 60 years. Huck is more genial but no better schooled or skilled. It is a sad day for faith when its adherents seek to promote their own against the interests of the poor and the innocent.

53

but emotionally I am not going to be happy about my employer dropping my $100k/yr (hypothetically) salary to $81k/yr. How do you think the UAW would like it when they go to negotiate their next contract?

I think the UAW has plenty of smart finance types that advise them in their negotiations but the taxation of services is going to be a lot more interesting here. A Huckabee's 30-40% tax would fall on health benefits. As Bartlett pointed out, people don't fight taxes on goods as much as they do on services. The likely result will be a duel price regime. Pay cash and you will get a 30% lower price than if you pay by check or credit card. People would almost certainly rather pay their doctors with fist fulls of cash than insurance which means a lot of interesting changes to the health insurance market. Education would likewise be impacted as private schools and college would have to add 30% to their tuition. Perhaps the tax would cause a rise of private tutors who will operate in the underground market.

Reggie
3. It overlooks the backlash effect. Having a baby grinding monster in office wakes people up sometimes.

Perhaps the giant baby grinder can be combined somehow with the catapults.

jd
promising bringing "our boys home from Iraq," $5,000 baby bonds for every child born, free universal health care "for every American", free college education, delinquent mortgage payoff, taking profits from Exxon Mobil, a "true spirit of bi-partisanship",

1. What's wrong with $5K baby bonds?

2. "Let's make Iraq the 51st state (perhaps they can have a suicide bomber on their license plates)" will do the GOP great.

3. No one is really promising free universal healthcare. All that other stuff falls under what I called 'small plans' versus big plans.

Mike:
Here is a sentence that rubbed me the wrong way: "A conservatism that pays attention to people making less than $50,000 a year is the only conservatism worth defending." What in the world does that mean? Brooks clearly likes Huckabee's rhetoric and thinks it's the future of conservatism.

So to 'pay attention' to people making under $50K, Huckabee will take their Federal Tax burden from something like 15-20% of income to 30-40% of income. I'm missing that part.

54

JD asks: What's wrong with $5K baby bonds?
By the time they come due the federal government will have already spent the money.

55

So which man came up with this Message Over Money talking point first, Joe Carter, or Mike Huckaby, or some as yet to be named political writer/worker? It sounded almost verbatim to that speech I saw televised that Huckaby made.

56

After Huck gets shellacked in N.H. and S.C., what will you say then?

57

Federalism is not inherently conservative.

What a howler!! It is an original part of the Constitution, so how would deviating from the original founding document of our nation be considered anything but not conservative?

Do you realize how stupid your response is, Joe?

58

George Will seems to be on my page:

Barack Obama, who might be mercifully closing the Clinton parenthesis in presidential history, is refreshingly cerebral amid this recrudescence of the paranoid style in American politics. He is the un-Edwards and un-Huckabee — an adult aiming to reform the real world rather than an adolescent fantasizing mock-heroic "fights" against fictitious villains in a left-wing cartoon version of this country.

and

Huckabee fancies himself persecuted by the Republican "establishment," a creature already negligible by 1964, when it failed to stop Barry Goldwater's nomination. The establishment's voice, the New York Herald Tribune, expired in 1966. Huckabee says that "only one explanation" fits his Iowa success "and it's not a human one. It's the same power that helped a little boy with two fish and five loaves feed a crowd of 5,000 people." G-d so loves Huckabee's politics that He worked a Midwest miracle on his behalf? Should someone so delusional control nuclear weapons?

59

George Will's claim that Huckabee is delusional simply for believing that God may be helping him says more about Will than it does about Huckabee. Clearly to people like Will any Christian understanding of politics is not allowed and in Will's worls "delusional". But I assert that it is Wil's worldview that is delusional.

60

Shawn,

I'll give you the point. Christians do often thank God for perfectly normal things and that is not quite the same as a delusional maniac who thinks that he is being annoited by God to rule. Which one Huckabee is remains to be seen as the GOP has had both types (Hi there Pat Robertson!).

Will is on target though when he takes on Huckabee's victimology rhetoric and sees Edwards as being cut from similiar cloth.

61

Why is it you think that FOXNEWS has found it necessary to have plants in the after debate focus group discussions?

http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=5888

62

Guess I probably should of warned you guys ahead of time that the site I linked above is not what I would deem the most credible but does raise an interesting question, at least in regards to this one issue. Then again, they have tons of other junk on there too that is just looney in my opinion, so take it for what it is worth.

63

Mikeo

JD asks: What's wrong with $5K baby bonds?
By the time they come due the federal government will have already spent the money.

Actually I asked it. If you estimate the cost of education at $7K per year (a lowball estimate) then a newborn baby already begins with an impending cost of $84,000 at birth. Toss in other gov't expenditures such as Medicaid for poorer kids, health insurance, food stamps, police time spent on youths, agencies that investigate child abuse, etc. and it's pretty clear a newborn probably tops over $100K in average gov't spending.

Giving every newborn an endowment of $5,000 that they can use as they please on adulthood then would actually be a trivial amount of spending. IMO, it would be a lot more effective at achieving an 'even playing field' for people who have poorer parents than other programs that try to accomplish the same thing by attacking poverty directly or by giving things to parents in the hopes that it will filter down to the kids. While helping poorer parents does help the poorer kids, for really dysfunctional parents an endowment may just be a lifeboat that the kids may use to escape to a healthy life.

Also I think it could produce some very interesting results. Some kids will use the funds to buck the current culture and do offbeat things like starting their own businesses, traveling or whatnot instead of feeding the college industry. Over the long run the program would have marginal net costs because while taxpayers will have to pay $5K per kid, each kid will be $5K richer in the long run (adjusted for interest of course).

The idea is actually pretty innovative which is why both intelligent liberals and conservatives have given it serious consideration. It's interesting how quickly it is dismissed here by some. I think this is because Republicanism is as intellectually bankrupt today as liberalism was in 1979-80. Then again, perhaps you can embrace the gaint catapult idea to fix illegal immigration.

64

Joseph. That's lame. Your pathetic attempt at moral equivalence falls flat. I didn't like the guy or his comments, but this is ridiculous. I hope your wearing the foil hat because I am going to start broadcasting mind-control rays... now.

65

I was not doing anything other than raising the question. I did not even know this site existed and didn't even know what it was until after I posted the link to that one story. That is why I submitted a second post stating to take it for what it is worth, which may turn out to be not much.

Your attempt to label me as a conspiracy theorist is rude and disrespectful though. As I said in my second post and above, I did not realize the source of the story before linking. I apologize for that.

66

Joseph - You're right. I somehow missed your second post. I apologize.

67

Just had a thought:

George Will's claim that Huckabee is delusional simply for believing that God may be helping him says more about Will than it does about Huckabee.

Were Huckabee supporters this defenive when Joe attacked Ron Paul for indicating the Constitution was inspired by God? Pot calling the kettle black perhaps.