Monday, December 10, 2007
|
|
Frank Rich Hearts Huckabee
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
7:48 AM
|
The left-of-left Frank Rich comes out big for Mike Huckabee in yesterday's New York Times. Rich, who has always had as his focus the best interests of the GOP writes about Huck's rise:
What really may be going on here is a mirror image of the phenomenon that has upended Hillary Clinton’s “inevitability” among Democrats. Like Senator Obama, Mr. Huckabee is the youngest in his party’s field. (At 52, he’s also younger than every Democratic contender except Mr. Obama, who is 46.) Both men have a history of speaking across party and racial lines. Both men possess that rarest of commodities in American public life: wit. Most important, both men aspire (not always successfully) to avoid the hyper-partisanship of the Clinton-Bush era.
and
Mr. Huckabee’s humane stand wasn’t an election-year flip-flop. As governor, he decried a bill denying health services to illegal immigrants as “race-baiting” even though its legislator sponsor was a fellow Baptist preacher. Mr. Huckabee’s record on race in general (and in attracting African-American votes) is dramatically at odds with much of his party. Only last year Republicans brought us both “macaca” and a television ad portraying the black Democratic Senate candidate in Tennessee, Harold Ford Jr., as a potential despoiler of white women.
Unlike Rudy-Romney, Mr. Huckabee showed up for the PBS presidential debate held at the historically black Morgan State University in September. Afterward, he met Cornel West, an Obama supporter who deeply disagrees with Mr. Huckabee about abortion and much else. I asked Dr. West for his take last week. After effusively praising Mr. Huckabee as unique among the G.O.P. contenders, Dr. West said: “I told him, ‘You are for real.’ Black voters in Arkansas aren’t stupid. They know he’s sincere about fighting racism and poverty.”
and
The real reason for Mr. Huckabee’s ascendance may be that his message is simply more uplifting — and, in the ethical rather than theological sense, more Christian — than that of rivals whose main calling cards of fear, torture and nativism have become more strident with every debate. The fresh-faced politics of joy may be trumping the five-o’clock-shadow of Nixonian gloom and paranoia favored by the entire G.O.P. field with the sometime exception of John McCain.
While praising Huck, Rich sideswipes Giuliani and Romney, telling us....
|
|
And according to the Wall Street Journal:
POTOMAC WATCH
By KIMBERLEY STRASSEL
DOW JONES REPRINTS
Redefining Conservatism
WSJ December 7, 2007; Page A16
Des Moines, Iowa
"Stepping out for a press conference here Monday, Mike Huckabee fielded the ultimate question. Just how conservative are you?
""I'm as conservative as anyone could hope to be, or want to be, or needs to be," replied the smiling former Arkansas governor, never missing a beat, and following up with a boilerplate summary of his belief in "lower taxes," the "sanctity of human life" and a "strong military" -- before moving ever so swiftly on to the next question.
"It was trademark Huckabee: Sounds great, explains little. It's a strategy that has so far served him well, rocketing his campaign in recent weeks to the top ranks of the Republican presidential field. The question is whether he can continue to pull off that trick, now that he's receiving belated media scrutiny. A few days following the candidate on the Iowa campaign trail suggests it could prove tough. If Mr. Huckabee does turn out to be everything Republicans "want" or "need" in a conservative, it will only be because the definition of a conservative has morphed to include tax hiking, protectionism, corporate scolding and an unserious approach to foreign policy.
What aren't in doubt are Mr. Huckabee's social-values credentials. He has an undisputed record on questions of abortion and gay marriage, and he's spent no small portion of his limited advertising money making sure Iowa voters know it. Christian conservatives make up an estimated 40% of the state's GOP vote, and by all accounts he's slowly locking up that vote. That alone accounts for a fair share of his recent rise in the polls." |
|
Ba-da-bing, like dat.
That Cornel West AND Frank Rich like the Huckster fills me with the warm fuzzies & mucho confidence.
Could it be Huck's luv for Illegal Aliens? Perhaps his utter ineptitude & vacuosity toward the War? Goofy-Romantic Populism? Shall I go on with things Cornel & Frankie would want the Republicans to slit their own throats with? |
|
from KIMBERLY STRASSEL, WSJ:
"At a meeting in Newton, Iowa, when talking about the importance of marriage, Mr. Huckabee notes that in his 34 years with his wife, Janet, she'd never been "wrong." He waits a beat and throws in that he likes "sleeping on the bed, not the couch." People chuckle. When one attendee praises Mr. Huckabee as the "nicest" GOP candidate, Mr. Huckabee quips "I tend to agree. I know these guys, they're bums." More laughter. Along with values, the vast majority of the voters interviewed after these events said their top reason for supporting Mr. Huckabee was that he was the only candidate who struck them as "genuine" and "sincere."
|
|
|
Hugh I know you don't like Huckabee but you need to quit being tone deaf as to what his appeal is. Rich nailed it over the head. I'm not saying you have to like Huckabee but I do think you and your other hosts need to be honest about why he's doing so well if you want Romney to be president. The sort of conspiracy theories and accusations of bigotry you've been bringing up are only hurting Romney(see his Iowa poll numbers for more clarification). |
|
This close to an election that is a HUGE red flag. Frank Rich? You als have Begala, Carville, Shrum, Peter Fenn and others heaping praise on Huckabee. Huckabee is George Bush on steroids and the aww sucks goober routine doesn'r stand a chance in a change election.
Do people in the G.O.P. have their heads in the sand? Anytime liberals love your guy this much it's not good. |
|
Rich revealed in his column what's going on here with his satisfaction regarding the rise of Huck:
"The huge spread in the Journal-NBC poll between an unnamed Democrat and Republican in the presidential race — 50 to 35 percent — shrank to a 1 percent lead when Mrs. Clinton was pitted against Mr. Giuliani."
That's why he's pro-Huck to an extent, just because he figures being pro-Huck is being anti-Rudy, pro-Hillary, pro-Dem win. Anything that shakes up the GOP race and hurts Rudy is fine by him.
And when he quotes people on the right like Robert Novak being discontented with Huck's rise, it's not hard to see that Rich thinks anything that fazes Novak probably helps Rich.
There's a certain cicularity going on when liberal pundits reflexively defend any candidate who's unpopular with their conservative counterparts and vice versa. The only way to break out of this unproductive circle is to stop letting people like Frank Rich push your buttons either way; don't be led by them, but also don't let them use reverse psychology (intentional or not).
Besides, since when is Frank Rich considered to be so brilliant? Rich may well think that Huck is the best thing that ever happened to the Dems - but so what? He also loves illegal aliens and high taxation. If we are correctly doubtful that he has a clue about the likely consequences of his economic and other policy preferences, why in the world should we think that his political judgment of what's truly bad for the Republicans will be any less unintelligent? |
|
Huckanomics is just liberalism.
What liberals and Huckabee don't understand is that the bigger government the less take home pay for the worker and the smaller government the bigger take home pay for the worker.
What Huckabee and liberals do is say it's Wall Street and C.E.O. pay that's hurting the little guy. This is a diversion and CLASS WARFARE at it's worst. The true culprit is big government and Huckabee and liberals don't want you to see it.
Huckabee has increased spending by $4.61 billion. That is an increase of 65.3%, or 7.4% annually. This is three times the rate of inflation.
During Huckabee’s tenure as governor, the average Arkansan’s tax burden increased 47 percent, according to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. A dyed-in-blue tax hiker, Huckabee supported raising sales taxes, gas taxes, grocery taxes, even nursing home bed taxes.
How in the world can a conservative support this nonsense? Huckabee practices the same class warfare as Hillary, Edwards and Obama.
I'm not surprised the liberal Frank Rich likes Huckabee. |
|
And also Dale Carnegie's.
Huckabee's appeal is that he appears genuine and approachable. New Yorkers scare people. Mitt Romney seems kind of stiff with voters and has this habbit of trying to connect with them that usually doesn't work. Thompson is sleepy. McCain has other issues to deal with. Huckabee deftly found an opening and is working it.
But Frank Rich doesn't know much about GOP races or primary voters. The long knives are out for Huck now and I cannot imagine the GOP making him the nominee. VP, sure. |
|
More from the WSJ's Kimberly Strassel:
"On the stump, Mr. Huckabee likes to point out that we are in a "world war" against terror, and that his first duty would be to protect Americans. Yet don't expect the Arkansan to stand firm against liberal opinion over America's more controversial strategies. On Monday, he became the only Republican candidate to attend a meeting with retired military officers who have complained about the Bush administration's supposed use of "torture." At an ensuing press conference, Mr. Huckabee quickly jumped on the politically popular bandwagon to condemn "waterboarding," and to further declare his support for closing down Guantanamo Bay because of the "symbol" it "represents" to the "rest of the world."
"A populist at heart, Mr. Huckabee claims he's "no protectionist," but over and over this week he complained about the U.S. trade deficit with China and vowed, in the best Democratic tradition, to only sign "fair trade" deals. To bring up big companies is to invite a Huckabee lecture on the "greed" of corporate executives who tower over "average employees."
|
|
But Hugh fails to quote right of center Bob Novak this morning:
'Romney’s problem is not difficult to diagnose. He never has come close to being a leading rank-and-file choice for president by Republicans. He is simply not popular nationally, and one national pollster (with no personal animus against him) has told me that Romney is not electable. The overriding source of his difficulty is that over 30 percent of all voters say they cannot vote for any Mormon.'
This is the elephant (so to speak) and no one wants to talk about it. The GOP wants someone who can beat Hillary or Obama, and the rank and file are showing in the polls that it is not Romeny
|
|
The Republicans have been as bad as Democrats on spending and Huck will take that train to new highs. Spending and perceived corruption are what cost us the last election and Huckabee is not capable of solving those problems. He has no fiscal discipline. Romney on the other hand has integrity, fiscal discipline, and a brain. Huck only appears to have one of those qualities.
As for waterboarding, when we stop doing it to our own troops in training because it is too cruel I might consider it torture. |
|
Keep at it, Hugh! We must get the truth out about Huckabee and stop this wild stampede to the forces of ignorance. Just look at what the Johnny-come-lately political rookie Robert Novak has to say:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23873
"Romney’s problem is not difficult to diagnose. He never has come close to being a leading rank-and-file choice for president by Republicans. He is simply not popular nationally, and one national pollster (with no personal animus against him) has told me that Romney is not electable."
Lies, all lies! |
|
Four days after the speech and it has had zero impact. Its Huck here, Huck there and Huck everywhere. He's on Drudge, he's in the NYTimes and he is number one in Iowa and number two nationally. He is peaking at just the right time.
It's Christmas and all mud from the desperate and frightened Romney campaign is going to sound like Bah, Humbug, and sour grapes during this festive season.
Mitt bet everything on Iowa, and there is nothing, nada, he can do to stop Huck, the underdog, the man of the people.
Why is Huck so at ease with his religion, but Mitt refuses to discuss his? |
|
Huck is right on waterboarding. Most of the troops who train with it (virtually all special forces) will tell you it is definitely torture. Petraeus is dead set against it (he is a misguided liberal too?).
We also almost lost Iraq due to Abu Ghraib and Rumsfeld's incompetence thinking "harsh interrogations" helped. They only helped al Qaeda recruit more and turned local populations against us. Counterinsurgency is tough and torture and harsh interrogations hurt the cause more than they helps. |
|
|
You have to take into account the fact that many of those people who will not vote for any Mormon fall into groups that would not vote for any Republican and Romney actually might recapture some of the libertarian and fiscally conservative voters Republicans have lost. The only conservatives who would not vote for Romney are those who are afraid Romney's success would legitimize Mormonism. It is a scary thought that these people are willing to let a Progressive get into office who will work to marginalize religion just to protect bigotry against Mormonism. I think most evangelicals are smarter than falling into the religious totalitarianism or no religion at all trap. Begrudgingly I do agree that Mormonism will hurt Romney's chances, I just don't think it makes him unelectable at the national level. If he can win in Massachusetts he can win anywhere. |
|
|
I favor Romney for pragmatic/competence reasons, but HH and other pundits must live in a sterile, robotic environment not to understand Huck's appeal. Most votors are not economic-oids and ideologues. They see Huck's wit, warmth, his genuine Christianity. _Normal_ people respond to such things. |
|
|
Most special forces I know disagree and are willing to allow water boarding in special circumstances. Well that ends the battle of anecdotal evidence. What most people don't realize when they condemn it is they are calling the President a war criminal and potentially opening him up to impeachment and criminal charges. I think it is a harsh method and I don't know that I would have it used, but I would not be so foolish as Huck to call it torture. Romney's answer in the Youtube debate was exceptional if you are familiar with the underlying law and its implications. |
|
"Four days after the speech and it has had zero impact."
True that. The speech has now basically been factored into the daily Rasmussen poll (which is a rolling four-day average; yesterday's released results were based on Wednesday evening through Saturday evening polling. This morning's results will be from Thursday evening through Sunday evening).
And where do we stand?
Date Romney
Weds 12/5 13%
Thur 12/6 12%
Fri 12/7 13%
Sat 12/8 13%
Sun 12/9 13%
Mon 12/10 ?
No bump, but at least the speech didn't hurt him.
It's not too surprising it hasn't had any measurable effect; most people I know didn't even know it had occurred. A Thurday morning speech on religion is simply not a stop-the-presses news item. It was completely overshadowed by the aftermath of Omaha, for instance. |
|
I'm A-Mazed that the usual infestation hesn't landed here yet. Judging by some Huck folks on these threads, I've started becoming aware of oddities like the Paulies have revealed. Interesting little eccentrics, but IT WON'T WIN AN ELECTION. The Huckster is warm & charming, but he's not a serious player--Or, better put, a Serious Man. And, we're living in Huge, Serious Times. Post 9-11. We have liberated 50+ million Muslims from Dark Age Islamist & Baathist tyrannies and I don't have any feeling that Huck GETS IT.
Huck is obviously a charmer & 'heat seeker', but the more he's revealed, the more he--please God--will slip. Ol'Huey was a charming Populist eccentric, too. Not comforting. Huckonomics, 'Shut-down-Gitmo cuz it makes us look icky', Welcome the Illegal Alien Tide, 'Iran's in Central America, Right?', 'Yessiree-Bob, I'm tuff on whatch'call GHadists', etc...(I'm exagerating only with C-America) This is nonsense. |
|
rjs46
The GOP base is evangelical Christians. Mass is much more secular than Iowa, so religion was not much of an issue there, but it is with GOP base voters. Mainstream Christians are 30-40% of the Iowa voters. Many were taught in Sunday School that Mormonism is not the 'Faith of Their Fathers'. Mitt has not allayed their concerns with LDS and Hugh trying to take it off the table for discussion has not worked. So that's why Mitt finds himself in a pickle this morning.
So my question today, why is Huck so comfortable talking about his religion, and Mitt is not?
I also see an element of Huck's popularity sticking it back to the GOP elites and their mouthpieces in talk radio. |
|
continue to give Huck a 'pass' on Illegal Aliens, Gitmo Closure, Huckonomics, Wartime Cluelessness?
What...Because he's a Baptist Preacher? I don't buy it. Nice, warm fella. NOT a real Repub or a Wartime Leader. |
|
So now the flipper in the GOP want some of the Huck Fink activity - is that why they are going all soft and mushy on the Hispanic community? Tancredo's harsh illegal alien xenophobia finally outre?
Quick! Pile on the Pious float and pander shamelessly until a new poll comes out claiming voters support using taxpayer money for bimbo security detail!
Pointing out Huckles strong suit is about as much as the religious right can hope for at this point. Frankly, they will need to put blinders on and plug their noses to vote this man. I mean, how does a Christian worth their weight willingly vote for a man whose political vindictiveness outweighed his duty to the state in which he served when he allowed the release of a known rapist out into the world to kill two women? And would Jesus, who reached out to lepers, call for Aids victims to be quarantined? |
|
neoscum So how to explain Huck sudden and unexpected rise in the polls? Hugh did not factor this in for the Mitt campiagn.
Neither the Freepers nor Lucianne
commentators have much good to say about Huck, but he keeps rising, and time is running out, Christmas is not season for negative campaigning, so what is Mitt to do to regain the Big Mo? |
|
Huck vs. Billary
or
Huck vs. Barack Hussein Obama
you guys are taking your toys and staying home on election night?
You *HAVE* to be smoking something. |
|
|
Huck's popularity is driven by the fact that very little of his negative past is widely known. This is largely due to his past obscurity. Now that he is gaining, his past will come out to haunt him. The question now is whether Huck's record will get out in time to prevent his nomination or if people will only find out about it once we are stuck with him. We don't need another bleeding heart conservative and that is what we have in store for us if Huck wins the nomination. |
|
we would here mindless man-crush about how he will cross party lines and steal votes from Billary.. yadee da da dah.
Disengenuous.
In the tank.
Propaganda.
And saddest of all, delusional. |
|
Evangelicals vote for ONE REASON alone and Huckster has it?? I don't buy it.
Same question as below... |
|
I've had about all I can take of Hugh. When he endorsed Romney he admitted it was because he was the only candidate that had a realistic shot at winning that shared his moral values. I can understand that.
Now we have another candidate that shares his moral AND religious values that has an even better shot at winning the nomination, so what does Hugh do? Does he support the new candidate or does he ride the sinking ship all the way down? It looks like he does the latter since he has a book to sell. |
|
|
Maybe part of Hugh's value's include a belief in restrained government spending and fiscal discipline . Huck's policies are in the process of being shredded and by the first primaries Huck will be our Howard Dean. |
|
|
|
Consider the source: lefty Frank Rich of the equally lefty NY Times writes a positive profile of Mike Huckabee. Typical liberal.
But last week the just-as-liberal LA Times -- a paper Hugh claims no serious people read; a paper no one can trust because of it's transparent agenda journalism -- writes skeptical pieces on Huckabee.
"Read the whole thing," instructs HH.
|
|
Somebody needs to attack Hugh Hewitt for having a preference in the presidential race, and to point out to him that opinion writers and pundits are not supposed to have opinions.
I wish somebody would do that. At least once. Preferably several hundred times. |
|
|
|