TALK CITIZEN - 2007-2008

Even If He Loses Nomination, Huck's Drive Helps G.O.P.& His Country

By Michael Medved
Wednesday, December 19, 2007

Despite his current standing in the polls, Mike Huckabee remains an under-funded and chronically disorganized long-shot when it comes to actually winning the GOP Presidential nomination. While easily the most gifted TV communicator in the field, the former Arkansas governor displays some serious vulnerabilities as a candidate for the White House and his innumerable critics and rivals have attacked these weaknesses with gleeful ferocity.

Even if he fails to win a place on the national ticket, however, Huckabee’s startlingly strong campaign provides potent benefits for both his party and his country. In the two weeks remaining before the Iowa Caucuses it’s worth considering how the Man from Hope 2.0 has already strengthened the GOP.

1. HUCKABEE’S COMPETITIVE STATUS PROVES THAT MONEY ALONE CAN’T BUY A PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION. In Iowa, Huckabee enjoys a substantial lead (over Mitt Romney) while national polls show him virtually tied for first place with Rudy Giuliani. He’s achieved this success – so far—despite the fact that Romney outspent him in Iowa by a ludicrous ratio of at least 20 to 1, and his national fundraising has lagged far, far behind Romney, Rudy, Thompson, McCain and even Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo. There’s simply no modern precedent for a candidate with so few financial resources making himself such a major factor in the primary process. Even those who dislike or distrust Huckabee, ought to acknowledge that his vigorous campaign helps the cause of wide-open, participatory democracy.

Countless cynical citizens say they won’t take part in politics because it’s all dominated by corporate interests and big money contributors. Huckabee, however, manages to compete for the prize despite a total absence of major corporate support and pathetically limited funding. If nothing else, his serious race to the White House ought to destroy the myth that a “little guy” can’t compete with “the big boys” when it comes to a national campaign.

2. THE HUCK-A-SURGE GIVES THE LIE TO THE CLAIM THAT THE GOP IS CONTROLLED BY OUT-OF-TOUCH ELITES. The image of a political operation dominated “Country Club Republicans” has done incalculable damage to the party. You’d have to be deaf not to hear the complaints about “the party of Wall Street” taking the place of the “Party of Main Street.” In that context, Huckabee is undoubtedly Main Street and the Wall Street Journal hates his guts. The current President is the third generation in his family from Skull and Bones at Yale; if Hillary won the White House (God forbid!) it would mean that five of our last seven presidents (Ford, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Clinton II) boasted Yale degrees. The Huck-meister on the other hand is the first male in his family’s history ever to graduate from high school -- an unimaginable tribute to the American dream. He didn’t do his undergraduate work at an Ivy League school, but at Ouachita Baptist University.

Among elite commentators and prominent conservative opinion leaders, Huckabee has won no supporters and only one defender (the radio host writing this commentary). For answering those who claim that planet earth groans under the control of some secret cabal of Bilderbergers, Illuminati, the CFR, Trilateralists or neo-cons, it’s useful to point to the current situation where a complete outsider with no globalist ties manages to shake up the Republican power structure (Yes, he’s outspokenly opposed to the Law of the Sea Treaty). While providing new excitement, energy and unpredictability to the Republican race, the affable Arkansan has pulled ahead of any and all of the Establishment’s favored candidates – showing that this establishment is vastly less omnipotent and fearful than previously assumed.

3. HUCK’S CAMPAIGN DEMONSTRATES THAT THE SO-CALLED “CHRISTIAN RIGHT” IS MORE COMPLEX AND DIVERSE THAN COMMONLY ASSUMED. The silliest and most misguided commentary about Huckabee suggests that his appeal arises solely out of his background as a Baptist pastor. In a typical column, Peggy Noonan writes in the Wall Street Journal: “The Republican race looks – at the moment – to be determined primarily by one thing, the question of religious faith… Mike Huckabee is in the lead due, it appears, to voter approval of the depth and sincerity of his religious beliefs as lived out in his ministry as an ordained Southern Baptist.” This is nonsense, of course. Evangelical voters may play a disproportionate role in giving Huckabee the lead in Iowa and South Carolina, but they can’t readily explain his similar polling advantages in Michigan, Delaware or Florida. The truth is that the polls indicating Huckabee tied with Rudy for the national lead indicate that his support is evenly divided between those who describe themselves as Evangelical Christians and those who identify with some other religious tradition or no faith at all. Not all Huck’s supporters are Evangelical, and not all Evangelicals support Huckabee.

In fact, very few prominent Christian Conservatives have endorsed the Arkansas Traveler – Romney in particular has drawn back from more famous Evangelicals than has Huckabee, while many others support Thompson, McCain or even Guiliani – just ask Pat Robertson. In other words, contrary to the Washington Post’s infamous (and long ago) description of Christian conservatives as “poor, uneducated and easily led,” the Evangelical community is decidedly split in this campaign. In addition to its other revelations, the Huckabee campaign shows that conservative Christians represent no dangerous or monolithic cult, but a diverse, complex and politically maturing community. If nothing else, the Huckabee campaign has provided a means for some disillusioned members of that community to rally behind a Republican candidate who offered a genial alternative when all his rivals seemed unacceptable for one reason or another.

Huckabee’s critics should acknowledge these contributions even while they continue their fierce assault on the candidate’s statements and record. For several reasons, it’s a bad idea at this stage to try to knee-cap or smear or discredit the former Arkansas governor, finding (or manufacturing) an endless stream of bitter charges meant to cripple him permanently.

Most obviously, serious political players ought to recognize the real possibility that Mike Huckabee will be on a national ticket at some point – if not as a Presidential nominee, then as a Vice Presidential candidate, and if not in 2008 then in some future election (Huckabee is only 51 – the only one of the GOP “Big Five” below the age of 60.) Even if his current campaign falters or collapses, he’s run such a remarkable race that he’s certain to remain a factor in national politics for many years to come. Republicans gain nothing by trying to discredit an individual who has earned, like it or not, his status as one of the party’s prominent leaders.

At the same time, Huckabee’s competitors should attempt to keep any attacks focused and fair. In that context, Governor Romney just sent out an especially nasty mailer comparing Huckabee to one of his predecessors as Arkansas governor, Bill Clinton—a particularly low blow for Republicans. In this context, Romney’s propaganda slams Huckabee for supporting “amnesty for illegal aliens” --- without acknowledging that the former Arkansas Governor now supports an immigration plan even more unyieldingly hard-line than Romney’s (you can read all about it on Huckabee’s website). Governor Romney insists on his own right to change his mind on big issues (including abortion, gun control, gay rights, and even immigration—where as recently as 2006 he publicly supported a “path to legalization” that he now derides as “amnesty.”) If Romney wants people to focus on his current positions, not his past statements, then is it fair to deny the same consideration to Huckabee?

Finally, party leaders should try to avoid the impression of “ganging up” on Huck because they will need the voters he’s been able to mobilize. There’s no doubt that Huckabee has inspired and energized many citizens who hadn’t been excited by any other candidate. Republicans will seek those voters in November, not just in the Presidential race but in a horde of Congressional and statewide contests.

It won’t help to insult those Huckabee loyalists by describing them as religious fanatics, or anti-Mormon bigots, or ignorant rubes, nor does it make sense to treat their candidate as some sort of embarrassment or a pariah. Huckabee served ten-and-a-half years as a successful and popular governor (including his experience as lieutenant governor, he boasts three times the service in public office as Romney, and considerably more time as an elected official than Thompson, Hillary, Edwards or Giuliani). While arguing about the best candidate, and the right approach to the issues, all major contenders deserve respect and appreciation their achievement in deploying viable campaigns and engaging the public in the most wide-open, unpredictable presidential race in memory.

Michael Medved, nationally syndicated talk radio host, is author of 10 non-fiction books, including The Shadow Presidents and Right Turns.

Be the first to read Michael Medved's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Social Conservatives Ask: Why Not Mike Huckabee?
Human Events ^ | 12/17/2007 | Steven W. Mosher

 
There are mutterings in the ranks of social conservatives. For nearly thirty years, those who joined to Republican party primarily to stop the slaughter of the innocents -- but also to support traditional marriage, fight pornography, oppose judicial activism, and protect Second Amendment rights -- have been good soldiers.

They have voted by the millions for candidates who were first and foremost economic conservatives, even libertarians, contenting themselves with a few rhetorical crumbs. They have embraced candidates who have had a change of heart on the life issues, such as Bush Senior. They have even gone along with candidates who have suddenly announced that they have had the political equivalent of a death-bed conversion--an election-year epiphany on the evil of abortion.

Now one of their own, Governor Mike Huckabee, has sprinted into the lead in Iowa. And some economic conservatives, their supposed allies, are savaging him for-of all things -- not being conservative enough.

There is a double standard at work here. For the sake of party unity, social conservatives are being told by some, they are supposed to overlook Giuliani's public immorality and pro-abortion activism. But because the Arkansas legislature responded to a court order to spend more on education and raised the state sales tax, Huckabee is irredeemable, even though he refused to sign the final bill. Social conservatives are supposed to accept Romney's political-death-bed conversion to the pro-life position, but Huckabee's commitment to low taxes and limited government is constantly questioned, even though he has signed a no-tax-increase pledge and-alone among the candidates -- is vigorously campaigning to abolish the IRS.

So why is it that when one of our own breaks out of the pack, social conservatives are asking themselves, so many people are piling on? Part of the answer is innocent enough. Huckabee's surge comes so late in the game that most conservative leaders and many groups are committed to other candidates. The National Right to Life Committee, for instance, endorsed Thompson thinking that he would be the front runner. Instead Thompson no sooner announced his candidacy than his poll numbers began to drop, undercut by his lackluster performance on the stump and his brain freezes during the debates.

A month ago, Pat Toomey of the Club for Growth could dismiss Huckabee, then polling in the single digits, as not ready to "run with the big dogs." Now, however, with the "big dogs" all doing a fourth quarter fade, Huckabee has sprinted to the head of the pack in Iowa and elsewhere. If this continues, we will soon be treated to the spectacle of some of the erstwhile leaders racing to follow their followers.

But it is also true that social conservatives have long been regarded as the junior partner in the Republican coalition. The moneyed, secularized Republican elite distain evangelical Christians, in particular, as poorly educated and easily led. They are good enough to help with voter registration drives, hand out flyers at the mall, and vote the right way at election time. But then they are supposed to go home and let the really smart people-those who know that they only important things in life are money and power -- run things.

How many conservatives remember that Reagan was initially opposed by the big money people, and that the Republican party establishment was far from united behind his candidacy? It was a groundswell of support from Joe Sixpack and his wife that won Reagan first the nomination and then the presidency. Similarly, Huckabee's candidacy has flourished because of support from the rank and file, while a sullen party establishment looks on in stunned disbelief.

Republican kingmakers seem to have missed the deep similarities between Huckabee and Reagan that are so apparent and appealing to ordinary people. But it is precisely these similarities that explain Huckabee's sudden rise, and may well propel him into the Oval Office. What are they?

First of all Mike Huckabee, like Ronald Reagan, is a man of genuine convictions, and is entirely comfortable with himself. This comes through in his smile, in his naturalness, in his ready answers to questions.Romney, on the other hand, when asked a question, seems to be sorting through file cards to find the politick answer.

Like Reagan, Huckabee is a man of deep faith in God and in America, and is not afraid to publicly defend his beliefs. Cynical political types tend to dismiss this. The American people, who know that character counts, don't.

These traits explain why Huckabee's performance in each and every presidential debate-even the early ones, when few questions came his way-has been so outstanding. He has proven so articulate on the issues that the other candidates-watch them-are often forced to grin and shake their heads in admiration. Some, unable to help themselves, actually applaud when he finishes.

He also shares with Reagan the gift-rare for a politician-of being humorous and decisive at the same time. I am reminded of an earlier presidential debate when Walter Mondale attempted to bring up Ronald Reagan's age as an issue. "I won't use my opponent's youth and inexperience against him," the Great Communicator quipped in response.All Mondale could do was grin helplessly. Issue closed, permanently.Huckabee has the same knack of using humor to take away issues from his opponents.

Finally and most importantly, Huckabee is right on the issues. He equally and eloquently defends the right to life of the unborn, and the right to bear arms of the people. He is pushing for the abolition of that most-hated American institution, the Internal Revenue Service, and its replacement by a simply and fair levy on consumption. As a former governor, he talks about rejuvenating the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution by ceding authority back to the several states. He is a friend of Jeffersonian democracy and a foe of the centralization of power in Washington. If all this isn't Reaganesque, what is?

I knew Ronald Reagan. I once even had the honor of writing a speech for him. And I admit that Mike Huckabee does not have the same star quality about him as the late great President. Who does? But Huckabee has the same ah-shucks demeanor, the same unforced eloquence, and the same grace and good humor under pressure. And increasing numbers of ordinary Americans-the same good folks who voted for Ronald Reagan by the millions-are mighty impressed.