Huckabee Watch

Our friend Max Brantley honed in on exactly what’s on our minds these days, and summarized why this blog exists:

Arkansas is a microcosm of the national electorate. Win Arkansas – with its blend of blue dog Democrats in the east and south, yellow dog Republicans in the Northwest, yellow dog Democrats in some locations and many swing independents – and you are likely to win it all. That’s been true for about four decades.

Huckabee has demonstrated appeal here. He’s the prototype of a candidate able to replicate a winning Southern strategy — government-friendly, gun-toting, gay bashing, abortion hating. Democrats best be careful what they wish for. And Republicans need not fear Huckabee. He’ll be very happy to keep the Wall Street greedheads happy.

The talking heads should just yield to Brantley whenever it comes to Huckabee discussions. The Arkansas Times’ coverage of our former governor is unmatchable. Every scandal that’s broken since Huckabee announced was originally brought to light by the Arkansas Times.

Benjamin Franklin once reportedly quipped, “Never pick a quarrel with someone who buys their ink in barrels.”

Nowadays, that adage can be extended to other forms of media: cable news, blogs, and — especially for conservatives — radio.

Emboldened by his sustained momentum in the face of snipes from the Left and Right, Huckabee’s campaign is cavalierly dissing Limbaugh. It started with a quote attributed to an unnamed “ally” within the campaign:

“Honestly, because Rush doesn’t think for himself. That’s not necessarily a slap because he’s not paid to be a thinker—he’s an entertainer. I can’t remember the last time that he has veered from the talking points from the DC/Manhattan chattering class. If they were praising Huckabee, he would be too.” “Also, I have to think that he’s dying to have Hillary in the White House. Bill Clinton made Rush a megastar. Having another Clinton back in power would make him the Leading Voice of the Opposition once again.”

When seeing this, I immediately thought, “Romney.” I thought it was pretty clever, too. So far, they’ve done a spectacular job at shoring up establishment support, even without The National Review endorsement. Drudge certainly hasn’t held back in linking to negative stories on Huckabee, leading many to assume he’s in the tank with Romney.

(more after jump…)

(more…)

During this week’s republican debate in Iowa, Mitt Romney introduced an intriguing model:

We’re not going to get the White House nor strengthen America unless we can pull together the coalition of conservatives and conservative thought that has made us successful as a party. And that’s social conservatives. It’s also economic conservatives. And foreign policy and defense conservatives.

Those three together form the three legs of the Republican stool that allowed Ronald Reagan to get elected and allowed our party to have strength over the last several decades.

Adopting Romney’s construction, we have three distinct stakeholders participating in the Republican nomination: Social conservatives, Economic conservatives, and Defense conservatives.

Clearly, Huckabee is enjoying strong support from the social conservative “leg” of Romney’s stool. He has either achieved — or is on his way to achieving — a plurality in every poll taken about the GOP nomination; meanwhile, his four other “viable” (McCain, Thompson, Romney, Giuliani) opponents have lost grip on the social conservative leg and are jockeying for the other two legs.

Romney’s model might suggest a balance of ideological influence by the three distinct stakeholders under the “Conservative” umbrella, but Huckabee reminds us that when it comes to electoral influence, social conservatives make Romney’s stool uncomfortably wobbly for the Defense/Economic conservatives.

The Defense/Economic conservatives have always had more influence and bigger megaphones. They have well-funded, palatial think tanks (with a quota of cubicles for their kooky cousins, the social conservatives), book publishing companies, newspapers, and magazines. They have Rupert Murdock on speed dial.

None of that is important to Huckabee, though. He’s got the numbers.

We’re seeing this paradox playing out right now: as the press on Huckabee gets louder and nastier (mostly from the Right), Huckabee’s poll numbers go higher and higher. This phenomenon (worse press = better numbers) will become even more incongruous over the next two weeks, and it will pave Huckabee’s way to becoming the republican nominee.

 vs.

Dawning the cover of this week’s Newsweek (as we kind of predicted), Mike Huckabee’s last few days with the press have been tumultuous, and as of noon today, everything seems to indicate this week could be worse than last.

A few noteworthy developments:

First there was the Huffington Post’s piece with Murray Waas unearthing new details in the Wayne Dumond scandal. Then on Saturday, the main Drudge headline ran an AP story of a questionnaire response in 1992. Huckabee implied those afflicted with HIV/AIDS should be quarantined. He also called homosexuality “sinful”. On Sunday he defended himself against both, but didn’t apologize. The Newsweek piece is mostly positive, but it raises some new questions about Huckabee’s past dealings with the tobacco industry. And today, the National Review carries a piece by conservative David Sanders discussing Jackson Stephens’ bankrolling a campaign against Huckabee based on his tax record, along with a diatribe on Huckabee’s foreign policy stances.

Where does all this leave Huckabee?

After reading Drudge’s Saturday headline on how “HUCKABEE WANTED TO QUARANTINE AIDS PATIENTS”, I initially thought, Wow — this is pretty radioactive stuff. Yet now I’m not so sure.

First of all, a 2:1 lead in Iowa against Romney will be hard to dent. Then we have to remember only 100,000 republicans in Iowa will show up to caucus. That number is very low. These 100,000 caucus-goers are hard line republicans. I’m still digging around for data to back this claim, but conservatives’ perceptions on HIV/AIDS and homosexuality aren’t too different than what Huckabee was saying in ‘92 (and stands by today). Huckabee could actually gain support based on his comments.  The Newsweek cover / story is a huge plus for Huckabee; anyone who isn’t taking him seriously now is just stupid.  He’s bruised at best, but still poised to win Iowa.

I’m on the edge of my seat over the latest polls in IA, NH and SC — if he gets a bump after his toughest week of press yet, he will be the nominee.

At this point, he has everything to lose.