Why Not Huckabee?

Why won't social conservative bigwigs back the Huck? Erick Erickson suggests it's because they're political realists who know that Huckabee's unacceptable to the fiscal cons, and thus would actually fracture the Right's coalition more than Rudy would. Ambinder agrees, but also speculates that the "SoCon establishment in Washington fears Huckabee because Huckabee can empower social conservatives DIRECTLY, without the mediating influence, or dollars, of the SoCon establishment." Both these theories are plausible; I'd only add that every would-be endorser wants to back a winner, and Huckabee still has a much slimmer chance of taking the GOP nomination than Romney and Thompson, the other plausible recipients of a SoCon Establishment blessing. (Likewise, electability - or the lack thereof - is one of the many reasons why Brownback probably won't endorse Huckabee.)

In any case, it's hard not to be impressed with the political feat that Huckabee pulled off this weekend - spiking, at least temporarily, the SoCon leadership's endorsement of Romney by sheer force of rhetoric. Or so Erickson says:

I'm told that people in the room tabulating the votes were stunned by Huckabee's showing. Stunned, for some of them, is an understatement. It seems clear to me that this was an opportunity for the leaders of the social conservative movement to sigh, shrug, and embrace Romney. They intended to.

They gave Romney a platform by himself on Friday night. They played heroic anthems for his entry and departure. He had the night all to himself. And he did well. Then Huckabee showed up the next day, sharing the same time cluster as Rudy. And Huckabee, with a speech he wrote himself, was magnificent.

Now, you can call me partisan or biased or whatever you want, but all I'm doing here is reporting. The leaders of the social conservative movement who were present, the Arlington Group members you hear so much about, were ready and willing to get on board Romney's campaign on Saturday morning. Then Huckabee spoke. Then the straw vote was tabulated. Then they realized that were they to do so, it would put them completely out of step with their members.

"With a speech he wrote himself." Hard not to like the guy ...

Update: See also Amy Sullivan's take.

Comments

I agree that Huckabee is not in the control of the FRC...and this scares them to not give him the 'official endorsement', but he will be elected as the next President.

This is why, whatever our current state of affairs, most people...easily more than 65%, want a 'good' country. To do that you need a leader with Vision, Principles, Character. Huckabee is the only choice...he will totally dominate Hillary in the general election. American people are just wanting a 'good' person to lead them and help them make this as 'good' country as we can be. Remember, what this is all about, the American people are looking for a leader... http://www.mikehuckabee.com/

Posted by Paul Thompson | October 22, 2007 3:39 PM

Huckabee is a fraud. Despite his recent phony rhetoric, he has a long history of backing free trade, and of supporting the third-world invasion of the U.S., thus placing him in the treason camp. He is a neocon through and through.

Posted by Bede | October 22, 2007 3:52 PM

Bede: And what do you propose a Govenor in Arkansas is supposed to do when the federal government is flooding his state with illegal immigrants and setting up trade policy....suceed from the nation? Personally, I believe that the majority of Americans will vote for him as the next president...who do you endorse?

Posted by Paul Thompson | October 22, 2007 4:03 PM

I have several entries related to the Christian leadership's quandry on what to do about Mike.

Bottom line: If Mike is President he will fight for Christian moral principles. This would take away some of the perceived purposes of these "watchdogs", thereby, making fundraising a little harder.

The recent activity of these "leaders" convince me they can easily abandon those principles to preserve their place in the Washington establishment.

illinois4huckabee.blogspot.com

Posted by Larry | October 22, 2007 11:24 PM

Wow, it looks like Huckabee has his iPosse out in full force. Very impressive. If this little blog post (and it commenters) is an indication of the coming split in the Republican Party, all I can say is "Run Mike Run!"

Posted by ColorMe | October 22, 2007 11:42 PM

Huckabee can can actually speak. He is genuine. His positions are strong and stable. He can actually stand up for his faith in popularly reasonable and understandable terms, without softening it. He is adamant about securing the border. He's legitimately and unapologetically conservative. He has a strong record of success running a government with a Democratic congress.

I believe the primary reason the powers that be are doing their best to ignore him, both in the media and in the political circles is his support for the Fairtax and his ability to present it clearly. The Fairtax is the biggest threat to the power and structure of our Federal political machine. It would eliminate Congress' ability to control and manipulate through taxation. The Fairtax would eliminate all the political tax favors legislated since the creation of the Federal income tax system. It would eliminate all the tax loopholes created for our politicians campaign donors that they worked so hard for, and the ability to create any more. It would eliminate the whole K Street tax-favor-for-campaign-contribution corruption machine. It would level the political playing field. The only legitimate reasons I can find that anyone could have for not wanting the Fairtax is 1) having a vested interest in the perpetuation of some form of our current system or 2) not really understanding it (or being deceived about it). (I'd love to go into the long list of overwhelming benefits of the Fairtax, but that's another blog...)

He is the most normal of the Republicans. His positions are so logical and he can support them so well and reasonably, that he becomes one of those folks that if you attack him, you end up looking the unreasonable or attacking jerk. Put against Hillary, who he knows, and with the Arkansas background in common with her husband's political rise, Huckabee is so normal, that I believe she would either look shrill and wacko, or the socialistic bents of her positions and ideas would stand out in unfavorable stark contrast and as extreme to his. I think he would resonate and be much more relatable to a much broader audience and be offensive and polarizing to dramatically fewer than Hillary (or Obama for that matter).

He has my vote and my dollars.

Posted by Patrick | October 23, 2007 12:15 AM

I'd like to like Huckabee, but can't get behind someone who sees open borders now as an appropriate national atonement for slavery and Jim Crow.

Posted by Cyrus | October 23, 2007 12:40 PM

Cyrus, why don't you do some research and stop quoting a Huck-bashing columnist? People like you can look at a chestnut horse and see it as a horse chestnut.

Posted by Jake Benson | October 23, 2007 1:04 PM

Mike is the best choice for the Republican party. He is a values candidate that cares about people over policy.

Posted by Observer | October 23, 2007 1:06 PM

The Huckster is a phony. I've heard this all before with George W. Bush, and he did nothing for social conservatism in this country. These politicians play up their religion in order to pander to Christians and then once they get into office, they forget about you. The Huckster makes me squeamish whenever I hear him speak. He sounds so made up. Ron Paul is the only principles conservative in the field.

Posted by Luke | November 10, 2007 1:46 PM